Gun-rights testimony from a communism survivor: “You don’t know what freedom is, because you’ve never lost it”

posted at 2:41 pm on April 8, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

I am always amazed — amazed — when anyone has the gall to dismiss, even laugh off, the suggestion that the right to keep and bear arms is a smart and necessary provision for a free society. Human history (not to mention current events!) is too chock-full of examples of nefarious regimes violently abusing and controlling their people, and the freedoms enjoyed by American citizens are the exception, not the rule. During a committee hearing of the Oregon state senate in considering their own state package of gun-control legislation last week, one testifier reminded the assembled lawmakers of one of the Second Amendment’s most crucial purposes, and of the real-world consequences of neglecting that purpose.

This guy.

In 1957 a Revolution … individuals … malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats, revolutionaries, established a regime … a dictatorial regime … in my nation.  Called Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, and whatever other named -ism you want to put on it.  The reason why it was done was to take away the guns from the People.   The right of the People to wear guns.  That is a God-given Right.  It’s not given by anybody.  It’s not given by any group.   It’s the same thing as freedom, which is a God-given Right.  And no one, absolutely no one, has the authority to take it away.  To cease to defend the Second Amendment, and my God-given Right of freedom, will cease only with my death.

I’ve been through it.  I’ve been there.  You people don’t know what freedom is because you never lost it.  You haven’t been tortured.  You haven’t been [sic] assassinations, you haven’t been mothers begging for the life of their son not to be killed because the only reason is they wanted to be free.  And they killed the mothers and they killed the son.

So my way to protest, the way to oppose, because if we keep tangling with the Second Amendment, we are open the same way that Cuba was open for Communism.  China, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Venezuela, on and on.  A dictatorial regime that will destroy this country, in the same way that it destroyed those ones that I mentioned to you.

Powerful.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Definition of DEMOCRACY

1.
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2: a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States

4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

perhaps! thankfully, we can replace those in power because this is, after all, a democracy.

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Not if those in power take away enough of your rights.
Once enough of us are defenseless, those in power can choose to do whatever they want – regardless of whether we are theoretically a democracy, constitutional republic, or otherwise, and regardless of how us defenseless peons choose to vote. Because with the ability to defend ourselves and our rights, all other rights can easily be removed – including the right to vote – or to vote as you might actually want to vote.

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 4:50 PM

In CA there was violence when the Prop 8 vote didn’t go the way the Left wanted it to go.

INC on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

“i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it”

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Voltaire loves all, incl. the ignorant.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:41 PM

It is not both, it is one. The founders abhorred democracy, they understood that it was mob rule, and that it would eventually lead to anarchy. That is why they set up a bicameral system, you exercise the democratic part when you elect the house(your representative) but every thing else is all about a Republic. The founders understood that the people must be involved at the national level, so that is why we have what we have. they also understood how quickly it could spiral. So they put the senate in place to trump any rash decisions, so that each state could be represented fairly. State meaning the state government itself. The 2nd Amendment was 2nd for a reason, it was next to the most important, and it was there to protect the other 9 from encroachment by the government. In other words, so as not to have a government do to it’s people what the British had done to them,(confiscate personal weapons, nor allow powder to be made) they place that in there so that resistance would always exist, to the point the newly formed government if ever it overstepped its limits(the Constitution) would be put back in check.

MarshFox on April 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM

HumpBot Salvation on April 8, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I can understand the therapeutic aspects of trying to educate and embarrass a Communist.

But, it’s wasted time, because you can do neither.

So, in the end, it just allows the human sewage to foul a wonderful, Conservative site.

Which is precisely their intention.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Venezuela, Egypt, Lybia, Iran, Russia, China, Burma (yes, I’ll always call her Burma), Argentina, Cuba, Hitler’s Germany, incl. the Austria Anschluss.

You’re so easy.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Australia has enacted the most stringent gun control reforms, yet any tourist will tell you that it’s a flourishing democracy.
Again, not a great argument for the 2nd Amendment.

bayam on April 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Watch this.

Armed robberies up 69%. Assaults with guns up 28%. Gun murders up 19%. Home Invasions up 21%.

Yeah. Sounds like an absolute utopia to me! Idiot

Lan Astaslem on April 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM

sesqu, forgot Iraq, of course and Syria.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Australia has enacted the most stringent gun control reforms, yet any tourist will tell you that it’s a flourishing democracy.
Again, not a great argument for the 2nd Amendment.
bayam on April 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

rrpjr on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Sorry, I didn’t realise you were a Prop 8 supporter. Luvin’ you sum democracy, eh?

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 4:41 PM

“i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it”

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:49 PM

While I admire your love of free speech and the famous quote of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, which is often misattributed to Voltaire, neither has either bearing on the point I made.

In a democracy, a majority of voters can take away your rights. In a constitutional republic, you have rights that cannot be taken away by a majority. It is the constitution that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

It’s amazing how some people strive to be stupid.

“Then” is an adverb used to measure time. “Than” is used for comparison as in, “I am a hell of a lot smarter than you.”

Do you enjoy smoking weed? Dumbass.

Kingfisher on April 8, 2013 at 4:49 PM

*different than from

idiot.

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:56 PM

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Glad you can read a dictionary, however, see my response above and you will understand why you do not live in a democracy, you may practice it at a certain level, but the country nor the government are a democracy even by your definition.

MarshFox on April 8, 2013 at 4:57 PM

3 capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Hah, second biggest grin of the day, right after you best comment, yet. John Kennedy has long been dead.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:57 PM

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

…from my dead hands, too.

TX-96 on April 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM

You’re so easy.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM

you also call yourself ‘conservative’. it means nothing.

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM

“Well, what have we got – a republic, a democracy or a monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

- Ben Franklin

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Democracy is voting you off the island.

Can we get a poll Ed?

6 blanks. One live.

You like democracy?

Works when you are one of the two wolves. Not so much for the single sheep.

wolly4321 on April 8, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Thanks for the correction on the quote.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:59 PM

While I admire your love of free speech and the famous quote of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, which is often misattributed to Voltaire, neither has either any bearing on the point I made.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 4:59 PM

you also call yourself ‘conservative’. it means nothing.

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Never do, never am, not even R. You’re obtuse if you believe that.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

COME AND TAKE IT

burserker on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

In a democracy, a majority of voters can take away your rights. In a constitutional republic, you have rights that cannot be taken away by a majority. It is the constitution that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

a majority can change the constitution as well. what’s your point?

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM

ROTFLMAO…. Dude… That is going to leave bruises on his great great grandchildren… (provided he has any)

Time to accept reality about sucksapickle, he is either to stupid to know that he is a Marxist, or knows it and is pushing propaganda on purpose.

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Not if those in power take away enough of your rights.
Once enough of us are defenseless, those in power can choose to do whatever they want – regardless of whether we are theoretically a democracy, constitutional republic, or otherwise, and regardless of how us defenseless peons choose to vote. Because without the ability to defend ourselves and our rights, all other rights can easily be removed – including the right to vote – or to vote as you might actually want to vote.

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Darn fat fingers.
FIFM

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM

sesqui, just for you, my dear and amazing bud, I refused to register R, bef. it became fashionable to do so.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Australia has enacted the most stringent gun control reforms, yet any tourist will tell you that it’s a flourishing democracy.
Again, not a great argument for the 2nd Amendment.

bayam on April 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

The number of physical assaults in 2011-12 rose to 2.2 million, up 44 per cent since 2010-11, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

(Btw, we’re a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.)

