Politics of gun control

| January 4, 2013

In the wake of the shootings by evil doers lately, politicians are doing their best appear to as if they’re doing something. In Connecticut, one politician contemplates releasing the names of legal and registered gun owners in the state for some stupid reason. Another noodles about controlling ammunition instead of guns;

State Rep. Stephen Dargen, a Democratic legislator from West Haven, wants the names and addresses of about 170,000 handgun permit holders in the state to be made public.

Names of gun owners are now confidential, but Dargen believes if people know how many guns are spread across communities, they’ll be safer.

State Senator Martin Looney, of New Haven, is proposing ammunition control legislation, which would prohibit anyone barred from owning a gun from owning bullets or any other kind of ammunition.

“A gun without ammunition is only a club. We really need to restrict access to ammunition,” Looney said.

Um, aptly-named-Looney, didn’t you read the bit about the FBI claiming that more people are killed with clubs and hammers than rifles? Are you trying to make a bad situation worse?

Old Trooper sends a link from the Washington Examiner which reports that gun control legislation in Illinois was stopped late last night;

The Illinois Senate pulled the plug on legislation to ban assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammo clips late Thursday, a stinging rebuke to Democrats and a wake-up call to the president and his supporters who think the Newtown, Conn. school child slayings will make it easy to pass gun control.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told Secrets Friday, “This was the first of many challenges gun owners and hunters will face this year. We will face many more and we need to keep our focus on those upcoming challenges.”

Gun advocates predict that the Illinois Senate will offer watered down legislation next year, likely limiting the number and types of guns to be restricted. “This is in no way a victory and nobody is doing a victory dance,” said a state gun advocate. “This is a minor win and we have to keep on.”

I wish they’d stop mentioning hunting – that’s what fuels that specious thing about semi-automatic rifles which they call “assault weapons” not needing high capacity magazines. I used to hunt since I was 14 years old when the state of New York said I could, but my interest in weapons aren’t for the purpose of hunting these days.

But like I said, politicians aren’t in the business of solving problems. Since the Left is having a massive melt down because of the sorrow they feel for the children of Newtown, and since politicians don’t have the wherewithal to actually do something successful about nuts with guns, they’ll be happy to stage a little theatrical performance and do their level best to write more rules that will affect only the law-abiding and then pat themselves on the back afterwards about how they stopped the NRA from committing another mass murder.

And it’s not really about the children, it’s about their own selfish feelings – they don’t want to be confronted with the thoughts of more children in danger. It’s perfectly acceptable to them to disarm the law-abiding, because that’s something they can accomplish. And if criminals have guns, well, that’s the fault of the evil corporations who somehow make a profit giving guns to criminals.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mike says:

    So the guy wants to ban people who aren’t allowed to buy guns under current law from buying bullets. Is there really a problem with gunless criminals using ammunition without one to kill or intimidate people?

    I found this graphic when I was looking up gun violence rates. Only 2% of the people in federal prisons who had guns got them at gun shows. So good luck closing that loophole to make us safe. Looking at that graphic, I might support making it a crime to provide your weapon to your felony committing family members and friends though.


  2. Ninja R says:

    I’ll go along with Looney’s idea if he agrees to make abortion legal, but the use of forceps illegal.

  3. EGS says:

    they mention the hunting angle when they think they are trying to appeal to or seem to legitimize firearms ownership; as if the speaker has some inside angle (like “IT buzzwords”). i am not fond of politics.

  4. ohio says:

    I think Looney was up late drinking smoothies made from Lysol and lawn mushrooms.

  5. David says:

    Bottom line, there is no real interest in controlling violent mental illness, media desensitization to violence, or any other real causal factor. Physical objects (which in and of themselves do nothing without human intervention) are an easier target. Bottom line, though, is that it’s all about “control” no matter what prefix you hang on it.

  6. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @1. Mike. I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for that data because when one goes to the source, one learns that the firearm acquistion information was SELF REPORTED BY SURVEYED FEDERAL INAMTES–and that was over a decade ago, to boot. I was suspicious because the 2% acquistion by gun shows seemed VERY high.

  7. FatCircles0311 says:

    Do these pussies use catheters before they enter federal buildings, fly, or go to the police station so they don’t piss all over themselves when confronted by the sight of firearms? They must.

  8. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @7. There are indeed two separate worlds when it comes to guns. And, yes, many of the inhabitants of Planet Fear do recoil at the mere sight of a gun. It is an alien thing to them which represents something that scares them to the core. It’s a strange world but it does truly exist.

  9. UpNorth says:

    @#8. “Planet Fear”, heh. Bet our own little guy, Joey the Intrepid Rock Climber, is president of Planet Fear.

  10. Hondo says:

    UpNorth: please – use the correct title. That would be General Secretary Joe, Intrepid Hero of Rockclimbing. (smile)