Hmmm, I seem to remember already discrediting these talking points. You’d think they’d come up with new ones and make it challenging.
From the LA Times:
“Hunters, target shooters and general gun owners: Try to imagine living in a country that has only one gun store. It’s run by the army, and buyers, who often wait months before receiving a permit, have to prove first that they make an honest living.
They must also undergo a psychological exam. The number of guns one can own is restricted. Ammunition sales are limited. Areas where guns can be carried are severely restricted. Selling guns to another person requires gobs of red tape.
That country is Mexico.
The Arizona Republic today ran a story on Mexico’s gun-control laws, among the strictest in the world, and quoted a Mexican gun shopper as saying, “If the United States had a system like ours, we wouldn’t have so many problems here in Mexico.”
Agustin Villordo was referring, of course, to the heavily armed drug cartels, whose weapons come primarily from the U.S. (Care to prove this Agustin? -ED) And his statement surely will cause U.S. citizens – who cherish their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms as they cherish their freedom — to collectively cringe.
On Thursday, U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will be in Mexico City to discuss ways to prevent smuggling weapons into Mexico. Mexican President Felipe Calderon said recently that “it is necessary to reduce the sale of weapons, particularly of high-power weapons, in the United States.” (Again, where’s your proof? -ED)
(That pitter-patter of feet you hear is the sound of U.S. citizens running to the nearest gun store to purchase weapons before the gun-control screws are tightened on this side of the border.)
To be sure, gun sales in the U.S. will remain brisk during the coming months. Citizens and pro-gun groups anticipate changes anyway, under the new administration. Now they’re concerned about a playing-off-of-fear factor related to the bloody violence unleashed almost daily by cartel members against each other in Mexico.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today published an Op-Ed piece by former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr on gun control. Barr wrote: “After enhancing their majorities in the House and Senate, and fresh from grabbing the brass ring at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Democratic leaders in Washington and their anti-gun counterparts in the Brady Campaign and elsewhere are energized and actively starting to push their anti-gun agenda.”
Barr continued: “If the Obama administration — like its predecessor — was truly serious about stemming whatever the flow of firearms from the United States to Mexico might be (the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms claims 90% of guns used in shootings in Mexico come from the U.S., but it has offered no proof), it could do so easily by simply enforcing and more closely monitoring our immigration and existing firearms laws.”
And Barr concluded: “The gun-control crowd is pushing its radical agenda on these and many other fronts; and law-abiding Americans had better open their eyes to the clever ways in which they are plying their trade in the courts, the Congress and international forums. Much is at stake.”
So it seems.
– Pete Thomas”
The Austin American-Statesman strikes out in an anonymous editorial about the perceived dangers of allowing adult age citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon on college campuses. What makes college campuses different than the surrounding area is not explained.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Horrifying mass murders on college and high school campuses have prompted legislation to allow an armed populace on Texas campuses traditionally free of guns.
A spate of legislation filed at the Capitol this session would expand the rights of properly licensed Texans to carry concealed weapons just about anywhere. The most controversial of those is House Bill 1893, which would allow anyone 21 and older who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun to bring it on any college campus.
The adage that an armed community is a polite community carries some weight in a nation that experiences shooting sprees every week. It is possible that someone bent on killing would hesitate if he or she thought the target or others might be carrying a concealed weapon, though that is highly unlikely.
The arguments for allowing concealed handguns on campuses and in bars — of all places — are ultimately unconvincing. A more plausible scenario is that someone with a weapon would use it improperly or himself become a victim, either of another armed person or responding police officers.
The conflict here is between personal safety and the greater dangers of an armed campus. It seems to us, and many others, that allowing concealed handguns would make the campus a more dangerous place, not a safer place.”
Here’s a Daily Mail post about a five year old girl finally dying from her injuries following a fire which claimed the lives of her brother, father and pregnant mother. It seems the police arrived before the fire brigade, and as panicked neighbors tried to help save the family, they were held back so the proper health and safety rules wouldn’t be broken. All the while this was happening, the desperate mother was at the bedroom window begging and screaming for help. This is just sick.
“The five-year-old girl left fighting for life in hospital after a house fire which killed her mother, father and baby brother has died.
Mark and Michelle Colley, along with three-year-old Louis, died in the blaze at the weekend – despite neighbours saying they could have been saved if police had not held back would-be rescuers.
Now daughter Sophie has also lost her fight for life.
Michelle and Mark Colley, who died in the blaze along with their son Louis, on their wedding day in July 2004
Neighbours said they could see heavily-pregnant Michelle at an upstairs window, screaming ‘please save my kids’ – but police said they had to wait for firemen to arrive.
Family friend David Davis, 38, said: ‘It was the most harrowing thing I have ever seen.
‘Michelle was at the bedroom window and we wanted to help but the police were pushing us back and not allowing us near.
‘We were willing to risk our own lives to save those children but the police just wouldn’t let us – and there was no way they were going to try themselves.
Flowers and teddy bears placed outside the home. Mark and Michelle Colley died alongside their three-year-old son in the blaze, their five-year-old daughter has now also died
‘Tempers were running high but the police were saying we have to wait for the fire brigade because of health and safety rules.’
He added: ‘When a family is burning to death in front of your eyes, rules should go out of the window – especially when children are involved.’”
There are a number of angry comments to be sure, but the vast majority are in favor of the way the Police handled the incident. Many of them saying that the Police are more highly trained and know best how to proceed. Gee, where have I heard that before?
My comment on the news story, which I’m sure will be moderated away:
“The dead Pregnant Mother, Father, son and daughter can rest easy in their graves, knowing no health and safety rules were broken, and no Police officer nor bystander was injured in an attempt to rescue them from the fire. After all, it is the rules and regulations which are the most important, not human lives.
So are there also rules and regulations on the proper time and usage of the toilet? What are the penalties for failing to wipe?
There are still decent people left it would appear, men and women willing to risk there lives in defence of their neighbors. The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
But what can be expected from a place where the basic rights and tools to defend oneself have been banned and stripped from the general public. It sickens me.
Sink the island and start over. It’s the only way to be sure.”
(h/t to Jeffersonian)