dominigan on April 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Thanks for the correction on the quote.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I wasn’t correcting you. I hadn’t seen your post yet. The quote does come from Evelyn Beatrice Hall, but is often attributed to Voltaire. She wrote a famous biography of Voltaire, which is from where the confusion arises. The quote was in the book, but it was not attributed to him.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM

bayam, do you know why 600 British light infantry and Royal Marines left their barracks on the evening of the 18th of April 1775? It was to confiscate the arms of the people’s militia which was stored in Concord. They were met on the following April morn by the militia, the Minutemen, who were protecting their stores and their right to have them. Britain, even in 1775 was not a totalitarian govt. It was the most liberal nation on Earth. It was the nation of Magna Carta, of The Charter of Liberties and Privileges, of Parliament. And the representatives of that nation sought to deny their subjects the right to the means self defense. No, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with, as Cuomo says, deer hunting. Its roots lay in that April morn.

xkaydet65 on April 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

a majority can change the constitution as well. what’s your point?

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

No, it takes a hell of a lot more than a majority to amend the Constitution.

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Yemen and Iran have among the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. What I said is that gun ownership doesn’t correlate with democracy or a government that protects individual liberties.
Australia has enacted the most stringent gun control reforms, yet any tourist will tell you that it’s a flourishing democracy.
Again, not a great argument for the 2nd Amendment.

bayam on April 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

You’re flat out wrong on Iran.

If you lived in Yemen, you’d be crazy not to want a gun; similar to how it’s crazy that law abiding citizens are prohibited from owning guns in Chicago and are victimized as a result. Your policies at work there.

As for the correlation between civilian gun ownership and democracy, obviously there is more to the recipe of freedom than just gun ownership (free markets and free elections play their part), but as noted by the founding fathers of this country and the author of the second amendment, the right to bare arms is integral to preserving American Democracy.

You’re arguing against the right for the individual to adequately defend themselves. Be it against a criminal threat, a political threat, or a foreign threat, it never ends well for the unarmed or disarmed individual.

Of course, if you want a really great argument for the second amendment, you’ll find it while staring down the barrel of my Beretta PX4 Storm should you ever try to take it.

Daemonocracy on April 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Never do, never am, not even R. You’re obtuse if you believe that.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

well, you are clearly insane so how you fancy yourself is not pertinent to this discussion.

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

you also call yourself ‘conservative’. it means nothing.

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM

“I don’t call myself much of nothing!”

MarshFoxism#2

MarshFox on April 8, 2013 at 5:05 PM

perhaps! thankfully, we can replace those in power because this is, after all, a democracy.

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Nope. Constitutional Republic… unless you’re posting somewhere other than the US…

dominigan on April 8, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Erika – great post.

Ya know,, I wonder if sesqui knows how to use a compass?

I doubt it.

wolly4321 on April 8, 2013 at 5:06 PM

a majority can change the constitution as well. what’s your point?

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

An amendment to the US Constitution must be passed by 2/3rds of the members of both the House and the Senate and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.

A majority in a state cannot takeaway rights from some by amending its constitution with a majority vote, see Romer v Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:06 PM

sesqui, just for you – the founders knew how stupid the masses are and how dangerous an ignorant mob can be. They would/could never entrust the potentially great/free land to them.

Shhhh…that’s the main reason why she’s not a democracy. There are simply too many dummies, which would endanger all the people. The founders were very smart men.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

I want you to ask me that question, we’ll see where that line or reasoning goes, you may not like it, because I understand loss from the barrel of a gun very well!

MarshFox on April 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

It is an absolute travesty that “No gun zones” prevented teachers from defending themselves or their students… absolutely sickening.

dominigan on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

You and Obama feed on carion. I hope you suffocate from it.

The tragedy has zero to do with gun control, zero.

Your nom as nobrain w/b so perfect.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Hillary Clinton told the parents, wives, and children of those that died in Benghazi:

‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’

None of the gun control regulations being proposed would have prevented Newtown, as Democrats have admitted.

I lost a child, nonpartisan, but would never use my loss to deprive others of their rights.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:09 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

I’m sure he would. And I suspect he has seen loss on a far greater scale.
What needs to be asked of those parents is, after what happened to their defenseless children, why would they support government people who want to allow more kids to die by making even more of them defenseless?
How many of those kids would still be alive if even one of the adults in that school had the ability to shoot back instead of just allowing themselves to be killed first in a futile attempt to shield the kids?

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:10 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

So you didn’t read those articles I posted in the other thread. Here, let me link them again for you.

Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

Guns Vs. Crime

NotCoach on April 8, 2013 at 5:12 PM

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

That is a compliment! Who’d ever want to be common and normal? Only sheeple would. YOU lead the most boring of existences. Never wanted to be like anyone else, nor anyone else to be like I am. I fully believe in individualism, and fight for all to maintain it.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:12 PM

well, you are clearly insane so how you fancy yourself is not pertinent to this discussion.

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

You leftists utilize hemorrhoidic logic. You brouth it up, recall.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM

i have a right to live because without it society can not function.

You’re putting the cart in front of the horse.

How can the human right to life be predicated upon society, when society only exists as a consequence of human life?

rvastar on April 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM

brought it up, er.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:12 PM

How boring life would be if we all thought alike:)

MarshFox on April 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM

a majority can change the constitution as well. what’s your point?

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

An amendment to the US Constitution must be passed by 2/3rds of the members of both the House and the Senate and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:06 PM

I’m going to warn you that sesqui probably won’t recognize the difference between what was just posted.

A democracy runs on majority vote, 50%+1… we do not have that with the Constitution! 50%+1 is INSUFFICIENT to change the Constitution. As Resist noted, it requires a 2/3rds vote of both House and Senate, then ratified by 3/4 of the states. Further proof that we do not live in a democracy, and that sesqui is ignorant of our system of government.

We are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic!

dominigan on April 8, 2013 at 5:15 PM

I lost a child, nonpartisan, but would never use my loss to deprive others of their rights.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Sorry to hear that RWM. My deepest condolences.

NotCoach on April 8, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Erika, they know the stats. They want our guns because of the stats.
They are COWARDS and AFRAID.

lilium479 on April 8, 2013 at 5:15 PM

How boring life would be if we all thought alike:)

MarshFox on April 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM

They’ll never get it…onto the slaughter they go, gay and ignorant.

p.s. gay, as in happy

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:15 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

You haven’t been tortured. You haven’t been [sic] assassinations, you haven’t been mothers begging for the life of their son not to be killed because the only reason is they wanted to be free. And they killed the mothers and they killed the son.

I think he gets it dumbass. You were much more interesting when you posted as liberal4life.

HumpBot Salvation on April 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Newtown parents? Really?

No problem. I’ll look them in the eye and show them pics from the last 120 million that disarmed last century.

They don’t own pain exclusively.

Quit dancing on tiny caskets you sick effer.

You make me sick. You are a disgusting sob.

You use dead kids. How sick is that?

wolly4321 on April 8, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

I want you to look women in the eye and tell them that they’ll just have to take one for the gun control team.

Violent rape rate in the US: 30.88

Violent rape rate in the UK: 140.71

Between 1998 and 2009, gun crime in the UK increased 89%. The UK has a higher overall violent crime rate than the United States and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries. In the 12 years following the gun ban, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77% to 1.158 million – or more than two every minute.

By contrast, the US had a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents and South Africa’s rate was 1,677.

Country: # of violence crimes…rate/100,000 residents

1. UK: 1,158,957…2,034

2. Austria: 133,546…1,677

3. South Africa: 732,121…1,609

4. Sweden: 108,004…1,123

5. Belgium: 107,885…1,006

6. Canada: 306,559…935

7. Finland: 41,664…738

8. Netherlands: 111,888…676

9. Luxembourg: 3,233…565

10. France: 324,765…504

The US was: 1,318,398…466 (now 1,246,248… 403.6 in 2010)

Gun Bans: Mad Dogs & Englishmen

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:17 PM

You were much more interesting honest when you posted as liberal4life.

HumpBot Salvation on April 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

i live in a goddamn democracy and if you don’t like it, get the hell out.

