Tag Archives: Assault Weapons

Are Gun Rights Safe from a dead Assault Weapons Ban in U.S. Senate

Save America Gun rights advocates rally for Second Amendment in Utah

Save America Gun rights advocates rally for Second Amendment in Utah

 Round one of the gun control battle on Capitol Hill has been seemingly won by default by the protectors and supporters of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. This win for gun rights advocates became obvious to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week. He ordered Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to pull the so-called assault weapons provision from the bill. This bill had been passed by the Democrat controlled Judiciary Committee.

This comes on the heels of what appeared by many vote counters inside the Washington D.C. Beltway to be headed for total defeat. Even Reid’s own count reportedly indicated the most Democrat votes, that could be mustered to support the assault weapons ban was only 40. This is far less than the 60 votes President Obama needed to prevent a Republican filibuster of the bill. This is a victory for gun rights in the continuing congressional gun control battle

For the hysterical claims and attacks raised by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s in an attempt to strong arm national gun rights supporters with their bluster, it is a bitter defeat. This is also an important set back to the hysterical theatrics that the president displayed as he attempted to use his bully pulpit to force congress to submit to his will after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Despite the facts that demonstrate the shooter Adam Lanza, was suffering from apparent severe mental illness issues, Obama resorted to scare tactics to pin the blame on gun rights. This is where he failed to exercise true presidential leadership. He clearly purposed his focused on fear mongering because it was what the liberal media hysteria machine wanted and craved. After all, who would be able to sustain the withering assaults from the main stream media, he had to reason.

But, Obama and the alphabet soup of media networks underestimated the commitment of gun rights and constitutional advocates who were unwilling to witness nor permit the undoing of those basic rights Americans who dear. When the president felt he was falling back on what he thought was an easy target, gun owners, gun owners and supporters instead locked arms and moved forward!

Even former astronaut Mark Kelly’s recent cheap trick to spur on support against gun owners did not prevail. He tried to resurrect the legitimate sincere sympathy Americans felt over the attack upon his wife, former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She had survived a vicious attack in an armed assault against her which resulted in the tragic deaths of six victims in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011.

Kelly tried in vain, in March to dramatize that the legal buying of an AR-15 style weapon was somehow a national news story special bulletin about the evils of assault style weapons. It fell flat, because Kelly had purchased the gun legally and had gone through the proper legal guidelines to register the weapon. So where was the story and where was the news if everything he did was legal?

Guess what Kelly, there is no news, just because you and the mainstream media want to gin up hysteria. America does not need you to tell them what parts of their constitutional Second Amendment rights are legitimate and what are not. Get a clue Kelly, all of the rights are legitimate and not open to debate, discussion or compromise.

What does this abandonment of the assault weapons ban portent for the president? After all, in his February State of the Union remarks, he stressed how parents and families of the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School deserved a vote that included an assault weapons ban? Obama skipped away, clean out of the country on this one, and all the way to Israel.

It points to the very clear principle that Obama stands on, which is, his word has no honor and no value even for his supporters. He seeks the coward’s approach, which was to duck and hide overseas in Israel while his handlers take the hit from his support base. Not a surprise for a person who has been perpetrating a fraud on the American people on other issues since he took office in 2009.

In truth, Obama has no clear principles and his behavior in previous armed assaults by lunatic madmen with weapons proves as much. He game is to merely whisper sad condolences into the ear of victim survivors of tragedies, from purported deranged shooters like James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado, or Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson, Arizona or even from Major Nidal Hasan in the Fort Hood’s massacre.

The reality is that Obama does not seek true solutions to the gun violence which has taken a tragic toll on innocent American victims. He ducks and dodges the true solution which is to reform and tighten rules which govern a failing and severely crippled mental health care system. He would rather tap dance on the convenient stage provided by the liberal main stream media to attack, attack and attack again the sovereign rights of citizens and states. Obama wants to strip rights from the U.S. Constitution, not strengthen those very rights and protections.

So what of the crocodile tears that Obama apparently shed for the national media as he spoke that wintry night in Newtown in front of the family and friends who suffered a loss in the shooting? He assured them as he swiped tears from his eyes that he would commit the full weight of his presidential office to securing justice for them.

