Understanding Why Democrats Are Going After Rifles

Almost all of the gun crime in the US is committed with illegal handguns. Democrats are making zero effort to do anything about that, and instead are going after rifle confiscation – despite the fact that you are more likely to be killed by a hammer, fist or baseball bat than by a rifle.

All of the initial police reports out of Sandy Hook were that the children were killed with handgun bullets, and that four handguns had been found. Later in the day, the handguns miraculously morphed into a rifle. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

State and Federal officials now say now that four handguns, not two, and only handguns were recovered inside the school.

LiveLeak.com – NBC Admits No Assault Rifle Used At Sandy Hook

(Most humans only have two hands.)

The reason that Democrats are going after rifles, is because they are the only effective deterrent to an overbearing government. A handgun is useless against a paramilitary. Dems are doing nothing to clean up Chicago’s illegal handguns, because they provide very useful propaganda value. What they want to do is confiscate legally owned rifles.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

– Thomas Jefferson

” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.“

– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”  

–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Understanding Why Democrats Are Going After Rifles

  1. Brian G Valentine says:

    Dumbocrats jumped the shark after LBJ, since then they have been a lost cause.

    They are a hopeless case, they get worse by the day, they work tirelessly to “out stupid” each other.

  2. gator69 says:

    It makes no difference what gun Lanza used at Sandy Hook. If the semi-auto rifle had not been available, we know that he would have used the pistols, as he had them on his person. So the confiscation of rifles would have made zero difference, once again.

    • It absolutely does make a difference, That was the point of this post. There was no rifle found in the school.

      • gator69 says:

        I get your point, and I hope you understand mine.

      • You are making a point from the perspective of what is going on in the killer’s head, but I am addressing what is going on inside the heads of Democratic psychopaths.

      • gator69 says:

        No, I am talking about the insanity of using Sandy Hook as a vehicle for banning semi-autos, when a ban would not have changed the outcome. Had Lanza never set eyes on that rifle, he would still have killed those kids. Had that rifle jammed, he still would have killed those kids. The rifle is meaningless in this conversation.

      • gator69 says:

        We will never know for sure what Lanza used, and it doesn’t matter (IMHO). The fact that the left is using Sandy Hook as a reason to ban rifles and not pistols does, because it shows the idiocy of their “argument”. Unless they admit they are after all semi autos, or all guns, they are bald faced liars.

        Let’s not ‘go into the woods’, so to speak.

        So how does a phone lose its virginity? 😉

      • The police came out of the school and said they found handguns and no rifle. There was no rifle. No one confuses four handguns with a rifle. It just doesn’t happen.

        I have no interest in playing along with bullshit to keep leftist nutcases happy.

      • gator69 says:

        “I have no interest in playing along with bullshit to keep leftist nutcases happy.”

        Cannot argue with that.

  3. phodges says:


    Not quite a rifle, but almost 😉

    Same muzzle energy as a 357, and they came from the factory zeroed at 100m

  4. NikFromNYC says:

    It’s a culture war between elites in an age of comfort and complacency. Getting conservatives to express extreme paranoia, publicly, scares moderates away from Republican candidates during midterm congressional elections. It’s just like a lady’s man ticking off a frat boy at a party as he himself stays calm. If pickup artists do this very much on purpose, might not Democrats?

    Returning to Clinton’s ban on the AR-15 is just what Dems do, just as Reps with ban abortion, stem cell research funding, evolutionary theory, and neuroscience because in an era of mass media and now Internet freedom, they are very insecure in their minority religious beliefs that damn near 80% of mankind to eternal physical torture for trillions of years.

    From the Chicago Times this week: “Chicago has had a stop-and-frisk policy for decades — and that policy (in its many forms) has resulted in the arrest and detention of thousands of young men of color….”

    These handguns were purchased with black market profiteering enabled by the Drug War. Drug addicts, a few percent of drug users, also need guns for use in robbery, due to the inflated cost of watered-down drugs. Entire tank and submarine equipped drug gang armies in Mexico are now utterly winning the Drug War on American citizens. But you see Nazis!

    • Are you the new village idiot?

      Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device

    • Andy Oz says:

      I always wanted to see the illegal drugs made legal, professionally manufactured, taxed and prescribed and administered by doctors. That takes the money away from the criminals and the war is over. No cashflow means no gangs, no guns or submarines.

      • gator69 says:

        Strawman alert!

        “…just as Reps with ban abortion, stem cell research funding, evolutionary theory, and neuroscience…”

        ‘Reps’ do bot ban stem cell research, abortion, evolutionary theory or neuroscience. 70% of Americans are against “embryonic” stem cell research, which was rightly banned as it yielded nothing but failure and frozen babies, while adult stem cells showed promise.

        ‘Reps’ do not want to ban abortion, they just don’t want to pay for it, and don’t want it used as birth control.

        ‘Reps’ are willing to hear many different theories and are not frightened by theories with which they do not agree.

        And neuroscience is something about which you should consult with a doctor.

      • Andy Oz says:

        Thanks for the heads up Gator. I do like Nik’s contributions cos they are often different, controversial and interesting. And in some aspects he’s right on the money.

        PS My youngest sister just had an adult stem cell transplant that has saved her life. Real science is awesome.

      • phodges says:

        “Drug War” prohibition in large part creates the crime they cite when promoting firearm prohibition…here is what Nic may be getting at…


        “…The Drug War would indeed be a failure if its real function was to reduce drug consumption or drug-related violence. But the success or failure of state policies is rightly judged by the extent to which they promote the interests served by the state. The Drug War is a failure only if the state exists to serve you…”

      • gator69 says:

        Yes, this is one place where Nik and I agree. Prohibition was a massive progressive failure with alcohol, and is an even larger progressive failure with ‘recreational drugs’. Every single country that has decriminalized drugs has had reductions in usage, addiction and crime. It is a no brainer and is akin to the gun argument, drugs don’t kill people, people kill themselves. Take any anti drug argument you like, and replace whatever substance you choose with the word ‘alcohol’, and the argument falls apart.

    • Justa Joe says:

      weak… #1 A sizeable portion of street shootings in Chicago are not directly drug related. #2 As soon a one of your precious drugs could be legalized and handed out or prescribed through “legitimate” “safe” channels criminals would be advancing a new drug to sell underground, which would be stronger and/or more readilly available on the street.

      Get off the stuff already.

      • phodges says:

        It’s not about the drugs, it’s about the power of the state.

      • Excellent point with 2. It’s a theme I sometimes take a bit of heat for from the Paulifarians especially. There may be some good reasons for legalizing some drugs out there, but the idea that it will reduce crime from large criminal organizations is rubbish. The Columbian and Mexican drug gangs (and others) aren’t smuggling drugs because they’re enthusiastic libertarians striking a blow for individual liberty, they do it because it is amazingly profitable. If you were to legalize every illegal drug in the world tomorrow, they would just find some new criminal activity to profit from. In fact I read somewhere not long ago that one of the cartels had started doing exactly that, running in illegals because their share of the drug trade was dropping off. Their next big business will probably be assault magazines ;- )

  5. I. Lou Minotti says:

    Lanza was a dupe–a stupid, rentally metarded, dyslexic angry kid who was used as a cover. He might have fired a shot or two (because he was told to for “acceptance”), but the bullets came from outside. To wit:
    Click on to the links in the article, but only if you’ve got the heart.

  6. I. Lou Minotti says:

    Steve, thank you for your hard work, wisdom, and the balls it takes to maintain an honest website. Men are God’s blessing for planet earth. Good job.

  7. NY Nik may be largely offbase and coming in from a different position, but he does make a potentially valid point about leftwing tactics, using very extreme agendas not so much to actually achieve them, but to rile up those who are out on the fringe and into the tinfoil hat brigade: then to engage the debate solely around them, as if the fringe were the majority of conservatives. This would have precisely the effect he alleges, of scaring off moderates, uncommitteds, and others who might have otherwise sought refuge in the conservative fold. All straight out of Alinsky and the “Rules For Radicals.”

  8. Oh, point I originally came to make — not my own, don’t recall where I first ran across it — the leftards aren’t out to ban so simple thing as a “firearm” or even a “gun.” That’s why this constant barrage of demonization and simpleminded hammering away with the word “assault.” Basically, ANY rifle with a detachable magazine, relatively low-powered round, and semiautomatic action is being labeled an “assault weapon,” and derided & dismissed as being suitable for hunting. So what will they leave us with (at first) for hunting? Let’s see. Internal magazine, capacity no more than 5 or 6 rounds, high powered. Bolt action, scoped out to take down game at 2 or 3 hundred yards. Hmm . . . sounds like the kind of rifle A SNIPER might use! See what they do? I tell ya, they’ve got the game plan already drawn up. Get rid of the AR/AKs/carbines because they’re “Assault Weapons” then get most of the rest because they’re “sniper rifles.” Now what’ll be left? Oh yes. Lever action. You mean like the guns the genocidal cowboys exterminated gentle Native Indigenous American Peoples with? And hunted the sacred buffalo almost to extinction with? The guns crazy drunk cowboys shot up the streets of Dodge City with? THOSE kind of Rifles of Mass Destruction?

    I said it above, it’s straight out of Alinsky. Isolate, marginalize, demonize, methods vary, but it all comes down to the same steaming pile.

    • Correction above, should read “unsuitable for hunting.” line 6.

    • Justa Joe says:

      Libtards want all guns out of private hands(PERIOD) Once they could get real guns they’ll be going after BB guns.

      To be a libtard means to believe the state has the absolute monopoly on deadly force.

      • You’re bang on about BB guns too, they’ve already done it elsewhere:
        “Australian laws are controlled and administered by each State and Territory with each classifying ‘air’, ‘CO2’ and ‘mechanical propulsion’ used in air rifles and BB rifles as “Category A” firearms, placing them in the same class as break-action shotguns and rimfire rifles, requiring a licence for ownership. Air pistols and BB pistols are classified as “Category H” for all handguns.[1] Anyone found in Australia possessing an unlicensed air rifle or pistol faces the same charge as a person who unlawfully possesses a firearm.”

        “Air guns with both a muzzle velocity greater than 152.4 meters per second (500 feet per second) and a muzzle energy greater than 5.7 joules (4.2 foot-pounds) are firearms for purposes of both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. Usually the manufacturer’s specifications are used to determine the design muzzle velocity and energy. Air rifles that meet these velocity and energy criteria are classified as non-restricted firearms, while air pistols are classified as restricted if their barrel is longer than 105 mm or prohibited if their barrel length is 105 mm or less. The lawful possession of these airguns requires that the owner have a valid firearms licence and that the airgun be registered as a firearm.”


        “Air Rifles are covered by Cypriot law 113-1-2004 which is the same law that covers all firearm possession and are classified in the same category as break-action shotguns.
        All air rifles must be registered to the owner at the local police station. Only persons without criminal record over the age of 18 are allowed to register and possess firearms including air rifles. When an air rifle is sold on, a transfer application must be made at the local police station.
        Only rifles of calibre .177 / 4.5 mm are allowed, any other calibre is strictly forbidden.”

        “In Germany, air guns producing a muzzle energy up to 7.5 joule (J) (5.53 ft·lbf) can be owned by persons from the age of 18 years and freely acquired provided they bear the “F-in-pentagon” mark” that indicates a muzzle energy not exceeding 7.5 J (5.5 ft·lbf) kinetic energy. Carrying air guns in public necessitates a carry permit (§ 10 Abs. 4 WaffG), extremely rare as such and never granted for air guns. Only the transportation of unloaded and non-accessible air guns (or carrying unloaded during biathlon) is considered a “permissible carry” (§ 12 Abs. 3 Nr. 2, Nr. 3 WaffG).”

        “In Israel all barreled arms shooting metallic ammunition are considered firearms and therefore require a special government license to own. Airsoft arms are defined as “dangerous weapons”; while they are not licensed as firearms, they may only be sold to recognized airsoft clubs.”

        “In Singapore, airguns are classified as ‘arms’, in the same category as firearms utilising gunpowder as propellant among other weapons. It is necessary to obtain a license from the Singapore Police Force before one can import, export or own an airgun.”


        And some places in the US already. Nah, they’re not stopping with “assault weapons.”

  9. higley7 says:

    There is the serious chance that no one was killed at Sandy Hook. NO blood, NO bullet damage, NO bodies, NO distraught parents, nobody at all alarmed at the school, and NO life-saving or any kind of attempts at such to be seen at all. All too conveniently they kept the bodies in the school, never triaged them, and removed them in a refrigerated truck that night. The coroner’s report was a joke. They showed a close up picture of a car’s bullet hole and no context of any kind = meaningless. We see parents walking with their “kid” along a lane, could be anywhere. NO wounded that have ever been heard from again and no real eyewitnesses. People were clearly just milling around the firehouse and circulating in repetitive patterns = staged. NO traumatized kids, NO red-faced, sleepless parents; the parents went through those nine steps of grieving at a run or they are acting. The school is run down and appears closed while the other schools are clearly open (Google maps). Lanza’s dad and Holmes’s dad are both involved in the LIBOR scandal involving world level banking fraud and manipulation. Yeah, it was bad, maybe, but mostly bad as they are attempting to dupe the country into acquiescing to their gun confiscation goals.

  10. higley7 says:

    Sorry, I forgot. One adult mentioned hearing a 100 shots. The kids said the heard some pans or cans drop (by the janitor), or someone kicking on a door, or people running down the hall, like in a drill. These kids may very well have been in such a drill elsewhere and then used in this false flag operation. The complete lack of any forensic evidence or pictures of any crime scenes raises all kinds of flags. At least in Aurora there was clearly a terrible event, but here? Not so. The initial helicopter shots of police running into the school was not that school, but a nearby school, St. Lima or such. The landscaping and the building structures were clearly and radically different from Sandy Hook Ele. School. A complete and total fraud produced just for us!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s