Gun Control Works

Gun control was very effective at accomplishing government objectives in Germany during the 1930’s

ScreenHunter_338 Apr. 21 10.07

About stevengoddard

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

16 Responses to Gun Control Works

  1. gator69 says:

    It’s not the guns they wish to control.

  2. Jason Calley says:

    Anyone who says that gun-control Europe has a low murder rate needs to average in the extra three or four million per year during the first half of the 1940s.

  3. Jason Calley says:

    Here is a caption for the photo above: “Gun Control! Do it for the children!”

    • Chip Bennett says:

      If it saves the life of even one child…

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Chip! Yeah, let’s just finish the unsaid part of that sentence, the part that the Progessives just blow past like Ted Kennedy through a curve in the road: “If it saves the life of even one child… it is worth all the thousands who die from the secondary consequences of this legislation!”

        (Notice I used the word “secondary” instead of “unintended”.)

  4. -=NikFromNYC=- says:

    Comparing policy critics to neo-NAZI Holocaust deniers is exactly why the climate alarmists are losing the public debate. Now here Steve is helping turn our own side into rightfully ridiculed fanatics by doing the same thing. Gun control is mostly an urban policy compromise in the continuing Drug War era, meant to disarm gangs, effectively. Because of the constitution, this is not easily achieved without softening the Second Amendment in general. A girl in a party night tube dress is no match for hardened gang members, pistol or no pistol, and thus such single women vote for gun control. There’s no NAZIs involved in this. The Drug War sustains gangs just like Prohibition sustained Al Capone.

    • That explains why California is trying to confiscate rifles from rural residents.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Gun control is mostly an urban policy compromise in the continuing Drug War era, meant to disarm gangs, effectively.

      That statement is so full of bovine excrement that it actually might cause global warming.

      If only those darn gang members would just follow the law, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, with their strictest gun laws in the country, wouldn’t be the worst offenders for gun crime in the entire country.

      Because of the constitution, this is not easily achieved without softening the Second Amendment in general.

      So, maybe try a different tactic?

      Gun control, short of complete disarmament, does not, cannot, and will not disarm criminals. It will only serve to disarm the law-abiding, and make them easier pray for still-armed criminals. (All mass shootings happen in so-called “gun-free zones”; purely coincidence, right?)

      Gun control not only isn’t effective; it is also counter-productive. Liberal (as in free, not progressive) concealed-carry laws drive down gun (and non-gun, violent) crime everywhere they are employed.

      A girl in a party night tube dress is no match for hardened gang members, pistol or no pistol, and thus such single women vote for gun control.

      Their fashion choices can’t infringe on our God-given rights, but I daresay you’re wrong. I know plenty of women who are as deadly with a firearm as they look in a tube dress. But maybe that’s just the women out here in flyover country.

      There’s no NAZIs involved in this.

      Oh?

      But DiFi is the only one, right? Yeah…

      The Drug War sustains gangs just like Prohibition sustained Al Capone.

      The Drug War is irrelevant. Gun control has no impact on The Drug War. Disarming law-abiding citizens will do nothing to disarm criminals, and will make law-abiding citizens more at risk from those still-armed criminals.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      How’s that working out for the Black population in Chicago and L.A.? Criminals really do manage to find illegal guns to use while citizens in those areas are deprived of an effective legal means to protect themselves.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Nik, the word is not “softening”, the word is “violating.” By law, the Federal and State governments are prohibited from infringing personal ownership of guns and other weapons. If politicians violate the law and pass illegal legislation, why should anyone obey such laws? If our politicians are criminals, why should we disarm ourselves for their convenience?

      If politicians were simply misguided (as opposed to criminal) in their support of gun control, they would be talking about amending the Constitution — just like they did for alcohol prohibition. I would still have other reasons for disagreeing with them, but if the gun control crowd were honest, they would at least approach the subject rationally and move to change the Constitution first.

  5. gator69 says:

    “A girl in a party night tube dress is no match for hardened gang members, pistol or no pistol, and thus such single women vote for gun control.”

    Really Nik, get out of that sewer and one of us can introduce you to a real woman. 😉

    PS – This single woman will not be voting for gun control, or a Democrat.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Guns are one of the few means women have for equalizing the strength issue. Otherwise we go back to being second hand citizens “owned” by men.

      I grew up with one set of standards for my brother and a much stricter, confining set for me. That is I NEVER left the house after dark without an escort. It was just “Not Done”.

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