"Sunset Provision, 1944."The Orlando Sentinel has once again demanded our disarmament. Here is what they have to say.
We think: A renewed federal assault- weapons ban is long overdue
February 3, 2009
An erstwhile federal ban on assault weapons made lots of sense. Allowing it to lapse, as Congress did in 2004, didn't.
How much longer will it take to correct that mindless mistake?
There's no need for ordinary citizens to be armed with such lethal firepower. Hunters don't need them. Gun-toting urbanites don't need them, either.
Those who say that outlawing these lethal rifles will only mean that criminals will have access to them are flat wrong. All that legalization does is make it easier for crooks to get them, and make it necessary for police to play catch-up in a costly city-street arms race.
It's happening right here in Central Florida. Only six years ago, officers in Orlando and Orange County seized 15 high-powered AK-47s and AR-15s. Four years later, that number grew to 79, a jump of more than 400 percent.
These guns are not in the hands of good people trying to protect themselves. No one is trying to trample on Second Amendment rights.
But there do not seem to be many examples where honest citizens stopped a crime, or caught a criminal, by brandishing an AK-47 or some similar brand of assault rifle. However, there are too many examples of the opposite -- criminals using these weapons to kill people or law-enforcement officers.
The latest one occurred in Miami last week, when an unknown assailant fired an AK-47 into a crowd of teenagers, murdering two youths and wounding seven others.
Sound familiar? Last October, two killers fired 58 rounds from two AK-47s during a gunfight in Pine Hills that left two men dead.
Orlando Police Chief Val Demings has seen enough. Getting guns off the streets is one of her top priorities. The same holds true for Jerry Demings, recently elected sheriff in Orange County.
Their challenge is daunting: Almost 10 illegal guns a day are seized in this community.
The lines between a legal and an illegal gun are blurry. In Florida, guns are readily available to anyone without a criminal record. But guns routinely end up in the hands of criminals. All it takes is a "straw purchase," when a friend or relative buys a gun for a criminal.
It's time to make some of that more-potent firepower illegal -- period.
After the latest incident in Miami, Police Chief John Timoney said that the percentage of homicides involving assault weapons jumped to 29 percent of all shooting fatalities in 2008. Mr. Timoney implored Congress to reinstate the ban.
Mr. Timoney and other advocates for outlawing assault weapons are right. Bringing back the ban is long overdue, and Congress ought to place the ban on its "to-do" list immediately.
Yes, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have plenty of other business in front of them. But an assault-weapons ban shouldn't take much debate.
This one's a no-brainer. The ban was once on the books; all that Congress has to do is write it back into U.S. law.
Oh, yes, with one exception. Don't write in a sunset provision this time.
Don't worry. The only "mindless mistake" made will be yours if you pass another AWB. We'll write the "sunset provision" this time. It will look like the photo above of the "sunset provision" on the Third Reich. Or maybe, like this:
This is what Harry Reid will look like when we invoke our sunset provision:
Or, maybe it will look like Cornwallis at Yorktown:
But I rather think it will be like one of my buddies says, "Hell, Mike, every liberal I ever met was a pussy. They're ALL pussies." So maybe, at least in the Orlando Sentinel editorial board meeting room, it will look like this:
THAT'S OUR "SUNSET PROVISION" THIS TIME, YOU FREEDOM-DENYING, PROPERTY-STEALING, LIFE-DESTROYING COLLECTIVIST PUKES.
Leave us the hell alone.
9 comments:
Does this mindless freak ever think that the reason that a crime never get's stopped with a semi auto (I refuse to call them assault rifles cause they are not) is because everyone that owns one doesn't want to run around with one cause of all the crap and flap about them. Ever think about it? We law abiding citizens have to gun down for fear of having to answer a ton of questions and a sphincter exam for daring to exercise our rights.
When we win this thing the first time one of these pinheads raise their head and start spouting their anti gun crap I'm gonna shoot em dead in the ass.
The reason no one stops crime with a semi auto ( I never refer to them as assault rifles) is because everyone leaves them at home. They are afraid to run around with them in their car. Can you imagine gettin stopped for failure to yield and havin a (oh my God) legal semi auto in your vehicle. You'd be a suspect for sure if you are near McDonalds or if in a school zone your goin to prison fo sho'. We live in strange times bro's.
When we win thid thing and one of these pinheads opens his/her mouth I will probably shoot them square in the ass.
AMEN, Mike.
How dare anyone attempt to usurp my right of self defense using the tool of my choice. The mere attempt to usurp that right, in itself, consitutes an attack on me and my family. Having legally and ethically exercised my right of self defense, I know first hand how valuable it is.
*The anti's must realize we will not necessarily go quietly this time.*
LUTHA: Is that so difficult to understand? Well, yes, for tyranny and it's minions.
If the anti's start it, we'll obligingly finish it.
\vent
bobcat
I intend to live out my days in peace. If the enemies of the Constitution start a war, I intend to live out my days in freedom. Ready.
Dakota writes: When we win this thing the first time one of these pinheads raise their head and start spouting their anti gun crap I'm gonna shoot em dead in the ass.
In order to keep the moral high ground, I think it is very important to consider in advance how you will distinguish between (a) free speech, and (b) planning to commit a crime.
At a minimum, I think a criminal act requires means, motive, and opportunity. If the person spouting anti gun crap is not able to hire anyone to enforce it on you, and he won't do it himself, then how does he have means or opportunity? He's not a criminal, he's just in error. You have no right to touch him.
Anon:
I think Dakota is engaging in a little down-home hyperbole.
Point the First: Being shot in the butt is not usually fatal. My own great-great grandfather was shot in the ass and captured while serving as a federal artilleryman attached to Sheridan's Division at the Slaughter Pen during the battle of Stones River, 31 December 1862. Lt. Buck Compton of "Band of Brothers" was famously shot through both buttocks during Market Garden in Holland.
Point the Second: In threatening to shoot someone "dead in the ass" the accent is on the "ass" not the "dead." The "dead" in my understanding refers to accuracy not terminal ballistics. Now if he had said "right between the eyes" or some other such deadly place that would be one thing, but he didn't. The whole idea is get the man's attention by wounding, not killing him.
Point the Third: As concerned as I am about maintaining the moral high ground, I think you may be taking it a bit too seriously.
Point the Fourth: Dakota's premise is that after all the blood and sacrifice it will take to restore the Founders' Republic, anybody who proposes to do it again DESERVES to get shot "dead in the ass." I think so too.
Dakota, if it happens, and in the unlikely event we're both around to see it, you take the left buttock and I'll take the right. Take care aiming, now. ;-)
Mike
And too, their collective asses are such large inviting targets, unlike brains and balls which shrink to insignificance even with aid of a twelve power scope.
Borrowing a page from their own playbook I strongly propose that the Orlando loons be henceforth restricted to handbills and wooden type. After all the First Amendment mentions nothing about the electronic age and the internet.
"The Tree of Liberty is getting thirsty!"
I think Dakota is engaging in a little down-home hyperbole.
Whether he would actually do it or not, I think the urge is genuine and honestly described. While the urge may be natural, I do not think it is noble.
In a free country, people think whatever they want and do whatever they want as long as they don't harm other people. Wasn't Jefferson's standard of "harm" to pick his pocket or break his leg? Now, if this Liberal is trying to hire a tax collector, that's a different story. But that's not the story offered, it's just some idiot stating obnoxious opinions. If you won't respect free speech and freedom of conscience, however wrong, then what principle stops you from beating Liberals, hippies, homosexuals, and longhair peaceful protesters? People who worship the wrong god, speak the wrong language, or love the wrong color or gender?
There are 300 million different collections of opinions here, and they do not conveniently divide into two homogeneous camps who could in theory part ways. The best plan I've seen for an all-ways truce is the bill of rights, minus the rest of the document. At least they are principles that define a worthy goal. Beating up people who you feel are in error is not a worthy goal.
Post a Comment