Of course he did not mean it. Even though the survivor’s tears were real, his tears were clearly manufactured, there and in his White House comments later. The bottom line, is that Obama did not see a pathway where he could further his political ambition to demoralize the conservatives and republicans by continuing to support an assault weapons ban that his own democrats in the senate did not back.

Now, the die is cast for Obama to try yet another avenue to assault the gun rights of Americans, but at least on this day, Obama and his fanatical gun control supporters have lost a fight to blow a hole in Americans’ constitutional gun rights protections.

( Let me know what you think )

Jesus, Another Innocent Man Wrongly Convicted

bitter christianFew pastimes are more entertaining than witnessing a smug, non–orthodox Jew giving instruction on New Testament theology to Christians. Last Saturday the most reverend Lisa Miller in her Washington Post ‘Belief Watch’ column asked readers, “Is gun ownership Christian?

This puts believers at an immediate disadvantage because Christ did not spend much of his ministry discussing consumer goods. He mentions the odd cloak, fragrant ointment, sword and widow’s mite, but one would not confuse Him with Ralph Nader or other marketplace stalwarts.

Besides, since Miller picks and chooses what she believes in regard to her own faith, she has no problem distorting the Gospel in an effort to draft Jesus into Code Pink.

She begins by completely misunderstanding the significance of Jesus on the cross. Miller writes, “The Christian Lord allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight the injustice of the death sentence imposed on him.” To co–opt Mark Twain; this is an inability to distinguish between lightning and the lightning bug.

On the contrary, it was not a miscarriage of justice. The sentence was the fulfillment of divine justice. Christ willingly substituted Himself on the cross in place of a sinful mankind. God did not alter the terms of the first Covenant with Abraham. There was a price to be paid for man’s rebellion and he decided to pay it Himself. (This refusal to “evolve” on the part of the creator, should give pause to modern “Christian” leader’s attempts to revise and soften the New Testament, but it doesn’t.)

Consequently, Christ was not the earliest recruit for the left’s anti–capitol punishment movement. Christ died for our sins. He willingly paid the price we could not pay and ushered in the New Covenant.

There would be no Christians without Christ’s death on the cross. Even if the Jerusalem chapter of the Innocence Project had tried to get Him off the hook, He would have refused the offer, because to do so would have rendered His work pointless.

After that inauspicious beginning, Miller moves on to the point of her column, “How do such Christians reconcile their stalwart commitment to the Second Amendment with their belief in a gospel that preaches nonviolence?” And then she quotes Matthew 5:39 – “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This leads me to believe Miller was also not a fan of the excellent “Machine Gun Preacher”

Then it left me wondering if I had missed a recent development on the violence front, so I did an online search on “strike AND cheek AND gunfight” to see if there had been a rash of concealed carry permit holders (CCW) lighting up people who slapped them.

That search string was a bust, so I tried “strike AND cheek AND shoot” with the same result. Evidently there is no problem with Christian gun owners initiating violence. Miller’s goal appears to involve persuading Christians to join the ranks of the defenseless. This decision, however, would not be made in a vacuum. Should a Christian head of household decide to disarm because he believes guns are inherently evil, like cigarettes or 16 oz. sodas, his decision would not affect him alone. His wife, his children and mom in the basement would all instantly become draftees in the War for Pacifism.

And the family would be misguided draftees at that. As Adam Clarke points out in his commentary on the passage, these “exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Say for example, an orthodox Christian that leftists like Miller slap up the side of the head for refusing to support homosexual marriage. Following Matthew, the Christian would turn the other cheek as he said he does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle either.

The verse is most certainly not directed toward ancient or modern Christians with a desire to defend their persons or their family.

Then Miller snidely intimates that “conservative Christian leaders are not falling over themselves to proclaim in public their pro–gun theologies.” But then Miller proceeds to list various Christians who are doing just that.

She takes issue with Richard Land, a former Southern Baptist Convention official, who said during a December interview on National People’s Radio (NPR) that he supports arming teachers. And Miller concludes with David French, senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice, who told her “Turn the other cheek does not mean turn your wife’s cheek or turn your children’s cheek.”

Miller — who works for an organization sporting guards who check commoners before they are allowed to enter — replies, “Provocative, but unconvincing. Jesus identified with the weak, not the strong; with the victims, not the shooters (or the people with the guns).”

