Good News: The Time For Polite Debate On Gun Banning Is Over

When was it ever polite? The gun grabbers have been screeching about gun control, ie, banning guns from the possession of Other People, for a long time, much in the way they have been screeching about making Free Speech one sided. CNBC gives a platform to Ron Insana, their senior analyst and commentator

The time for polite debate on gun control is over

It would seem that the time for polite debate about gun control is over. Of course, that could have been said many times in the last few decades, beginning in Austin in 1966, and later in Columbine, in Newtown, in Orlando and, of course, now in Las Vegas.

The absolute horror of the Las Vegas massacre should finally make it abundantly clear, to any rational person, that the framers of the Constitution did not have the rights of Stephen Paddock in mind when crafting and drafting the Second Amendment.

Last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment didn’t give people the right to use their Right to commit mass murder. Nope, just read it again, it doesn’t.

We need a much more radical approach to the problems of guns in America.

What’s more radical than calling for gun roundups and the abolition of the 2nd Amendment?

And yet, the NRA, “gun enthusiasts” and Second Amendment conservatives fight tooth and nail for the right to own any, and all, kinds of weapons, even if one’s name is on a terror watch list or a person has a history of mental illness.

These old canards? Sheesh. Get some new material.

Among the more radical solutions that I would propose is for the Congress, the executive and judicial branches of government, in concert with the states, to clearly define what was, and is, meant by a “well-regulated militia,” and refine and re-define the Second Amendment to suit the times in which we live.

In other words, craft legislation to enact a gun grab from law abiding citizens. Isn’t it funny how Democrats always go after the law abiding citizens, rather than the criminals? It’s almost like they support criminals.

It is clear that the Founding Fathers, who lived before the invention of the Gatling gun, could not have envisioned musket-armed civilians, who could fire only one round per minute, commanding the right to hunt turkeys, or humans, with modern ferocity.

Another canard, as the Founders envisioned a document that would last the test of time, which it has. But, here we go, in the very next paragraph

Hence, a total, outright ban on semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons seems not only reasonable but also necessary.

So, the vast majority of guns, since few use revolvers and bolt action (or similar style) rifles. They want to take away the nice, light, easy to use weapons that many women use to protect themselves from the violent criminals enabled by soft on crime Democratic Party policies. I wonder if Insana even understands what a sem-automatic weapon actually is.

And, since this is CNBC, Insana wants investors to make a difference

But investors should challenge these merchants of death. They have done so with other so-called “sin stocks,” like tobacco and alcohol companies.

They have fought the actions of large corporate polluters or companies whose carbon footprints are unreasonably large.

They have brought about positive changes by being true activist investors, not angling for some financially engineered profit, but by making companies more accountable.

Good luck with that.

There also needs to be a massive cultural campaign to re-educate the gun-toting, testosterone-fueled population who believe that carrying a gun is “manly.”

Recently, the largest growing classes of people purchasing firearms, primarily for self defense, are women and those in the LGBT community. But, it’s cute how Insana wants the Government to use propaganda, like the Soviet Union and communist China (and Nazi Germany) to force change to Wrongthink, something the Founders were dead set against.

There’s only so much I can excerpt, and plenty more nutty gun grabbing in the article. It’s funny, Democrats get upset when we say that they’re trying to grab our guns, right before they tell us they want to grab our guns. (not their own guns, of course)

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Good News: The Time For Polite Debate On Gun Banning Is Over”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The US will never enact a gun ban but it gives the Con Men and the gun sellers oxygen. Even Repubs are questioning Bump Stocks and giant magazines. Dead American: A small price to pay for freedom!!

  2. Dana says:

    Mr Insana wrote:

    And yet, the NRA, “gun enthusiasts” and Second Amendment conservatives fight tooth and nail for the right to own any, and all, kinds of weapons, even if one’s name is on a terror watch list or a person has a history of mental illness.

    What happened to ‘due process of law’? The government has put little kids on the “terror watch list,” without anything resembling due process. The government wanted to take away the rights of the elderly to own firearms, if someone said one was incompetent, without any due process being followed. The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It’s very clear: no state may pass any law which will abridge the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, nor deprive anyone of his rights without due process of law. If I say, “Jeffrey is so left-wing bone stupid that he is actually insane, and thus should lose his Second Amendment rights,” my statement may be factually true, but until his mental status is actually examined by a qualified psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist’s evaluation goes through the courts, he will still, and should, retain his rights until due process has been followed.

  3. Dana says:

    Mr Insana wrote:

    Among the more radical solutions that I would propose is for the Congress, the executive and judicial branches of government, in concert with the states, to clearly define what was, and is, meant by a “well-regulated militia,” and refine and re-define the Second Amendment to suit the times in which we live.

    The Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not the ‘militia.’ But at least Michael Moore, of all people, is more honest than Mr Insana, having called for a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second; Mr Insana wants to ignore the actual language of the Constitution and simply “re-define” away our rights.

    Of course, that’s pretty typical of the left these days, wishing as they do to exclude things they consider ‘hate speech’ from First Amendment protections.

  4. Stosh says:

    It is clear that the Founding Fathers, who lived before the invention of the Gatling gun, could not have envisioned musket-armed civilians, who could fire only one round per minute, commanding the right to hunt turkeys, or humans, with modern ferocity.

    They couldn’t have envisioned TV or radio either so Freedom of the Press doesn’t apply there. And the internet for that matter, so Freedom of Speech only applies to the town square.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Our Second Amendment and Supreme Court rulings make it clear we will never have a firearms ban regardless of what the idealists claim.

    That’s not to say we can’t limit the availability of fully automatic weapons and conversion devices, and large capacity magazines.

    In the US each year are approximately 30,000 firearms-related deaths. 10,000 homicides, 20,000 suicides, and some 1000 accidental shootings. Very ew are at the barrel of automatic weapons, high capacity magazines and so-called assault weapons.

    We need to accept that Americans will kill themselves and others, including 100s of children, each year with firearms. Our current homicide rate is near a modern history low.

    • Dana says:

      Given that so many on the left support the idea of ‘assisted suicide,’ why would you object to people committing suicide with firearms?

      • Jeffery says:

        We didn’t object to people committing suicide with firearms, we only pointed out that each year some 20,000 Americans did. Banning firearms would likely cut the overall suicide rate, but only slightly, another reason we do not advocate banning firearms. A few hundred depressed men killing themselves each year is a small price to pay for our freedom.

    • david7134 says:

      Yes, it is always good to pass laws on guns. We have laws against murder but it seems that people do not know that. So offenses against murder do not work, why would laws on guns? I talked to some people in the know and they said the bump stock likely saved lives. With an automatic weapon, the first few shots are on target. After that no telling what you are shooting at. What I can’t understand is why liberals are so dead set against mental health treatment. They stopped it in the 60s and it is clear their social experiment is not working.

  6. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Are you advocating eliminating laws against murder because there are 15000 homicides in the US each year?

    Have you ever shot a rifle? Have you ever attempted a 400 yd shot at something the size of a human? Does it make sense that fully automatic weapons are less efficient at killing than semi-auto weapons? Clearly the LV murderer was not taking careful aim at individuals but was spraying shots at a crowd hundreds of yards away. The more shots, the more damage. Again, he only murdered 58 or so, a small price to pay for freedom.

    Can you support your bizarre claim that liberals oppose mental health treatment? Do you support imprisoning individuals accused of being mentally unfit? Was the LV murderer obviously mentally ill? Do you consider all men who purchase 50 weapons, thousands of rounds of ammo and bump stocks to be mentally ill?

  7. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Kind of an aimless rant on your part. Yes, liberals destroyed mental health in the US, look it up. I watched the process and the tragic aftermath.

    Yes, I have shot a rifle , and killed with it. But the guy in Nevada did not need to aim. He had 20000 people in a tight area. Even a hand gun could lob bullets into the crowd and kill about as many folks.

    • Jeffery says:

      dave,

      So you admit you have no evidence to back your baseless claim about mental health. Would you support a universal mental health program in the US or do you still support imprisoning people you consider “different”?

      The cowardly murderer in Las Vegas had on outer indications of being mentally ill. On what basis would you have imprisoned him before he murdered nearly 60? Should we monitor those who purchase dozens of semi-auto rifles, thousands of rounds of ammo and a dozen bump stocks, locking them up preemptively as being mentally ill?

      Thank you for also admitting that using bump stocks increased the lethality of his attack. He could shoot much more rapidly with the bump stocks than with single trigger pulls of his rifles. And of course he wasn’t aiming from 400 yards.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Even a hand gun could lob bullets into the crowd and kill about as many folks.

    Nonsense.

  9. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You don’t engage in debate. You assume people are racist or whatever your latest rant is then assign thoughts to them. You engage in name calling of everyone, especially those that disagree with you. You miss quote people and articles. You lie or drop facts when they don’t suite your purpose. Basically I think you are mentally ill. So why engage you?

Bad Behavior has blocked 8980 access attempts in the last 7 days.