Thursday, June 30, 2011

What are the odds?

Unc looks at the actions the gun grabbers are trying to take.

"Because ATF allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico and those guns were later used in murders and showed up at crime scenes in US neighborhoods, we clearly need to pass more gun laws. You know, to better equip law enforcement to combat this sort of thing. Why, it’s almost like it went exactly according to ATF’s plan.

And more on the parade of fellow travelers and useful idiots
exploiting the sitution.

Because nothing says Give Agency X more power than a congresional hearing on Agency X's hidiously moronic and rather evil actions.

More on the same subject from Ace of Spades.
DoJ: Fast & Furious Was Definitely Not About Creating A Pretext For
Increasing Gun Control
Elijah Cummings: Hey, Let's Expand Fast & Furious To Consider
Increasing Gun Control

And and example of the "weapon effect" at work.

Speaking of what motivates the gun grabbers, Jay G wonders why they do it, given what they have to know.

And it kicked over something I've thought about, off and on, for nearly 15 years now. The anti-gun people know. They know there won't be "blood in the streets" or people shot over parking lot disputes as a result of concealed carry. The past 25 years of evidence states otherwise. They know that allowing people to carry concealed firearms into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol will not lead to drunken shootings; many states do not have such restrictions and have no such incidents.

They know that posting a sign on a door is not going to stop a lunatic from shooting the place up just as surely as they know that a woman getting a piece of paper against an estranged lover will not keep her safe. Police logs and news reports are filled with incidents of violence; yet they claim we don't need to carry weapons. "That's what the police are for" even though they know that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone.

There's plenty more evidence.
His conclusion?

Is it that they view an individual with a permit to carry as a threat to the monopoly of force they would prefer the state enjoy? It explains their opposition to concealed carry as well as the idea behind so-called "assault weapons" bans - and the current state of heavily regulated and slowly dwindling supply of machine guns. They want the state to be the only entity that can employ force - their reasons for this are known only to themselves, but there can be no good outcome when only the agents of the state have arms.

As Alan says, there's a term for countries where only the police are armed: Police state.

No comments: