Ten myths about gun control

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm not going to paste all 10 here, just a bit from a few I thought were interesting...

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

MYTH 4:"Honest citizens have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing which will curb crime by disarming criminals."
Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that "gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns."


Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. 8 Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration--citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.


MYTH 8: "The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia' that can be compared today to the National Guard."
A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by "the people"--a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all "persons who are part of a national community" (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).


MYTH 10: "Gun control reduces crime."
If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they advocated

[red states rule]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaogun600.jpg

[Little-Acorn]

If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they advocated

I wish those "proponents" would take a look at our present immigration laws while they're at it.

There they would find laws that didn't work EXACTLY because they hadn't been properly enforced!

We could have stopped the illegal aliens at the border, if we had tried, before they actually got in. But we did not enforce our own laws, and so we now have a major problem there.

Different from our current gun laws, which don't work because no matter how hard the cops and courts try, criminals keep violating them; and cops and courts can't stop them from doing so. All the cops and courts can do is take a report afterward, and help mop up the blood and cart away the bodies.

[Anton Chigurh]

If you believe guns are made specifically for killing, you should be banned from owning any. And you should be locked in a rubber room and carefully monitored 24/7/365.

Guns are intended for putting a piece of lead on a target. Doesn't matter what the target is. The target is chosen by the shooter, therefore so is the intent. See?

A local fella was killed with a roofing hammer the other day, he broke into a house and the homeowner plunged it into his chest.

A hammer is also made to hit a target. The target was defined by the person wielding the hammer, in the example above.

According to the gubmint, 40 children annually die from drowning in 5 gallon plastic buckets. Where's the outrage over that? Where's the bans, the regulation? This is not about protecting kids, it's about USING child victims to pass more gun laws!

Feinstein's current "assault weapons" ban proposal doesn't cover the rifle used at Sandy Hook, and the "assault weapons" ban which expired in 2004 didn't either. And Not a single one of Obama's 23 proposals/executive actions would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy or saved one life. It's just an excuse to harass law abiding citizens and chip away at our rights. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

The piling on by the political left, their cohorts in the media, and clueless dolts everywhere to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved or in any way helped those children, disgusts me.

Here's a hunting rifle, a Marlin 22 cal. long, that is just as dangerous in the wrong hands as the .223 AR allegedly used at Sandy Hook. (Although now we know it wasn't.)

http://the-regulators.us/myimagehost/?di=RJQC

Like the AR, it fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. Also like the AR, it can be modified to fire full auto and can have added magazine ammo above the 18 it already allows. Doing either is already violation of existing gun laws.

You can also buy the Marlin model that uses clips instead of the mag tube to store the ammo. The differences are purely and only, cosmetic.

I can shoot far more accurately at distance with the Marlin 22 than I ever could the AR...

Someone armed with a long rifle wouldn't need to enter a school or even be that close to it, if intent was to shoot children.. He/she could just rapidly pick them off in the playground, or otherwise, in the yard after calling in a bomb threat or something... using the innocent looking Marlin instead of the AR, from a good distance. And probably get away clean.

Guns and rifles can be USED to kill - just like the hammer I referenced above. But they are not intended for killing. They are intended and designed to put a piece of lead on a target. The intent, the target, is defined ONLY by the person doing the shooting.

And that's the memo.

[cadet]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaogun600.jpg

That's funny, but bingster is probably going to take it as a serious ideology.