As our readers know we don't always like the way Michael Bloomberg runs his fine city. We've disagreed with him on several topics but his statements on gun control are right one and you better believe it is a discussion this nation is long overdue for. Now, our own Mayor Healy is also on Bloomberg's side in this it should be noted. In fact Healy was one of the first mayors to try and put serious laws in place to cut down on senseless and stupid gun violence as we witnessed in Aurora Colorado.
The NRA is counting on everyone forgetting about the movie shootings very soon. The current President, Barack Obama has relaxed more gun laws that George W. Bush did. So when it comes to having a national discussion it is very important people like Healy and Bloomberg speak out. Johnny is of the mind that AK-47 rifles or other assault weapons should never be in the hands of regular citizens. In his opinion neither should handguns. We're all for deer rifles and shotguns and hunting weapons but automatic weapons and handguns? America could do without these guns and never really miss them.
We applaud the Mayors across the river in their stance on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Totally disagree about handguns (the other, I'm somewhat on the fence about). If you are relying on the police to protect you in your home, you are kidding yourself.
Here's one of hundreds of reasons why handguns should remain within our rights:
http://youtu.be/4XSJv8nwVBk
Sorry, you will never convince me (or, I daresay, the majority of Americans). Personal ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens makes the country a safer place (and if you check states that allow concealed carry, stats back this up). Your plan would result in only criminals having handguns - sorry, but that's a huge fail.
I guess the only thing I can agree with is that if individual states want to enact this, that's their right. Some states are more liberal, some less so. But keep the federal government out of it, please.
Here's another pertinent video:
http://youtu.be/KCkr2psNvCs
I understand your defense of handguns though I disagree. I do and there are points to be made yet the entire case to me doesn't add up. But this cavalcade of giant guns more and more powerful doesn't really fall under a well regulated militia ideal. Some of it sounds like the old west or every man for himself.
Another point a good friend made is if we spent half the money we're about to spend on further locking down society in the name of safety on mental health you'd need to do the aforementioned a whole lot less.
Charlie Daniels has put a fine point on this better than I can:
http://cnsnews.com/blog/charlie-daniels/we-cant-make-americans-safer-making-them-defenseless
Bottom line: Punish those who BREAK the law, not those who don't.
Again, more mental health monies would help some of these aggrieved citizens. My point is that it should be breaking the law to own an AK or like gun. You can fit a lot of powerful guns into the hunting and target shooting category but the autos we see like in Aurora and the two bank robbers about ten years ago in California let alone gang members who slaughter people faster (faster being the key word) and I just feel it needs to stop. I've hunted, I wasn't a bad shot. Used to pheasant hunt every fall. I just see a huge chasm between what is legal and what should be in my opinion.
I cannot fully disagree with you -- as I said, I'm on the fence about these weapons. However, responsible, licensed gun owners are VERY RARELY the ones who break the law, regardless of which kind of gun to which you're referring.
(NOTE: But if a "Red Dawn"-type situation ever happens, I'd be damn glad to have 'em.)
I always thought Patrick Swayze was able to save America in Red Dawn because the Russians and Cubans decided to invade the middle of the country first and fight their way to the coasts. Now I'm not Hannibal setting up the Romans at Cannae but even I know Colorado is a bad starting point o invade America.
Post a Comment