"I wonder about our gun laws. Should we be harsher with our gun laws," said Ballard...Good grief.
"I'd like to look at gun laws, frankly. Penalties for illegal guns," said Ballard...
"I have no problem with second amendment legal guns. No problem what so ever on that. It's the illegal guns that are concerning," said Ballard...
The mayors of Fort Wayne and South Bend have signed on to an effort by New York's mayor to strengthen illegal gun laws.
And Greg, if you're looking for a "big hit," here's a clue: Gun control doesn't work.
[Via Mike H]
8 comments:
What's an illegal gun? An RPG?
Or do they really mean a firearm in the possession of someone who's not allowed to have one? Eh?
Is a stolen car an illegal car? Illegal cell phones?
Statistically, they've just increased their chances of being indicted for fraud.
An illegal gun is a gun that has been made illegal by an "illegal gun law". Therefore, to "strengthen illegal gun laws" means to make more kinds of gun illegal to possess. This is the smallest reduction of the argument, yet it is complete in that it includes divisive tactics such as "military-style", hunting, and "common use".
A similar mechanism is in place for "prohibited persons", though it is much closer to the ultimate goal of making the bearing of arms entirely prohibited, where the former applies to the keeping of arms.
The quoted text tells all, you see? Well, not everything. In this case, many words are misused. What's illegal is disarmament, so you must substitute words in your mind in order to translate from statese to English. Just replace "illegal" with "constitutionally-guaranteed", replace "gun" with "liberty", and replace "laws" with "restrictions enforced by threat of violence".
Example:
"'I wonder about our [liberty restrictions enforced by threat of violence]. Should we be harsher with our [liberty restrictions enforced by threat of violence],' said Ballard...
'I'd like to look at [liberty restrictions enforced by threat of violence], frankly. Penalties for [constitutionally-guaranteed liberties],' said Ballard...
"I have no problem with second amendment legal [liberty]. No problem what so ever on that. It's the [constitutionally-guaranteed liberties] that are concerning,' said Ballard...
The mayors of Fort Wayne and South Bend have signed on to an effort by New York's mayor to strengthen [restrictions enforced by threat of violence on constitutionally-guaranteed liberties]."
Also: The second to the last paragraph shows Ballard Contradictoring. You're supposed to wedge something between the two contradicting sentences, Mr. Mayor, otherwise you won't "own the Second Amendment". You'd think that after John Kerry, these people would have learned something about public image.
posting in comments over there in a moment:
"he's convinced that in the effort to end violent crime; illegal guns are a good place to start."
Ballard, you ever heard "putting the cart in front of the horse"? You might want to keep that in mind. To be able to address a problem you first need to UNDERSTAND the problem and identify it's cause. It seems that the mayor (who has decided to stand with quite a few corrupt folks and quite a few criminals in the mayors against illegal guns gang) has decided that an object of undefined characteristics is the cause. He has decided to ignore all of human history and place blame on a tool used by those in the population who have no intention of following the laws in the first place. Perhaps this is because of a shared trait between he and those common thugs. He seeks to violate the laws as well.
Crime of all kinds has always been with us in some form or another, as has violent crime. Long before guns, or crossbows, or spears, sticks, stones, or any other object used in that crime. The crime comes from the mind, from the will to use force to harm or take something from another person. The mayor is committing those same crimes and his tool is his position of power, the ability to use FORCE against the very people he swore to protect from harm. His crimes include fraud and deception, lies, ignorance, and force used against the innocent.
If he should have his way the innocent will be subject to more abuses and intrusions from the government (who make the laws), the criminals (who by definition do not obey laws) and will sadly seek more protection from their oppressors. Giving power to criminals is not a way of addressing violent crime. He is attempting to be seen as someone who is doing something with no intentions of doing it. Perpetuating some crime is guaranteed job security as long as he can contain it to certain segments of the population, sweep it under the rug with the help of the media, or merely address symptoms (guns) as opposed to the causes.
The fine mayor Ballard has chosen to take the cowardly criminal path and address a tool that will provide job security for himself and police for decades to come. He is shifting the fight from crime to objects guaranteeing future crime and further limitations on the innocent.
He will do what criminals have to resort to "violence" to do. He will take whatever he wants without any effort on his part.
I agree ... there should be harsher penalties for passing illegal gun laws.
Since most gun laws are a second amendment violation, and are thus illegal, we should start applying harsher penalties to legislators immediately.
I just opened the comments to take a look-see at HH's reply.
Good grief, I should not have done that. We are not well represented by the other "pro gun" commenters.
Should I criticize the Mayor, the AJ, or the commenters. What to do, what to do...
it's topix.
You think that's bad...
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/asheville-citizen-times/TQV5QNRSRGCPKASP1/p13#lastPost
Future crime? Wasn't there a poorly-done Tom Cruise movie about that? Or was that 'pre-crime'?
Makes as much sense as his ideas do.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post a Comment