If that’s true, it should be easy for you to point out the word “democracy” in the US Constitution.

the system of government is a republic, but it’s entirely irrelevant.

Really? So if the American people chose to re-instute slavery, that would be fine, as long as 50.1% of them voted for it?

rvastar on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

So you didn’t read those articles I posted in the other thread. Here, let me link them again for you.

Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

Guns Vs. Crime

NotCoach on April 8, 2013 at 5:12 PM

I’ve already addressed that. mainly that you’re bringing up a strawman argument.

no one ever claimed reducing guns will reduce crime. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

The retard has derailed the thread long enough. Flush it.

tom daschle concerned on April 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Unlike you, I actually hunted down and read his FULL TESTIMONY, including this part…

I’ve been through it. I’ve been there. You people don’t know what freedom is because you never lost it. You haven’t been tortured. You haven’t been [sic] assassinations, you haven’t seen mothers begging for the life of their son not to be killed because the only reason is they wanted to be free. And they killed the mothers and they killed the son.

dominigan on April 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM

The retard has derailed the thread long enough. Flush it.

tom daschle concerned on April 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

It was worth it. Today it exposed itself ignorant.

Now its replacement showed up.

Axelturd pays them too much.

Schadenfreude on April 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM

No, it takes a hell of a lot more than a majority to amend the Constitution.

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM

No kidding. Especially since it goes beyond the people ratifying any change, to the states having to ratify it.

GWB on April 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM

no one ever claimed reducing guns will reduce crime. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

WTF?!?

GWB on April 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM

WTF?!?

GWB on April 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM

what’s confusing dooderino?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM

no one ever claimed reducing guns will reduce crime. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Than why ban them?

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM

I’ve already addressed that. mainly that you’re bringing up a strawman argument.

no one ever claimed reducing guns will reduce crime. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

A what in the what??

So no one claims banning guns will reduce crime. That’s just too stupid to check.

And banning guns will reduce deaths, just like in DC and Chicago…oh wait…

You admit banning guns does not reduce violent (in fact that likely increases violent crime), and you can not demonstrate that banning guns would reduce violent deaths. Although I’m not usually all that broken up over a violent rapist dying violently when someone is defending themselves. So why exactly do you want to restrict gun rights again?

NotCoach on April 8, 2013 at 5:25 PM

WTF?!?

GWB on April 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM

What don’t you get dooder?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM

no one ever claimed reducing guns will reduce crime. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Then why do you Dems want to ban guns?

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Than why ban them?

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM

reduce deaths.

guns allow one coward to kill too many too easily. guns allow one to detach oneself from the consequence as I just pull a trigger.

if i have to stab you, its much harder both physically and mentally. it’ll deter alot of these nuts as guns make them feel powerful.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

The retard has derailed the thread long enough. Flush it.

tom daschle concerned on April 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

No… we need to practice and hone our skills in slaughtering liberals with facts. They force me to up my game and be prepared.

THANK YOU to sesqui and non-smart for providing target practice and making us better in researching facts and proving our point.

I just wish they were better at being a target. I mean these feeling squishy emotional froth and ignorant rants about the structure of our government is really PATHETIC.

We really need a better class of trolls. Most of us have outgrown these fools.

dominigan on April 8, 2013 at 5:29 PM

no one ever claimed reducing guns will reduce crime. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

It has led to an INCREASE in the UK and, by the way, this stuff still happens.

Also, the Met has armed many patrol officers – you know, bobbies – with semi and fully-automatic weapons for the first time in anyone’s memory. Why? Because illegal guns have EXPLODED amongst gangs and crime orgs even though we have this so-called ‘gun ban.’

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:29 PM

As a long-term resident of the Occupied Blue Territories of the People’s Progressive Socialist Workers’ Paradise of Oregon, I can tell yall, with little hesitation, that the man’s pleas fell upon deaf ears.

BlueStateExpat on April 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Fu*k you and your exploitation of these parents and their dead children.

I’d like to think he would tell them that schools which have armed protection on premises, either uniformed or plainclothed, or in the form of concealed carry employees — that is, where the 2nd Amendment is being fully exercised — would in all likelihood never have been targeted by this killer and they would not have experienced their loss.

rrpjr on April 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM

if i have to stab you, its much harder both physically and mentally. it’ll deter alot of these nuts as guns make them feel powerful.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Which must explain why the injuries and deaths from knives and other sharp objects, including pint glasses, eating utensils, and crockery, has SKYROCKETED in the UK since the gun ban exactly how?

Give it up.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM

if i have to stab you, its much harder both physically and mentally.
nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Do you even have a clue that what you just said also applies to someone trying to defend themselves from a criminal?
Do you also understand that also applies to “we the people” trying to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government armed with fully automatic weapons loaded with hollow points?

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM

guns allow one to detach oneself from the consequence as I just pull a trigger.

was that a confession nonpartisan? why did you do it? why did you just pull the trigger thereby destroying a person. why were you so detached?

tom daschle concerned on April 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Than why ban them?

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM

reduce deaths.

guns allow one coward to kill too many too easily. guns allow one to detach oneself from the consequence as I just pull a trigger.

if i have to stab you, its much harder both physically and mentally. it’ll deter alot of these nuts as guns make them feel powerful.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

So in fact, you are admitting to being a lying douche bag. Banning guns does not reduce the murder rate, it does not reduce the violent crime rate. You have admitted that the idea behind banning guns is not about crime reduction, I guess to you, murder isn’t a crime then.

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

It has led to an INCREASE in the UK and, by the way, this stuff still happens.

Also, the Met has armed many patrol officers – you know, bobbies – with semi and fully-automatic weapons for the first time in anyone’s memory. Why? Because illegal guns have EXPLODED amongst gangs and crime orgs even though we have this so-called ‘gun ban.’

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:29 PM

dood, correlation does not equal causation. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

intellectual, nuanced, tolerant, peaceful patriot nonpartisan sure does spend a lot of time thinking and writing about murder in various ways.

tom daschle concerned on April 8, 2013 at 5:34 PM

reduce deaths.
guns allow one coward to kill too many too easily. guns allow one to detach oneself from the consequence as I just pull a trigger.
if i have to stab you, its much harder both physically and mentally. it’ll deter alot of these nuts as guns make them feel powerful.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

And yet you just said this:

no one ever claimed reducing guns will reduce crime. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Talk about confused.

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

You’re just plain dumb on a stick, aren’t you?

WILL BANNING GUNS STOP HOMICIDES? STATS FROM ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA SHOW…

NotCoach on April 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Do you also understand that also applies to “we the people” trying to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government armed with fully automatic weapons loaded with hollow points?

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM

stop it with this defending against a tyrannical government nonsense. remove the tinfoil hat, it doesn’t flatter you.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:36 PM

stop it with this defending against a tyrannical government nonsense. remove the tinfoil hat, it doesn’t flatter you.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Pull your head out of your @ss.
Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you have a clue what it’s about?

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

um, how is that inconsistent. crime can still be high while death are reduced. ie if a guy who would’ve used a gun instead used a knife, there will still be a crime but no longer a death. get it?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM

a majority can change the constitution as well. what’s your point?

sesquipedalian on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

It takes more than a simple majority to change the constitution. Our system of government was meant to give majority the most power in shaping the country, but not absolute power. It is designed to check the majority from tyrannizing the minority and to prevent mob rule.

Direct democracy or Athenian Democracy was a noble thing for its time and was the inspiration for all modern democratic forms of government on this earth today, it also was seriously flawed. It was basically mob rule, with no checks, and nothing to protect an individual from the wrath of a simple majority. The reason why the Athenians did so many stupid things, like during the Peloponnesian War, was because of their direct democracy. The founding fathers and most great American leaders and thinkers since then have been critical of Athenian direct simple majority rule democracies because of the danger it presents to minority rights and opinions.

