therevenantrising: the-flustered-fox: therevenantrising: the-flustered-fox: therevenantrising: …

therevenantrising:

the-flustered-fox:

therevenantrising:

the-flustered-fox:

therevenantrising:

the-flustered-fox:

It’s been time to talk about it for far too fucking long.

How many more will die? How many more will be going avout their day, following a regular routine, and be mowed down by bullets by just living their life?

It’s fucking time to change.

America. My home. I was born and raised here. My parents were. My grandparents were, and they were born to immigrant parents who came to America in hopes for a better life. On my mothers side it was from Poland, leaving in the early 1900s to escape poverty. For my dads side it was the same thing, but from Italy.

People come to this country to have a better life.

People in this country get shot by just trying to lead those better lives.

To everyone who has died from gun violence, I’m sorry. I’m so so sorry that this stupid, ignorant country hasn’t done more.

I’m so so sorry

Ok. Let’s talk.

What specific gun control measures would have effectively and realistically prevented this attack or attacks like it?

A quick scroll through your blog shows enough that you are clearly a self-righteous, entitled, white asshole of a man who I shouldn’t even waste my time on. But I’m angry. So here is what we should be doing

“Specific gun control measures??

How about better background checks?

Not supplying full auto capable fire arms??

Or LIMITING WHAT KINDS OF GUNS ARE SOLD

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 gives Congress the power to regulste commerce and they need to pass a bill about those things

No person needs to own an AR15 to protect their home

The second amendment VERBATIM states

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people shall not be infringed

The framers of the constitution deadass had MUSKETS that could fired A SINGLE ROUND in a few minutes time

No way could they have forseen a weapon capable of massacreing people as quickly as they can now

The people were granted the Lockean right to Revolution against oppressive government and if they chose not to listen, we should use it”

– via my friend Kieran who knows their shit

Apparently the government just doesn’t care if people die. Men, women, children, it doesn’t matter if they get a bullet in them Cause “oh noooooooo my rights! I need my guuuuuns!” No you don’t.

You. Don’t.

Oh and another thing Mr. NSFW/18+ Only Blogger, get the fuck off my blog you sick perv, I’m a minor

How about better background checks?

The shooter was dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force.  This bars him under federal law from legally purchasing or owning firearms.  His weapon was illegally obtained.  Better background checks would not have prevented this.

Not supplying full auto capable fire arms??

Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated for decades now under both the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Hughes Amendment of 1986.  Furthermore, the shooter did not use a fully automatic weapon.  This argument is irrelevant.

No person needs to own an AR15 to protect their home.

That is your opinion.  Countless citizens who have used AR-15 pattern rifles to protect their homes would disagree.

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA…

I’ll
begin with a basic English lesson.  Let’s take a look at the text of
the 2nd Amendment, but slightly tweaked.  Something like this:

‘A
well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day,
the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.’

Now, based on this sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food?  A well balanced breakfast?  Or the people?

If you say a well balanced breakfast, you’re a damn fool.  The founding fathers specifically wanted to protect the of the people to right
to keep and bear arms.  We know this because that is what they wrote.  
They didn’t write ‘the right of the militia’ or ‘the right of the army’
or ‘the right of the government’ or any other group other than the right
of the people.  It’s right there in plain English.  This was
later backed up and reinforced by the founding fathers in The Federalist
Papers.  I encourage you to educate yourself and read them.

But,
hey don’t take my word for it.  Let’s see what one of the most respected
American experts on the English language has to say about it.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Oh, well would you look at that.  He agrees that the 2nd Amendment is expressing that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the militia.

If this is somehow not enough to convince you, check out DC vs Heller.

In
spite of the personal opinion of gun-control advocates, The 2nd
Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a
militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as
self-defense within the home or in public.

Opinions do not trump rights.

It should also be noted that “the militia” is actually
every able bodied citizen in the country and when The 2nd Amendment was
written “well regulated” did not mean what it means today.  At the time,
“well regulated” simply meant to be in working order.  To simply be
functioning as intended.  What it does not mean is heavily regulated by our government, which is what many gun-control advocates like to assume.

The framers of the constitution deadass had MUSKETS that could fired A SINGLE ROUND in a few minutes time

No way could they have forseen a weapon capable of massacreing people as quickly as they can now

It seems that you are suggesting that the founding fathers could not
envision pistols, repeating firearms, or guns with high rates of fire
when the 2nd Amendment was written and that is utter bullshit.

As for firearms, there were plenty of repeating and
large capacity rapid firing guns at the time. And considering the
intelligence of the Founding Fathers as statesmen, inventors, gunsmiths,
armorers, generals, and the like, its safe to assume they knew how
things were evolving especially when you consider the advancements made
in everything around them from their birth to their deaths and the times
before them.

The existence of these guns and weapon systems
prove that the concept of advanced weapons with large capacity and fire
rate was possible and already a reality.

Apparently the government just doesn’t care if people die. Men,
women, children, it doesn’t matter if they get a bullet in them Cause
“oh noooooooo my rights! I need my guuuuuns!” No you don’t.

You. Don’t.

Once again, your opinion.  But I will leave you with this.

A common question gun control advocates
like to ask is, “How many more have to die before we enact stricter gun
control?”

By begging this question, gun-control advocates are
ignoring a very crucial piece of information:  Guns help protect
innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.  
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this
country alone every single year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w

Quite
simply put, guns save innocent lives.  And they do so far more often
than they hurt them.  When guns are harming more innocent lives than
they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to
further limit guns.

But for now, it’s not even close.

Madam, I may be a man, an asshole, and white.  That is true.  But I am also informed on topics and base my beliefs in researched facts rather than knee jerk emotions.  I encourage you to work to do the same.

If you look at literally any other country with stricter gun laws you’ll notice that they have far fewer tragedies like we do in America.

We need to change. Decades have passed and people are still dying because nothing is freaking changing.

Don’t agree with me? I don’t care, get off my blog.

Any other country with strict gun control?  Okay.  Let’s take a look.

Gun Control in Other Countries:

People have a
habit of making the false assumption that stricter gun control results
in lower violent crime and/or lower gun violence.  This assumption is
simply not true.

Gun Related Deaths per 100,000

  • United States – 10.64

Countries With Strict Gun Control:

  • Mexico – 11.17
  • Brazil – 19.03
  • Colombia – 28.14
  • El Salvador – 46.85
  • Guatemala – 36.38
  • Honduras – 64.8
  • Jamaica – 39.74
  • South Africa – 21.51
  • Swaziland – 37.16
  • Venezuela – 50.90

I could keep going, but it’s really a bit irrelevant considering none of these countries are bound by America’s Constitution or Bill Of Rights.  What other countries do is irrelevant to US gun control as it would violate American constitutional rights.

I don’t need an AR15 to defend my home, because I have a PTR91 for that