an interesting question in inherent in the following

[alan]

The above mentioned question is as follows.

Why is it that supposedly "smart" people, Mayor Street forinstance, seem unable to tell the difference between law abiding citizens, who happen to be gun owners, and or are licensed to carry concealed, and criminals, whose possession of firearms under any circumstances, is violative of law? Might it be that they can tell the difference, but what with media having entered the lists, they find it inconvenient to deal with the facts of the matter, or even to speak thereof? Why is it that this so often seems to be the case, or is it that push having come to shove, elected things revert to type and lie? Asking the question saddens me, however given the antics of so many in public office, the question must be asked. How will it be answereed remains to be seen.


NEWS RELEASE
PHILADELPHIA MURDERS NO REASON TO CLAMP DOWN ON HONEST CITIZENS, SAYS SAF
A wave of homicides in Philadelphia should not be used as an excuse for Mayor John Street to advocate clamping down on the self-defense rights of thousands of law-abiding citizens, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

"When the Philadelphia Daily News asked Mayor Street whether the homicides were related to the 28,000 legally-issued concealed carry licenses in the city, he sidestepped the question," noted SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "Instead, he argues that there are just too many handguns in the city.

"That's a bogus response to a legitimate question," Gottlieb said, "and it lies at the very heart of the gun control debate. It's typically not law-abiding citizens who gun people down on the street in drug deals, or who are the killers in drive-by shootings or acts of domestic violence. Yet anti-gunners like Mayor Street are quick to argue that the only way to stop the criminal misuse of firearms is to punish people who aren't even remotely responsible for the crimes."

Gottlieb concurred with State Rep. Dwight Evans, a Philadelphia Democrat, who told a newspaper that, "It's not like you're going to pass a bill and this is going to go away."

"Evans is right," Gottlieb observed. "If Mayor Street thinks he's going to suddenly make street violence disappear by denying law-abiding citizens their right to self-defense, he's sadly mistaken. This is not a problem that can be easily solved by eliminating the means of personal protection for thousands of Philadelphia residents, turning those people against you in the process. Gun owners are typically the most ardent supporters of law enforcement efforts to crack down on crime.

"Tired rhetoric about ‘too many guns on the streets' is not going to prevent a single crime in Philadelphia or anywhere else," Gottlieb concluded. "Absent the city's ability to round up the perpetrators and hold them accountable, Mayor Street's approach is to shift responsibility to legally-armed citizens who had nothing to do with any of these crimes. That's not simply wrong, it is dangerous."

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers & an amicus brief & fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

 

[MikeIsaj]

If you "suppose" Mayor Street is smart, you obviously aren't familiar with the man or his administration.

 

[Rebar]

The problem is that they are lieing.

The gun grabbers say "gun control" is to prevent crime. But they already know that gun control doesn't work.

Their true purpose is to disarm law-abiding citizens so we can be more easily controlled. The left-wingers know that, as long as we have the means to resist, their dreams of a socialist utopia will never come true. Look into Hillery's eyes, she'd love to march us gun owners, republicans, libertarians, and anyone else who might disagree into gulags for "reeducation".

Of course they can't outright say that, so they lie and fear monger to get their way. So far, they're batting about .500.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Why is it that this so often seems to be the case, or is it that push having come to shove, elected things revert to type and lie?

Leftist extremists and three-year-old children almost invariably blame someone else for their problems. The difference is that the vast majority of three-year-olds outgrow such behavior.

Their true purpose is to disarm law-abiding citizens so we can be more easily controlled. The left-wingers know that, as long as we have the means to resist, their dreams of a socialist utopia will never come true.

I think you're mostly right. Sooner or later, if they succeed in incrementally weakening the Second Amendment a great deal more, the leftist extremists will conclude that even though we're armed, we're not much of a threat to their plans to turn America into a larger, somewhat more prosperous East Germany.

I'm afraid their conclusion will be proved correct. Truth to tell, we haven't put up a very effective resistance to date.

 

[Zundfolge]

Their true purpose is to disarm law-abiding citizens so we can be more easily controlled. The left-wingers know that, as long as we have the means to resist, their dreams of a socialist utopia will never come true.

