Email conversation I had with my liberal friend
This was our banter today regarding this cartoon that he sent out. Read from the bottom up it makes more sense.
me:
BTW: Gov't run health care DOES NOT WORK and YES, the gov't in LA does not work (Nagan is a piss-poor leader (maybe they should have gotton Al and Jesse to run the place)). So I am not sure what his point was with these lines accept maybe he really believes if the gov't ran health care it would work? Is anyone dumb enough to think that in this day and age? Comparing one poorly run city to the entire nation is foolish. Not a single leader emerged from the rabble that was most effected my Katrina, another fact. Look at LA after the earthquake - quite a different story!
I don't know what he means about the liberals being wrong in Iraq so I can't speak to that.
The quip about laws against rape/murder/kidnapping not preventing rape/murder/kidnapping is more of a non-sequitor. These laws are aimed at criminals, who, surprisingly, do not adhere to them. Gun control laws hurt law abiding citizens, who will abide by the laws, unlike criminals, who will not. So any gun-control legislation disarms law abiding citizens and reinforces to the criminals that their victims are unable to fight back. This is a fact.
Tom is a true idiot. He defines the word idiot.
nope, not afraid of me and my puny guns, but they are afraid of the 200 million other guns.
him:
While I agree with Tom, I don't believe that the government is afraid of you and your puny guns.
me:
Funny - accept that what they fail to tell you is that gun control hurts society without a doubt. Gun control is (arguably) a contributing factor responsible for much of the death at VT. The cartoon is propaganda making light of gun control in ridiculous arguments that compare it to things it is not comparable to.
Where there is gun control, there is more crime. Where gun control laws are passed, crime increases. Where pro-gun laws are passed, crime decreases. These are facts.
There is not, to my knowledge, a single example of gun control legislation, anywhere, in any country, that has resulted in a decrease in any type of crime, especially gun related crime.
Since there is not a shred of evidence that gun-control does any good in any cases, this begs the question, why would gun control organizations want to make this country a less safe place and increase crime? Which leads to the bigger question, why would such people get a following (small but vocal none-the-less)?
The only answer is that the beginning of an oppressive government starts with the disarmament of the citizens. You can't fight an army with sticks and stones.
One of the greatest men of all time, Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
me:
BTW: Gov't run health care DOES NOT WORK and YES, the gov't in LA does not work (Nagan is a piss-poor leader (maybe they should have gotton Al and Jesse to run the place)). So I am not sure what his point was with these lines accept maybe he really believes if the gov't ran health care it would work? Is anyone dumb enough to think that in this day and age? Comparing one poorly run city to the entire nation is foolish. Not a single leader emerged from the rabble that was most effected my Katrina, another fact. Look at LA after the earthquake - quite a different story!
I don't know what he means about the liberals being wrong in Iraq so I can't speak to that.
The quip about laws against rape/murder/kidnapping not preventing rape/murder/kidnapping is more of a non-sequitor. These laws are aimed at criminals, who, surprisingly, do not adhere to them. Gun control laws hurt law abiding citizens, who will abide by the laws, unlike criminals, who will not. So any gun-control legislation disarms law abiding citizens and reinforces to the criminals that their victims are unable to fight back. This is a fact.
Tom is a true idiot. He defines the word idiot.
nope, not afraid of me and my puny guns, but they are afraid of the 200 million other guns.
him:
While I agree with Tom, I don't believe that the government is afraid of you and your puny guns.
me:
Funny - accept that what they fail to tell you is that gun control hurts society without a doubt. Gun control is (arguably) a contributing factor responsible for much of the death at VT. The cartoon is propaganda making light of gun control in ridiculous arguments that compare it to things it is not comparable to.
Where there is gun control, there is more crime. Where gun control laws are passed, crime increases. Where pro-gun laws are passed, crime decreases. These are facts.
There is not, to my knowledge, a single example of gun control legislation, anywhere, in any country, that has resulted in a decrease in any type of crime, especially gun related crime.
Since there is not a shred of evidence that gun-control does any good in any cases, this begs the question, why would gun control organizations want to make this country a less safe place and increase crime? Which leads to the bigger question, why would such people get a following (small but vocal none-the-less)?
The only answer is that the beginning of an oppressive government starts with the disarmament of the citizens. You can't fight an army with sticks and stones.
One of the greatest men of all time, Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
0
-
The whole debate is pretty simple really. It is effective and reasonable to have basic laws in place. Otherwise, society would default to the law of the jungle. So laws against harming an innocent person and threatening severe penalties for doing so, have to some degree a goodness and effectiveness about them. I would consider such laws to be a "plywood protective shield".
But once you have those basic laws in place, along with the punishment attached to each basic law, then addition laws are nothing but "tissue paper protective shields." If after the basic laws are in place, if you STILL have people routinely breaking those laws and risking the attached punishment, then addition laws will have little or no effect; although those laws MAY appear to have an effect because the already peaceful and lawful (the very people who are not causing the problems anyway) will, by their lawful and peaceful nature, APPEAR to obey and be effected by those additional laws. But in reality, the violent criminals, the ones whom you are actually trying to control, will not be effected in the least by your new "tissue paper protective shield" laws.
Figure that out for yourself. If you already have a law in place that prohibits threatening or harming an innocent person, and promises life in prison or the death penalty for violating that law, any person that choses to violate that law will laugh at another "tissue paper shield" law that prohibits EVRYONE from carrying/using a firearm, for just one example, during the commission of a violent crime. In other words, if a criminal has chosen to risk life in prison or the death sentence by deciding to kill some innocent person, that criminal has already indicated, by their choice to kill someone, that they are not concerned in the least with a possible 10 year addition sentence for carrying/using a firearm in the commission of that already illegal murder. They have already decided to risk a much greater sentence and will laugh at another 10 years on their life or on their death sentence.
Of course the liberals who desire more guns laws (tisssue paper protective shields) will try to frame their argument to make it appear that laws piled on top of laws actually do somem good. But they don't.
JMOH0 -
What was that old saying about insanity being repeated attempts at doing the same thing and expecting different results?
The law that worked in the gunman's favor was that which prohibited law-abiding citizens from carrying a concealed weapon. Cho knew that and used it to his advvantage.
I also notice how Tom Tomorrow shied away from Iraq. Having razzed Bush about "staying the course" in the face of failure, he attempts to "stay the course" on gun control without admitting that pro-Iraq pundits and anti-gun spinmeisters share the same stubborn line of loic.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
2 comments