Wrong again. Jesus praised a Roman centurion who controlled his own sword and 90 others — for his faith, saying, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” What’s more, Jesus reached out to the weak and the victims, but unlike leftist community organizers, He considered Himself a shepherd and the shepherd doesn’t hand the wolf a napkin as he approaches the herd.

There is another verse that’s very germane to this discussion, although Miller manages to overlook it. Luke 6:42 advises, “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Miller would do more to protect the innocent life of children if she would worry less about the imaginary threat of “assault weapons” in the hands of Christians and more about the real threat of “assault doctors*” who are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocents each year during abortions.

 

*Thanks to my wife, Janet, for this inspired term that aptly describes a depraved occupation.

ATF’s Epic Fail In Milwaukee

Screen Shot 2013-01-31 at 11.29.54 AMAs Harry Reid bolts from Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed push to ban so-called assault weapons, other senators, including Pat Leahy and Al Franken, may politick their way into killing the bill in committee.  As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air posted yesterday,

No one thought Reid would be excited to support a new assault-weapons ban.  He didn’t support the last one, and he’s been non-committal over the last several weeks even while his fellow Democrats have publicly demanded a new ban.  Leahy’s reluctance should probably not be surprising, either; Vermont has a lot of gun owners, and voters there support nearly unrestricted gun rights.

However, Leahy chairs the Judiciary Committee, which is where Feinstein’s bill will have to find approval to reach a floor vote — or more likely, a filibuster.  That committee also includes Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken from Minnesota.  Klobuchar easily won re-election and might vote to pass a ban out of committee, but Franken has to face Minnesota voters next year — voters who are also gun-rights supporters.  Franken has said little about Feinstein’s proposal except that he supports a renewal of the assault-weapons ban “in principle.”  If Leahy is not on board, Franken might protect himself with a no vote (or perhaps an abstention).  Assuming the Republicans on the committee oppose it, Feinstein’s bill may never get out of committee at all.

Morrissey concluded that we may have dodged a bullet (sorry for the pun) with the failure of this new anti-gun push since the constitutionally questionable ATF would’ve enforced it.  Let’s see what their latest efforts into gun control yielded in the streets of Milwaukee.

…the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, they [ATF] seem to have enough trouble handling the laws they enforce now:

A store calling itself Fearless Distributing opened early last year on an out-of-the-way street in Milwaukee’s Riverwest neighborhood, offering designer clothes, athletic shoes, jewelry and drug paraphernalia.

Those working behind the counter, however, weren’t interested in selling anything.

They were undercover agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives running a storefront sting aimed at busting criminal operations in the city by purchasing drugs and guns from felons.

But the effort to date has not snared any major dealers or taken down a gang. Instead, it resulted in a string of mistakes and failures, including an ATF military-style machine gun landing on the streets of Milwaukee and the agency having $35,000 in merchandise stolen from its store, a Journal Sentinel investigation has found.

When the 10-month operation was shut down after the burglary, agents and Milwaukee police officers who participated in the sting cleared out the store but left behind a sensitive document that listed names, vehicles and phone numbers of undercover agents.

And the agency remains locked in a battle with the building’s owner, who says he is owed about $15,000 because of utility bills, holes in the walls, broken doors and damage from an overflowing toilet.

So, this is an epic fail. It’s no wonder people have t-shirts, bumper stickers, and internet memes that say Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

ATF has a hazy history.  Besides Ruby Ridge, Waco, and its controversial gunwalking operations into Mexico, ATF’s operations have been criticized as excessive and unconstitutional.  Before the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, 75% of the bureau’s prosecutions were “constitutionally improper,” according to an official Congressional investigation. As David Kopel, who recently testified for the Senate Judiciary Committee on gun violence this week, wrote for National Review back in 2009, as a response to The American Prospect’s blog about his use of the 75% statistic:

The 75-percent figure comes from a unanimous 1982 report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. After detailing a litany of statistics and case studies showing extreme and extensive abuse by BATF, the subcommittee’s reportturned to BATF’s counterarguments:

The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau’s priorities were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons illegally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documentation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before BATF’s Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau’s acting director had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover, BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed that “crime guns” were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in the months following the announcement of their new “priorities”, the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All this indicates that the Bureau’s vague claims, both of focus upon gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.

Yeah, I don’t think nominating a director to head this bureau is a national priority.

(H/T Ed Morrissey)

Feinstein releases more information on proposed gun ban bill

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been working furiously on new gun ban legislation ever since 2004 when the previous Clinton weapons ban expired.

Dianne Feinstein assault gun weapons ban

Dianne Feinstein assault gun weapons ban

Some information has slowly surfaced about her proposed gun ban bill, and now, the Senator’s office has released a summary including some information that many gun owners should find alarming:

  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    • 120 specifically-named firearms;
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

The last paragraph is last for a reason. The Senator knows that registering currently legal firearms could only be desired for one reason: confiscation. A large segment of the American population would never want the government learning what guns they do or don’t have. Look at the outrage in New York when a liberal newspaper released the names and addresses of all gun permit holders in some counties.

Privacy, individual rights, basic human rights – call it what you will. The government has no right to know what we do in our homes unless a crime is committed.

The ATF is not currently informed of the type and serial number of a firearm bought by citizens. The identifying characteristics of the gun are NOT read to the FBI when a background check is performed by a licensed gun dealer. The purpose of the background check is only to insure that the purchaser is legally able to own a firearm – not inform the government of the particular firearm they purchased.

The transfer of the firearm is kept by the individual federal firearms licensee (FFL). Those records are not given to the government unless necessary in an investigation. Requiring that these purchases are registered with the government is unthinkable and eerily equivalent to an invasion of privacy or search without warrant. If I have not committed a crime, there is no probable cause allowing anyone to know what firearms I may or may not have.

Pure and simple, this is unconstitutional – on so many levels.

A Gun Owner Struggles with the Newtown Tragedy

“They were babies” echoes in my head as I contemplate my position on gun ownership. A stalwart defender of the right to bear arms, I have been in troubled contemplation these last few days over the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

The evil committed was and is indefensible, reprehensible.. devil himself kind of thing. Even if Mr. Lanza were so imbalanced, at what point did going after 6 year old children seem like an outlet? My daughter is 7.

I was unable to write a single news story, tweet or facebook post for days. We even had our Christmas party and I could not intelligently address the questions asked by all those who knew me to be an avid hunter, collector, competitor and gun business owner. I just couldn’t talk about it then. I can barely do it now.

I remember reading one of the first articles after the tragedy. The very first reader comment said “It is now time to repeal the second amendment”. I lost my breath. Could any American really believe that their government could never become so all-powerful as to abridge their basic human rights? Could this tragedy be the tipping point where Americans cede there rights in order to feel more safe?

This tragedy against innocents, children, was something no one can get a handle on and it is forcing irrational moves. The attack makes no sense and humanity seeks a God-like solution in the absence of God. That solution for them is government. Our society has nothing left to turn to but a government bent on taking as much power as the people will give it.

Many are calling for a national discussion on firearms restrictions. Throwing out odd comments like “I only put three bullets in my gun when I hunt”, the left is pushing a false narrative to achieve their ultimate goal – total gun control.

Gun ownership isn’t just about hunting. The second amendment wasn’t contemplated so that 236 years later we could hunt deer. Restricting that right limits the threat to future tyrants. How would the revolutionary war have gone if King Henry’s Redcoats had muskets and the colonists had been disallowed the use of current firearms? Our second amendment is about giving the rest of the Constitution the teeth it needs.

Now we watch as our representatives discuss how sharp or how many our teeth may be. Soon they will discuss whether we need teeth at all. I worry that the majority in America are willing to disarm in the false belief that they will then be more secure. Benjamin Franklin knew better when he said “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Killers like Harris, Klebold, Loughner, Holmes and more were going to do what they did. Their souls were dark. All of them Atheists,  some from broken homes, on some sort of psychological medication and unfit for society.

I worry about one of these soulless creatures driving a Toyota through the car pick-up line at my children’s school now. Seemingly, parents, teachers and medical professionals are unable to either diagnose, treat or even identify people with these afflictions.

I am an unassailable champion of individual liberties. Those liberties should extend so far as they do not imperil another’s freedoms. This kind of tragedy brings into question for many where that line lies.

Should Loughner and Lanza have been committed? I believe so. Why weren’t they? Many around them thought they were both “bombs soon to go off” so why wasn’t that the indication that psychological evaluation was necessary? When will our school and medical professionals be better able to identify warning signs?

Mental instability is certainly at the heart of the Newtown murders. There is no other explanation for a 20 year old man killing 6 year old children – none. It is also the cause of the Colorado theater tragedy, Columbine and so much more.

We’ve focused on the methods those men used to kill at every opportunity, but when will we focus on the reasons? Because politics drives so much of what we do these days, I expect we never will. Perhaps because we have been taught that it is impolite or not politically correct to point out that someone might have a mental illness. It is far easier to blame the inanimate object – the weapon.

Had it not been  a rifle, it would have been plowing through the bus line in his mother’s car, a homemade bomb or some other means to accomplish what he had already planned – he was committed to this outcome.

The previous assault weapons ban was in place when Columbine happened. In fact, it had been in place for five years. What thinking American believes that those Godless young men would not have found another way to do what they did no matter what laws had been passed? Once someone reaches the level of conviction that includes their own suicide, there are no deterrents – NONE.

Of course the anti-gun lobby will focus on the gun(s) as the reason for the tragedy. To them, it is totally logical that tragedy is impossible if guns are restricted. If wishes were horses…

Just last week in China a man stabbed 22 kids with a knife at an elementary school. In 2010, 20 children were killed in knife attacks.[2] Those evil men found other means in a society where guns are highly-restricted. The real question should center on why these men feel it necessary to take out their anger on children and how to identify them earlier.

We rarely, if ever, hear about the Americans saved each year by conscientious, gun-owning citizens. Although it is estimated that between 2.5 and 7 million crimes are prevented each year by someone using a gun in defense[1], those stories don’t make headlines – it takes a tragedy to make headlines. How many lives have been saved by gun ownership? How many were saved by a gun owner with a concealed gun permit when he stopped a mass killing from happening in Oregon? That story was successfully buried.

Gun crimes committed by legal gun owners is infinitesimal. Regulating those people more will do nothing and is a shameful way to honor those children murdered by an evil human being. If we are having an honest dialogue about how to prevent tragedies such as Newtown, we have to admit that we cannot legislate a perfect world and focus on identifying and helping troubled young men like Kliebold, Loughner and Lanza – or at a minimum, getting them off the streets before they harm others or themselves.

We seem focused on the manner instead of the intent. There is no law that can be passed that would prevent someone bent on the death of innocents from carrying it out – especially if they are willing to take their own lives in the process. An honest discussion would focus on the murderer and how to identify people like him before more tragedies erupt. If an honest discussion was what everyone at the table actually wanted.

Sources:
[1] Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz*- http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html
[2] Villager slashes 22 kids with knife at elementary school gates in China – http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite

Satan’s Off the Hook: Guns are Responsible for Mankind’s Violent Actions

Satan can rest assured, the fall of mankind is not his fault: “The gun made us do it!”  By the way radical leftists react to guns, one would assume that is what the original Biblical translation in Genesis of mankind’s fall states.

Since the 1960’s radical leftists have been assaulting guns with the concocted phrase “assault weapons,” in order to  scare everyone into believing that owning guns automatically leads to violent crimes.

NBC’s Bob Costas used leftist propaganda in an on air tirade to attack guns, which seem to have excessively high levesl of anger. And those bullets! They have a deep desire to poke holes in people!

Human beings are incapable of assaulting others unless they possess mentally disabled guns. After all, “guns kill, not people!”

Please, one  does not need a gun to assault; a baseball bat to the knees will do the job quite well. So I’ve heard.

Bob Costas and the anti-gun crowd refuse to face facts: Had Jovan Belcher not owned a gun, he could have strangled his girlfriend to death, but the left must blame guns so leftists can assault the Second Amendment and individual liberties.

If guns truly are “assault weapons,” and it’s guns that actually kill, then lunatics should never be blamed when they go on a murderous rampage, shooting up a movie theater, right? After all, the gun did it.

 

Facts are facts: In the United States, non-gun related deaths and injuries occur at higher rates than gun injuries and deaths: “Choking and suffocation is the third leading cause of home and community death in the United States.”

Look at the causes of death by accident or murder in America:

Falls: 5,961 deaths
Fires/Burns: 4,833 deaths
Poisonings: 3,402 deaths
Drownings: 1,092 deaths
Suffocations: 823 deaths        
Other: 1,937 deaths
All Causes: 18,408 deaths

 

 

 

“In Japan, around 150 people die from hot water scalding every year.”

Let’s not forget the infamous Connecticut Wood Chipper Murder Case: The husband murdered his wife, without a gun, and dismembered the body so he could put the body parts through a wood chipper to hide the crime.

So Jovan Belcher did not need a gun to kill his girlfriend; he could have poisoned her or pushed her down the stairs, and then stuffed her body into a wood chipper.

Violent people commit violent crimes with their bare hands when they don’t have weapons.

Death-by-sports injuries has high statistics.  According to Sports Illustrated, a high rate of deaths occur in baseball from head injuries caused by fast balls:

 

[N]ine minor leaguers and 111 amateur baseball players as young as eight years old have died as a result of beanings since 1887. More than 90 other players were killed either by pitches that hit other parts of their bodies, usually the chest, or by balls thrown by other fielders.

 

 

Golf has a 78% rate of injuries caused by golf clubs and balls.  That’s not including Tiger Woods’ head and face injuries caused by his club-wielding wife, who assaulted Woods, and his Cadillac Escalade, with his golf club. We can’t blame Mrs. Woods, after all, that golf club carried a lot of pent up anger against its owner.

 

Perhaps we should ban golf. That would force President Obama to go to work. On second thought, let’s keep golf legal!

What about knife related crimes? Gun-banned Great Britain has a high rate of gang related “knife crimes,”  proving gun bans never stop criminals from finding ways to commit violent crimes.

Even lamps can be used as weapons. Remember the infamous Clinton Oval Office Brass Lamp Wars? Hillary Clinton never used a gun to get even with Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky; Hillary assaulted Bill with a lamp-to-the head.

I say we ban Hillary Clinton!

Look how nature assaults human beings.  Snow storms create hazardous roads, causing car accidents, trees fall on cars and houses, killing people, high winds, floods and tsunamis wash away entire towns and islands.

According to the Daily Mirror : “COCONUTS apparently kill around 150 people every year.” Talk about anger. Tropical trees are hurling fruit at tourists!

Should we destroy the tropics?  It’s obvious from the above list that Global Warming is not the problem; Mother Nature is moody.

Next:  Great Britain’s Metro reports:

Falls from trees account for 1,200 cases, while 170 are admitted after falling from cliffs. In total, falls accounted for almost 460,000 hospital admissions from March last year to February this year, up by 18,700 on the previous 12 months.

 

Should we cut down every tree in existence to save us from being hurled from trees that don’t want us climbing them? It’s obvious trees are a threat. As to the problem with cliffs being perpetrators of accidents, we should ban cliffs, that prohibition alone might save America!

 

Furthermore, Metro says:

About 20,000 people each year are admitted to accident and emergency wards in England after falling out of bed, compared with 6,400 who drop from ladders…

 

If our beds are so hell bent on throwing us off them, we should make beds illegal and sleep on floors.

But people fall on slippery floors, hitting their heads, breaking legs or injuring backs? Should we outlaw bare floors in favor of carpeted floors only? Oh wait, carpeting produces dust and mold. Carpets are trying to assault our lungs!

Cars can become assault weapons to drive over philandering husbands. Remember Clara Harris, the dentist who ran over her husband?  Technically, she didn’t kill her husband, the Mercedes did: “Harris insisted the death…[in July 2003] was an accident and that she only wanted to damage the black Lincoln Navigator belonging to her husband’s receptionist turned lover, Gail Bridges.”

It’s not Harris’s fault that her Mercedes drove over her husband instead of smashing the Navigator. Harris was behind the wheel of a possessed car.

Anything can be used as a weapon. Women use handbags to the head, car keys and long finger nails to the eyes, high heels to the feet, as well as head, and knees to the groin to fight off muggers. Should America ban the female gender?  FemiNazis would no doubt support that veto if the ban includes making women grow penises and becoming the men radical feminists are determined to be.

Maybe we should ban frying pans, pipes, crow bars, rope used to lynch, two-by-fours and  hands.  Common sense says one does not need a gun to attack; the list of assault weapons is infinite. But in the mind of leftists,  guns are the only assault weapons. Unless used by terrorists to attack Israel and the West, then it’s a justified demonstration of resistance by freedom fighters.

If guns are banned, guns won’t go away. Criminals will purchase guns the way they always have–illegally. And  innocent citizens will use whatever they must to prevent violent attacks against themselves and loved ones.

Gun bans are just another way to control people, remove individual liberties and the right to protect one’s self and family.