‘Assault Weapons,’ Gun Control And The Myth Of Which Side Is To Blame For ‘Guns In The Hands Of Killers’

I am home following an argument with a liberal dumbass for whom idiot opinion trumps facts.

I heard a man state that James Holmes was using a fully automatic assault rifle to mow people down.  And, being me, I was compelled to correct his errors with facts.

“Based on the records we have reviewed, personnel in our Denver store correctly and fully followed all Federal requirements with respect to the sale of one shotgun and one handgun to the individual identified in this incident,” said a statement released by Bass Pro Shops. “Background checks, as required by Federal law, were properly conducted, and he was approved.”

Holmes purchased a third weapon, a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle, at the Gander Mountain store in Aurora just a mile from the movie theater where he allegedly mowed down dozens of unsuspecting moviegoers.

That, too, was bought over the counter, after Holmes passed a background check.

“In 95 percent of all gun-related crimes, the guns are bought illegally, not over the counter,” said Richard Taylor, a manager at The Firing Line, a gun retailer in Aurora. “This appears to be the rare exception.”

According to Taylor, all three of the weapons are commonly sold over the counter; the shotgun, a favorite of those looking to protect their home; the AR-15, a weapon used by small game hunters and shooting enthusiasts; and the glock perhaps the most commonly-used gun by law enforcement officers on the street.

James Holmes did NOT use a fully automatic assault rifle in his July 20 murder spree; he used a civilian version of the M-16 called an AR-15 that fired in one mode: semi-automatic.

The definition of an “assault rifle” is a weapon that is capable of selective fire, with two modes: semi-automatic and full automatic.  The latest military assault rifles that have appeared have modified the “full automatic” to a shorter 3-round burst with each squeeze of the trigger.  That modification was the result of trying to save bullets, not lives, for the record.

Years back, Democrats used a sleight of hand to refer to “assault weapons” and demonize them.  These “assault weapons” are merely semi-automatic versions of the military grade weapons.  Since then, both the Democrat Party and the mainstream media have repeatedly and deliberately attempted to confuse the public into believing that “assault weapons” are dangerous fully automatic weapons that no one ought to be allowed to have.

Which is another way of pointing out that in a way, the liberal jackass who refused to be corrected with the facts wasn’t completely to blame for his being a dumb ass; the media and the Democrat Party routinely and deliberately confuse people with the intent of ginning up manufactured outrage in order to ban weapons under false pretenses.

There are still plenty of damn liberals who want to demonize Republicans over every gun crime.  Oh yes there are.  And I’m sick of it.

I’m just a guy who starts getting increasingly pissed off whenever I hear somebody selling lies in place of the facts.

The biggest lie of all that liberals and Democrats routinely tell is that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t really give the people the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment – and it’s “second” only after the right to free speech and the right to worship in a free society – is short, sweet and crystal clear:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If “the people” means “a well regulated Militia,” as liberals and Democrats routinely assert, then “the people” do not have any rights at all UNLESS THEY SERVE IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.  In other words, according to the “logic” of liberalism, you do NOT have the right to keep and bear arms; neither do you have the right to free speech, nor the right to worship as you choose, nor the right to peaceably assemble, etc. etc. ad nasuem.  You do not have any rights at all if you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms.  Because “the people” are either “the people” or they are “a well regulated militia.”  One or the other.

But let’s, just for the sake or argument, pretend for a moment that liberals and Democrats are honest people who truly want to follow the Constitution.  And they are honest for thinking of “the people” as “a well regulated militia.”  That would mean that Democrats and liberals are all for “well regulated militias,” right?

Well, the fact of the matter is that Democrats and liberals are NOT for guns.  Period.  And so they’ve gone after militias as savagely as they’ve gone after individual people being able to own guns.  You see, if you love the Constitution and you hate government regulations, well, you’re an “extremist militia” by Obama’s Homeland Security Department definition and Democrats and liberals are going to do all they can do to come after you.

So Democrats and liberals are dishonest.  They say “the people” shouldn’t have the right to be armed because only a militia should have that right.  And then they tell the militias that THEY shouldn’t have that right, either.

That’s how the Nazis  and the communists were.  They took away “the people’s” right to be armed, too.  It was the very first thing they did.  If they hadn’t, quite frankly, there would have been a lot fewer murdered Jews and a lot more dead Nazi killers.  I think the state of Israel has amply demonstrated that armed Jews are more than capable of protecting themselves when liberal policies had them as helpless sheep waiting for their turn to be slaughtered.  Just saying.

If you read the Federalist Papers there is no question whatsoever that the founding fathers viewed the 2nd Amendment as a reaction against tyranny.  In the Britain that the first Americans had escaped, it was a crime to own a weapon.  There was no way to rise up and thow off whatever shackles of tyranny that government imposed upon them.  The founding fathers said that people should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people.  And an armed government has no need to fear a disarmed people.

I think there are ALL KINDS of things that American society can do to better regulate gun ownership.

But I just as firmly believe that there should be NO regulations of ANY kind until Democrats stop being fascists and fundamentally respect the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment.  Until the Democrat Party IN ITS PLATFORM fundamentally swears to uphold the fight of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement, there can and should be no negotiations of any kind to limit guns in any way.  Because such negotiations would amount to a zero-sum game in which conservatives keep on giving up ground and rights and Democrats keep seizing ground and rights.

These are the first two “gun laws” that we need in America:

1) Any politician (ie., any Democrat) who publicly says that people do not have a right to keep and bear arms will be denied ANY and ALL money by his or her political party.  He or she will likewise be stripped of any and all leadership in the party.

2) Any judge – whether elected or appointed – who affirms that the people do not have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms will be immediately removed from his or her position on the grounds that they violated the Constitution which they took an oath to uphold.

We get those two “gun laws” passed, and I am very open to requiring more responsibility and more regulation of gun ownership.  But until then, we shouldn’t give those fascist Democrats who want to take away our guns so that we are as helpless as the Jews were before the Nazis one damn thing.

I will not allow my rights to be taken away or limited in any way, shape or form by any political body that has so much as ONE politician who is allowed to think, “That’s step ONE toward my goal to take away their guns.”  I will not agree with Democrats regarding ANY limitation of my fundamental right to keep and bear arms when it is a matter of public record that many Democrats do not respect the Constitution they took an oath to uphold.

If you want to come here and assert that Republicans are creating a climate of violence by refusing to limit guns, you’ve come to the wrong place.  Because YOU are the reason why we can’t have more gun control.  Because it is your unconstitutional and frankly treasonous determination to take away the people’s right to keep and bear arms that is the REAL reason we can’t come to an accord on smarter gun regulation.

As we speak, the Obama regime is attempting to take our guns away with the power of the United Nations.  Until you Democrats get this demonic turd out of the White House, don’t you DARE try to touch my right to my guns.  And don’t you DARE try to demonize me for fighting to protect the very Bill of Rights and Constitution that YOU are trying to take away.  Because I’m the one who will demonize YOU.

I’ll leave you with two facts.

Fact one: Crime rates in liberal cities shockingly higher than in conservative cities

Fact two: Gun Control Makes Cities Dangerous Places to Live

Update: here’s another interesting fact: gun sales are skyrocketing after the Aurora massacre (see also here).  And many people are buying “assualt weapons” before any possible ban or regulation limits them.  And this isn’t the first time people have bought assault weapons out of fear of the left.  So people are literally buying guns out of fear of liberals while liberals blame conservatives for all the damn guns.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “‘Assault Weapons,’ Gun Control And The Myth Of Which Side Is To Blame For ‘Guns In The Hands Of Killers’”

  1. consideragain Says:

    A great article as well (even on CNN) that stresses that mass murder isn’t like most crimes. These people are crazy, and laws won’t stop them.


  2. Michael Eden Says:


    CNN said something that wasn’t flat-out dishonest? That’s refreshing!

    It’s true. The individual who is willing to die killing people will usually succeed in killing people.

    We have a constitutional right to guns. We DON’T have a constitutional right to cars. But in 2010 there were 33,808 people killed by automobiles. That same year of 2009,there were 9146 people killed with any kind of gun.

    It’s actually a pretty interesting line of thought. There are 62 million vehicles in the U.S., versus more than 250 million guns. Which is to say that there are 303 percent more guns than cars in America, and yet there are 270 percent more people killed with cars than there are with guns.

    I’ve forgotten how to do the math, but it would be interesting to come up with the percentage denoting how much more likely you are to be killed by one of those 62 million cars (that killed nearly four times as many more people as all the guns in America) than you are to be killed by one of the 250 million guns. All I know is that given that there are four times more guns than America than cars and there are nearly four times as many people killed by cars than by guns, well, carrying liberals ought to be trying to ban cars and leave constitutionally protected guns the hell alone.

    And like I said, there is no Amendment in the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear cars.

    Let’s talk about just the police having guns: You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. Maybe we should take guns away from the citizens AND the cops and just let terrorists carry them.

    I guarantee you that I could get into my truck and mow down more than 12 people on virtually any day of the week if I put my mind to it. I could drive around a mall half a dozen times before the cops showed up and double that total. If I waited for school to start and ran over all the children coming home from school, dang, I bet I could hit a hundred fatalities. If James Holmes had waited for the movie to get out and plowed into the crowd streaming out of the theater, do you seriously believe he only would have “got” 12 dead victims??? Hell, the new Prius and Volt cars that Democrats love so much are tailor made for that kind of mass killing; people wouldn’t hear them coming as they drove over their victims.

    People who want to kill will kill. And there are plenty of weapons in our society – including homemade bombs and poisons in our aspirin – that can kill.

    Right now we hear about “drive-by shootings.” If gangs didn’t have guns, you’d be hearing about “drive-by runovers.”

    Someone once said that blaming guns for murder is akin to blaming forks for obesity.

    But liberals go after the guns; they literally go after the ONLY way to kill somebody that is constitutionally protected.

    They don’t go after guns because guns kill; they go after guns because they want to do what the founding fathers tried to prevent and establish a State that the people cannot overthrow.

  3. Kergan Says:

    I am so glad we have laws preventing people like you owning guns in my country. Egos and guns don’t mix well as you periodically find out, at the cost of innocent people’s lives in th USA.

  4. Michael Eden Says:


    I’m just glad you don’t live here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Please don’t come and visit.

  5. Free Market Capitalist Says:

    ” Egos and guns don’t mix well as you periodically find out, at the cost of innocent people’s lives in the USA.”

    Your statement is incorrect. It should read wackos and guns don’t mix. If Michael was truly a wacko, which he is clearly not, and the law “prevented” him from owning one, he could still easily obtain a gun and commit all kinds of crimes against humanity. Yes, even in your beautiful country, which ever one that is. Gun laws are pretty much useless – liberals can’t understand this – when it comes to someone who is severely disturbed and determined to kill. The periodic mass killings here in the U.S. are largely more the result of deep seeded mental illness and demonic activity in the lunatic’s life than ego. The way you describe it, would only apply to socialist, communist etc. dictators (the far left) who’s egos become so big because they view themselves as god.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Free Market Capitalist,

    Thanks for coming to my defense. Good to have a wingman!

    Didn’t we just “celebrate” the one-year anniversary of that mass murderer in Norway? Didn’t this turd Breivik murder something like 77 people with a gun in what is probably the most heavily gun-regulated country on EARTH?

    Try banning guns here, in a nation that has a history of reacting against tyranny – unlike most of the rest of the world that we’ve repeatedly had to rescue because they keep falling under the spell of tyrants. You’d have to kick down every door in America. And then you’d start seeing some more reacting against tyranny right here for a change instead of all the other tyrant-worshiping countries where we’ve fought all our other battles.

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: