12

Guilt fails in Gun Control

Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago to News
44 comments | Share | Flag

Maybe there is a clue here about how to get people to refuse to be browbeaten for being productive.
SOURCE URL: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/04/greg-gutfeld-gun-control-losing-because-americans-refuse-to-feel-guilty-over-self-defense/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by evlwhtguy 10 years, 10 months ago
    What the article fails to address is that Americans more and more are fearful of government and understand what the founders did...that firearms are the only thing between the citizens and tyranny. This is particularly glaring when to look at the picture in the article. That gal there is not addressing criminals but government. The photo does not match the text.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 10 years, 10 months ago
    Brings me back to the comment I made recently on the issue of police shootings. I asked if there were enough, enough to perhaps decrease the crime rate.

    This article mentions blacks arming themselves against criminals since they are realizing they can protect themselves better than those that simply wait for the police to arrive.

    Think about that. We pay police for protecting us, then we jump all over them when their adrenaline gets the best of them while trying to do what we pay them to do. I thank the Almighty that I didn't take that job with the Sheriff's Department after the Nam. My adrenaline couldn't really handle some of those situations they are put in, especially in my younger days. And I know about adrenaline, I remember the experience I got in a far and distant land, a lot more than I want to remember.

    I know so many people now that "carry". I was out with one of my closest friends recently, I notice his shirt had gotten hung up on his hand gun that I never knew he carried. We've always talked about guns and such, but I never ever knew he carried. I asked him about it and he said he's carried so long that he never even thinks about it at all. He says is like getting up in the morning and putting on your socks. He then asked me if I carry, and I simply replied, "maybe". I do believe the police 'carry' to protect themselves from the people we pay them to protect.

    Greg Gutfeld is a actually a pretty smart man. I really don't see that "they" will ever get our guns. And I hope that "we" don't let "them" put too many restrictions (and taxes) on our right to bear arms. I would hope we would fight to protect that right.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jpellone 10 years, 10 months ago
      What I am worried about now is that instead of going after our guns they are just going to take away our ammo!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by NealS 10 years, 10 months ago
        Don't worry, I've got plenty of ammo to go around, at least enough for the neighborhood. I finally got my complete collection of at least one each of the small arms I fired in the Nam, including an AK and a Thompson.

        No one will be able to take away our guns or our ammo, period. And when I say "period" I'm not lying like some others do. You saw what happened to that latest ridiculous ammo bill, and now they're trying again to do the same thing using another tactic. It won't work, period.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 10 months ago
    Gutfeld is usually right on such topics. He can imbue the most serious subjects with a touch of humor. However, he got me thinking of a guy who shoots from the hip and is getting creamed in the libpress for it. Rand Paul wasn't taking any guff from the female interviewers on two separate occasions making them ask their questions without editorializing them. Hooray!! Later, he sorta apologized for not controlling his temper. Hell, Rand, go get 'em. Don't let the ladies intimidate because they are female. It's just a pretext so that if you became the nominee, you'll be a gentler, calmer Rand when you're up against Hillary. Go sic them. We wish we could.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
      One of the other comments that was freaking brilliant was this:

      "Go ask Debbie Wasserman-Shultz what she and the Democrats think about your idea. THEN come back and talk to me."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years, 10 months ago
    Why feel guilty about having the means to protect yourself?
    Where I live in the Deep South people are proud of their guns.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
      We shouldn't, you are right. But in "Atlas Shrugged", it was primarily the tactic of telling people they should feel guilty for a basic right that led to state takeover. We've seen it in today's world over being productive and earning money. This is a case where people are rejecting implied guilt and seeing through the tactic to retain their rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 10 months ago
    The article falls in the realm of ''wish I had said that.'' but since I didn't I'll quote it. Along with Tom Clancy's classic about the media, "Why should i trust you, You are a reporter."














    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by waytodude 10 years, 10 months ago
    The sheep don't like the sheepdog because it reminds them of the wolf yet when the wolf shows up the sheep run to the sheepdog for protection. Just think of the left as being stupid sheep and run to the wolf. My view on why we have gun control.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterAsher 10 years, 10 months ago

    Rudyard Kipling

    Tommy
    I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
    The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
    The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
    I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
    O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
    But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.


    I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
    They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
    They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
    But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
    But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
    The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
    O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.


    Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
    Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
    An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
    Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.


    We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
    But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
    An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
    Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
    While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
    But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
    There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
    O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.


    You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
    We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
    Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
    The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
    But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
    An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
    An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years, 10 months ago
    I think we all have to restrict the amount of money that the police, and government in general, takes from us. The more money they have, the more they want to control us. Same with Russia- the more resources they have, the more they want to take over the world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years, 10 months ago
    The purpose of police and government is supposedly to protect your rights. I agree that police typically just clean up the bodies AFTER the fact. I have to admit I feel safer when they are NOT around to take my freedom and money for the stupid laws out there. Maybe the real hidden purpose of the police is to keep citizens' revolutions from happening. Certainly the purpose of the NSA currently is to protect the government FROM the people
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 10 months ago
    This article is good news. Thanks for posting it. Perhaps some ideas do eventually get through to the voters...but look what had to happen to Detroit in order for this to work.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Mamaemma 10 years, 10 months ago
      Jan, I may be wrong, but I don't think it's the people in Detroit and other liberal enclaves who are refusing to feel guilty about owning guns. I think it's mostly people on flyover country, who are saying you have taken away most of my freedoms, but you are not getting my guns!
      These people and this attitude could be our salvation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 10 months ago
        It could indeed. I do not like the term 'sheeple' and avoid using it, but it does seem to me that social compliance is stronger in most populations that it is in the Gulch. What this means to me is that if 'rugged individualism and personal freedom' ever become 'fashionable', it will turn the whole country. Temporarily.

        But that is all we need. If we can get a window of opportunity that allows us to learn from our mistakes, wholesale remove tens of thousands of bad laws, and put more protection in the Constitution to keep the bad stuff from happening again...Then, when the country swings back to liberalism (which it will), we will have mitigated the potential for harm.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
          "put more protection in the Constitution"

          I appreciate the optimism, but I do have to wonder: what prevents the same old problems from creeping up again?

          The only answer I can come up with is that with freedom comes the price of understanding it. Intellectual laziness is the bane of a republic.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 10 months ago
            If more explicit protections are incorporated into the Constitution, we can at least make future encroaches an 'uphill battle'.

            Jan, realistic as well as optimistic
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
              Perhaps. Perhaps it just delays the corruption that much longer. Or perhaps the founders were right when they said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson) I think they recognized that unless one has "skin-in-the-game", one isn't invested enough in the outcome to do what is necessary. Seeing all the entitlement/welfare mindsets in society around me, I have to admire the prescience and need for a continual struggle.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 10 months ago
                We are never going to get rid of corruption, blarman. It is inherent in our species. It is probably the 'other face' of production and innovation (advancement for its own sake vs advancement via value)...and I would not want to get rid of those values.

                If we were to start 'all over' again - say on another planet - we would be able to get rid of all of the current scaffolding of cronyism that interpenetrates our society. Anything we do within our society is going to retain that scaffolding. But we can, I feel, make changes that make it more difficult for people who 'have' power to use it to limit freedom.

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
                  I think this gets into one of those human nature discussions. Benjamin Franklin noted that aggregation of power attracts those who seek it - and not with the intent to uphold rights. I don't think it really matters where you try to set up a society, those elements will creep back in. The best you can do is vigilantly teach correct principles and discipline those who step out of line.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 10 months ago
                    I agree. I do not want to see the presence of human fallibility used as a pretext for 'doing nothing' (because corruption is inevitable). It would be interesting to consider a society in which the person best suited to running the government (for x amount of time) was chosen by an overall computer screening process (let's assume the process is relatively honest). What would society be like if, time after boring time, an intelligent, honest and well-intentioned chief executive was selected to run the country? (ie Voting for president might not be the best way to choose one.)

                    Jan
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo