Whenever there is a shooting or a terrorist attack, Democrat lefties immediately seize on the tragedy, seemingly before the bodies are cleared, in order to ride their favorite political hobby horse of gun confiscation, or as they like to more gently refer to it, gun control. There seems to be a complete logic disconnect as they suggest that taking guns away from ordinary citizens is going to make everyone safer when the bad guys or the terrorists come to shoot them. How will unarmed citizens be safer under those circumstances?
There is, in fact, ample evidence that arming the public will do more to advance the safety of society than even a huge increase in police might would. Police cannot be everywhere at every moment, but an armed populace, especially one with hidden weapons, is a tremendous deterrent to bad guys since they have no idea who is armed or where they may be. And it certainly does not require arming every person in a crowd. The unknown factor of who might or might not be packing a nine millimeter pistol keeps the baddies guessing.
The evidence for this proposition is that most or all of the recent mass shootings have taken place in “gun free zones,” meaning zones designated to be free of guns. And they were, except for the bad guy or guys, who somehow missed the rule and so were able to mow down countless unarmed and defenseless citizens.
Another arrogant, anti-gun “progressive,” in this case a law professor by the name of David Cohen, has rushed to print anti-American propaganda in Rolling Stone magazine. While there may be as many as a dozen people who still actually read the magazine, it might still be instructive to broaden the reach of his musings and review some of the good professors points in this article.
Read anti-gun arguments on page 2:
Shall not be infringed. Sorry folks you got no chance at getting the guns. Unless it is from our cold dead hands
ABSOLUTELY NOT. WHAT we need to do is make it harder for MENTALLY ILL PERSONS to obtain WEAPONS. As well as PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE FBI TWICE IN A FEW YEARS FOR TERRORISTIC THREATS
Rolling Stone must have ties with Hillary
Boycott Rolling Stone
Boycott Rolling Stone
Boycott Rolling Stone
Simple Definition of traitor
a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy.
Full Definition of traitor
1 one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 one who commits treason
treason
n. the crime of betraying one’s country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include “espionage” (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies, particularly involved in security) but is separate and worse than “sedition” which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government. (See: sedition, espionage)
TREASON, crim. law. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. 4 Bl. Com. 75.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s. 3, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war (q.v.) against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. Act of April 30th, 1790, 1 Story’s Laws U. S. 83. By the same article of the constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Vide, generally, 3 Story on the Const. ch. 39, p. 667; Serg. on the Const. ch. 30; United States v. Fries, Pamph.; 1 Tucker’s Blackst. Comm. Appen. 275, 276; 3 Wils. Law Lect. 96 to 99; Foster, Disc. I; Burr’s Trial; 4 Cranch, R. 126, 469 to 508; 2 Dall. R. 246; 355; 1 Dall. Rep. 35; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 234; 1 John. Rep. 553 11 Johns. R. 549; Com. Dig. Justices, K; 1 East, P. C. 37 to 158; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 60 to 102; Arch. Cr. Pl. 378 to 387.
SEDITION, crimes. The raising commotions or disturbances in the state; it is a revolt against legitimate authority, Ersk. Princ. Laws, Scotl. b. 4, t. 4, s. 14; Dig. Lib. 49, t. 16, 1. 3, Sec. 19.
2. The distinction between sedition and treason consists in this, that though its ultimate object is a violation of the public peace, or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws, or the subversion of the constitution. Alis. Crim. Law of Scotl. 580.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.
Rolling Stone must have ties with Hillary. Boycott Rolling Stone
Why not stop watching CNN. We will watch their station die.
We do need commen sense gun laws: Muslims shouldnt be allowed to have guns on account of the terrorists