Thats partially true, the other half of the truth is that they know that more gun control will cause more violent crime and make the sheeple feel less safe. That way the public will BEG the government to take more and more of our rights away "in the name of safety".

It is easier to put chains on someone begging for the chains then to put chains on someone who is resisting them.

 

[JPM70535]

I'm going to have a go at offering a possible reason for the almost lockstep answer given by the "bleeding heart" liberal, (mostly Denocrat) politicians to the ever increasing violent crime problem involving the use of firearms.

When the likes of Teddy Kennedy, Chukie Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and the Queen of gun grabbers world wide, Hillary ( I never met a killer I couldn't see good in ) Clintoon cry out that the answer to all the world's woes can be laid directly at the feet of the NRA, and gun owners who just have too damned many of the evil fire breathing hand cannons. Making it difficult for the Criminal element to gain access to the tools of their trade by effectively reducing the supply seems like a no brainer that should offend no one.

IMO, what they are really saying if that The gun owning Public is too inept, and lacks the mental maturity to be trusted with anything so vile as a "GUN" Heaven only knows how many childhood deprived lower Socio-economic youths have been gunned down in COLD blood while merely attempting to ply their trades. The loss of even one of these precious darlings is unacceptable, bless their hearts, and do you know why?

The answer is, TA-DA, THEY VOTE, and it ain't for Conservatives.

I had an old Lt. (police) tell me something thatis always fresh on my mind whenever discussions like this come up. He said "The only votes they (Liberals) get are the sick, the defective, and the lazy"

JPM

 

[TimRB]

I agree with Rebar. I think the whole "criminals use guns, so let's get rid of guns" argument is a smoke screen. The gun grabbers don't care at all about crime. They just hate guns.

Tim

 

[The Rabbi]

I think its more subtle than that.

Pols cannot control illegal guns, by definition. But they do want to be seen as "doing something" about crime. Since they cant control illegal guns they will control legal guns and crow about how they are making things safer by "getting guns off the streets." Of course they are doing no such thing. But it works with the voters so they will continue to do it.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The gun grabbers don't care at all about crime. They just hate guns.

You're mostly right. They don't, indeed, care at all about crime; furthermore, they know criminals overwhelmingly vote for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party. They do, indeed, hate guns, but I believe they hate firearms owners even more: they loathe, detest, and despise commoners who decline to accept their purported "leadership."

It is easier to put chains on someone begging for the chains then to put chains on someone who is resisting them.

I think Zundfolge has nailed it.

 

[Old Fuff]

There are all kinds of gun-grabbers, and they sometimes have different perspectives and motives. But I find that they all have these points in common.

1. They are afraid of guns, and therefore don't wnat to own them, and by extension don't want anyone else to either. The obvious exceptions are those elites who believe it's O.K. for them to have weapons, but not anyone else.

2. They believe that government control (through gun control laws) is the solution to what they want. Even more, they tend to believe that government control is the solution to any and all problems. These sheeple need a shepherd and deeply distrust and dislike anyone who is so independent that they think they can go through life without one ...

3. If the proposed solution doesn't work the answer is that we need more of the same thing.

So if the shepherd tells them that they will be safer if no one is allowed to have a gun - or in particular not carry one - they believe it.

But of course the sheeple aren't bright enough to wonder about how all of this is going to be enforced against criminals.

As my late mother used to say, "some people don't have enough brains to keep their ears apart."

 

[patentmike]

Liberalism is based on the desire to feel good. Dealing with criminals is unpleasant, it doesn't feel good to punish someone or get them off the street. After all, it might hurt their feelings, and it suggests that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. The notion of wrong really scares the liberal, whose whole outlook is designed to make them feel good about themselves. If there is such thing as wrong, then what feels good to me might not actually be right.
So how do you deal with crime? The only thing left is to go after the inanimate objects, like guns. People who think that guns are not evil in and of themselves must believe that people behind the guns could be evil. Obviously anyone so "narrowminded" should be discounted, which just confirms that their guns should be punished. Oh, and if you get too tired to think, then it's Bush's fault.