What? Is the War on Women over?
Who won? Oh…sorry, that’s a trick question.
My! What a lovely petticoat, Mizz Michelle! And your dress is lovely too.
Anyway, I guess we’ve tabled the WOW to take up arms (so to speak) against the guns.The “War on Guns” – that’s a whole new kind of irony, even for the Left.
I know you’ve been following this controversy, and it seems the country is divided along two lines: those who believe the Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, and those who prefer that murderers commit their crime the old fashioned way, by pushing people onto the track of oncoming trains.
Either way, controversy has erupted over whether we should ban “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” specifically or hand guns in general. As you know our betters (most Democratic politicians and all of the talking heads) favor the latter, because, well, because it’s just “common sense,” right? The masses can never be trusted with guns:
In fact the Left has the same attitude toward the people they refer to as “the masses” as medieval lords had toward the peasantry; peasants with weapons could storm the castle.(snip)
The editors end the way these “conversations” usually do:
“If LaPierre and the NRA truly want to make meaningful contributions, they should have the grace, decency and good sense to get out of the way. They've dominated the debate over gun violence for decades. And they've failed.”
Translation: “shut up.” We know what’s best for you. (h/t Instapundit)
And now British ex-pat Piers Morgan is threatening to self-deport if America doesn’t outlaw the weapons that he finds offensive. Boy, talk about a Win-Win!
I don’t know where he’d go though, Britain doesn’t want him back. Plus, it’s not like Britain is exactly a haven of peace and tranquility these days either. Since the Brits got what American Libs can only dream of - a complete ban on handguns including “compulsory buyback” aka, confiscation, like Dianne Feinstein wants - look at what has happened there:
WSJ via Weasel Zippers:
Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.
We aren’t alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.
Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Is it too much to ask of liberals that they put their thinking caps on? What part of “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” do they not understand. And why?
Oh well, at least Piers still has big friends in low places looking out for him.
Michael Moore in his thinking caps: What do you think the “DS” stands for? Hint: starts with “Dumb” ends with “hit”
Meanwhile, people are also calling for a complete ban on “bath salts” as they’ve been deemed to be responsible for a recent spate of zombie like murders caused by chewing your friend’s face off.
To borrow from Gerard at American Digest:
“Door. Ass. Bang!
[To quote the Bard: " Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once. "]”
Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, and Andrea Shea King: The Radio Patriot, and Harriet Ormsbee on facebook, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and NOBO2012 on Free Republic, Thanks!
Posts