That is why we have a constitution and ground ruler for our system of government which is a form of democratic government called a Constitutional based federal republic, but we are NOT a pure democracy. If had a pure democracy all African-Americans would have shipped to Africa at some point in our history, the Irish shipped back to Ireland, endless wars with the British Empire over stupid stuff, people arrested for being arrested for being critical of state and federal leaders depending on who was in power, people being voted to be thrown out of the country…..a sort of “American Idol” of government…

The funny part is many progressives want to ditch the constitution and go to simple direct democracy which will mean the destruction of this country into war and numerous petty states. It will lead to discrimination, racism, and pure tyranny of a majority over various minorities depending on the location.

William Eaton on April 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you have a clue what it’s about?

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM

yes, I have. do you guys make love to the constitution, can you ever make an argument without falling back on the constitution?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

here is what I want see, two audiences, one side the parents from newtown, the other parents that have saved their children lives and their own because they had a gun available to do it, and I want the newtown parent to tell them can’t and see what happens. will never happen.

RonK on April 8, 2013 at 5:40 PM

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

You’re just plain dumb on a stick, aren’t you?

WILL BANNING GUNS STOP HOMICIDES? STATS FROM ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA SHOW…

NotCoach on April 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

That fool makes your average run of the mill garden variety dumb on a stick look like Albert Einstein.

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:40 PM

dood, correlation does not equal causation. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Face-palm.

There was a 48% increase in serious knife-related hospital admissions between 1997/98 and 2006/7 and between 2003 and 2007 knife-wound hospital admissions for under-16s increased by 62.7%. This led the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report on knife crime to speculate that the increase in serious knife wounds “may indicate that knives are being used to inflict more serious wounds.” In other news, water is wet.

In 2008, the Home Office released the statistics for knife crimes for the 12 months ending in March, 2008. To say that the figures were shocking would be an understatement. The annual crime statistics showed that there were 22,151 crimes committed involving knives in ENGLAND and WALES only. This figure did not include the estimated 250 fatal stabbings, which were recorded separately. The data further showed that 231 were related to attempted murders; 5,248 were cases of wounding with intent; 2,785 were related to grievous bodily harm; 2,359 were cases of robbery to business premises and 11,528 were related to the robbery of personal property.

There has been a 120% rise in the number of children admitted to London hospitals suffering knife injuries.

The number of knife homicides rose by 26.9% between 2005/06 and 2006/07. There were 270 knife homicides in 2007/08: the highest total since the Homicide Index was introduced in 1977.

The real epidemic of knife and stabbings crime is, especially, felt amongst the under-16s in London and the, similar to gang violence in the US, it is one of the most underreported crimes in all of the United Kingdom, which is apparent when one compares the surgery or A&E visits with the number of police reports filed. The case is the same whether in England/Wales or Scotland (more than 70% of stabbing wounds or knife attacks treated in hospital go unreported and 50% of all knives found in Scotland are or Northern Ireland, the latter two keep separate records. Kniving has been seen on some of the islands, but not nearly at the level seen in the Home Counties and Glasgow.

Justine Greening MP said NHS figures show there had been 34 emergency hospital admissions of children aged under 16 with stab wounds in 2003/04. This figure rose to 75 admissions in 2007/08. Later records also show more teenagers aged between 16 and 18 are suffering knife wounds in the capital, with hospital admissions up from 129 in 2003/04 to 238 in 2007/08 – an 84% rise. The increases in London are far higher than the national average, which shows an 80% rise in under-16 victims and a 41% increase in 16- to 18-year-old victims.

The MP told BBC London: “We all know of the tragic cases where people actually die from their wounds, but for every one of those there are up to 14 cases where teenagers are going to hospital for treatment but perhaps not going it to police.”

According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, there were a reported 29,613 knife crimes in the year ending in June 2012 with a 10% increase in knifing robberies alone, Before you ask, it is illegal to carry knives in the UK. I know. Why haven’t people obeyed the law? 40% of all the murders of young people in the UK are committed with knives, but they are illegal. What’s up with that?

The UK outlawed the switchblade and gravity knife in 1959.

In 1988, possession of a pocket knife with a blade larger than 3 inches in public became illegal.

In 1996, it became illegal to sell a razor blade to anyone under the age of 16.

In 2007, you needed a licence to be able to sell “non-domestic knives.”

In 2008, a group of doctors called for a total ban on all long, pointed kitchen knives demanding that 17th century French laws decreeing that the tips of kitchen, table and street knives be ground smooth be adopted for both public eateries and in the home.

Knife attacks are costing the NHS an astonishing £500 million per year, including A&E treatment, operating arena, specialists, hospitalisations, surgery visitations, aftercare, physical therapy, psychological treatment, and assorted family support care, should same become necessary.

The bill for treating just one stabbing victim can soar to £250,000 while only in hospital. Coupled with aftercare at a family surgery, therapy, and A&E, a Department of Health spokesman has put the total of treatment for a non-life threatening stabbing injury at approximately £1 million.

So, as bad as the increase in “knife” crimes was after the gun ban, it was nothing compared to what happened to the “stabbings” rate. In 2008, both the Government’s Offending, Crime and Justice Survey and the bigger British Crime Survey estimated that there were nearly 60,000 stabbings in England and Wales each year or a rate of 98.36 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Gun Bans: Mad Dogs & Englishmen

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

um, how is that inconsistent. crime can still be high while death are reduced. ie if a guy who would’ve used a gun instead used a knife, there will still be a crime but no longer a death. get it?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Oh, why of course, that’s sooo much better to be stabbed or have your throat slit, or have your brains beat in with a baseball bat. I’d so much prefer that over being shot…
On the other hand, if I have a gun, I’m far less likely to get stabbed or beaten to death or into a coma, or into a vegetable on life support – but I’m still alive – oh yay.
Are you really that stupid?

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Yemen and Iran have among the highest rate of gun ownership in the world.

bayam on April 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

That’s odd. Iran is listed in 79th place with 7.3 guns per 100 people.

Yemen is listed at No.3 in most places.

You leftists just can’t keep from telling a lie at every opportunity, can you?
And you wonder why we don’t trust you. Gad! You’re stupid.

Solaratov on April 8, 2013 at 5:43 PM

can you ever make an argument without falling back on the constitution?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM

NO, why would I want to. Why are you in such a hurry to dispose of the US Constitution?

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:43 PM

what’s confusing dooderino?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM

What don’t you get dooder?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM

I just don’t think I’ve ever seen you make such an incredibly, blatantly, obviously, profoundly false statement in … well, since at least yesterday.

GWB on April 8, 2013 at 5:43 PM

yes, I have. do you guys make love to the constitution, can you ever make an argument without falling back on the constitution?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Well now we get to see your true colors.
You have a problem with people actually defending the Constitution and the rights it documents. That says it all right there.

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Are you really that stupid?

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Duh.

GWB on April 8, 2013 at 5:44 PM

yes, I have. do you guys make love to the constitution, can you ever make an argument without falling back on the constitution?

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Yes, I can rely on the Magna Carta, centuries of English common law, more than two centuries of precedent in the United States, Federal and state law, the writings of the Founding Fathers, classical liberal philosophers, and history.

You?

And, MSNBC and wikipedia do not count.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I want this guy to look at one of the parents of the dead kids at Newtown in the eyes and ask them if they understand what loss is

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

How does their loss or their grief outweigh my Constitutional Right to self-defense? Or any other Constitutional Right, for that matter?

Do you want to abrogate the First Amendment to keep people from saying things the “Newtown parents” might find offensive or even saddening?

Solaratov on April 8, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Duh.

GWB on April 8, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Ya, I know – rhetorical question.
Not as if he has the brains or integrity to answer it honestly.

dentarthurdent on April 8, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4