.

Obama, Biden and Feinstein: The 2nd Amendment Three Stooges

Like Larry, Moe and Curly trying to solve a problem, Obama, Biden and Feinstein are running in circles in the wrong direction.

President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and California Senator Dianne Feinstein have now rolled out their plan of salvation regarding gun violence. 

With the ceremonial proceedings of the 23 executive orders and the ceremonial introduction of the new "assault weapons ban", the whirlwind tour is set to begin, and yet, once again the real issues are not addressed, nor are any problems solved.  Much like the antics of the famed Three Stooges, they are poking each other in the eyes and beating each other on the head.

Not one thing proposed does anything to prevent the violence and tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, but from their grand announcements, you would think that these three have saved the world.  The truth is,not one thing proposed would have done anything to prevent such a tragedy.

But even beyond the rampage style killings, there is a whole section of gun violence that none of these proposals addresses, that kill far more people, including children, than all of the rampage murder victims combined since 1982, in one year , in one city.  Since 1992, there have been 396 rampage murder victims. The FBI defines a mass murderer or rampage murder as someone who kills four or more people in a single incident, usually in one location. By comparison, in the same time period, Chicago has had 13,231 murder victims.  Already year-to-date, Chicago recorded it's 40th homicide and January isn't even over.  Seven this past weekend.  According to the UK Guardian, there are 32 gun murders per day in the United States.

Why do I choose Chicago?  Number one, it is Obama's hometown.  Number two, it has the largest murder rate.  Number three, and I know the three stooges don't like to hear this; they have the strictest gun laws in the country.  Not to mention, many of the same bans called for in Feinstein's laughable gun ban proposal.  Gangs, according to most law enforcement officials, account for the majority of homicides.  Our inner cities are war zones akin to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.  Nothing is there to address this problem.  Nothing.  Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and even here in Racine, these murderers get minimal sentences and are on the streets again to kill.  Not even mentioned by the stooges.

So while the 99.97% of us gun owners who never commit a crime, according to the FBI, are being stripped of our rights because of a hand-full of truly evil lunatics, the inevitable will happen.  Some evil lunatic will try to out-do the last one and another tragedy will occur.  And this pattern will continue.  Always has, and always will, and nothing proposed will do anything to prevent it, nor will it reduce the number of deaths.  It is just another feelgood legislation that should never pass, should never be considered, and should just fade away.  That won't happen unless "We the People" let it happen.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Lyle Ruble January 30, 2013 at 07:52 PM
@Brian Dey....This hoarding of AR-15s and ammunition has been going on longer than Obama has been in office. I don't think Obama's potential actions have created the mindset that has resulted in such stockpiles.
Steve ® January 30, 2013 at 07:54 PM
just in case link doesn't work for all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKlmZQVcXHU
Steve ® January 30, 2013 at 07:58 PM
I don't use my semi automatic rifle to assault people, so please call it a self defense rifle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKlmZQVcXHU
J. B. Schmidt January 30, 2013 at 08:06 PM
@Lyle What is evil? Society has chosen to accept many things that have/could be considered bad. In the last 50 years the one cultural change our country has seen that transcends all social issues is the loss of restraint. The belief that 'want' and 'need' can be perceived as equal. We are a wealthy country and with wealth comes the ability to purchase more then you need. That is not always bad. However, for decades it has slowly morphed into the beast we are just coming to terms with. What was one of the factors behind the housing crash? The idea that personal 'want' for property size should not impact personal debt. What has created the possible student loan bubble? The idea that personal 'want' for a profession should outweigh 1) the job prospects and 2) the impact of the debt. What is driving the national debt? The idea that the 'wants' of some citizens are permissible over the countries ability to provide. So as personal restraint has been eliminated, with a large group of people living off 'wants' and the governments leaders pointing the path to decadence; then yes it is leading to social decline. As for the specific hoarding of guns and ammunition. From a societal stand point it is no more dangerous then collecting shoes. My guess is that more people have been killed for their sneakers then in mass shootings in the US. Those hoarding weapons are not the ones committing the crimes.
CowDung January 30, 2013 at 08:07 PM
Lyle: How long has the stockpiling/hoarding been going on? Could it have been inspired by the Brady Bill or any of the number of attempts to ban certain weapons that have been proposed since then? I tend to agree with Brian that people tend to hoard the things they fear will not be available at some point in the near future.
Brian Dey January 30, 2013 at 08:29 PM
Lyle: Check this out- http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf. the last time gun sales exceeded 5,000,000 per year was 1993 and 1994, just before the 1994 ban. Also of note, a sharp upswing began in 2008 and at leat in this chart from the ATF, continues to 2010. This seems to support that sales dramatically increase when gunowners feel threatened that the ywill lose their rights.
Lyle Ruble January 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM
@J.B. Schmidt....Believe it or not I agree with you on inconspicuous consumption as being a source of many of the problems of our society. The period following post WW II began the era of mass media marketing, convincing people of the need for more and more stuff. What really kicked it off was the advent of easy general credit emerging in the mid 1960s. We saw the establishment of a symbiotic relationships between producers, consumers and financiers. It was the system that created unprecedented growth and led to the global economic system that we now live under. Who do we single out to hold responsible? I disagree about the killing for shoes scenario, although it has happened, but not to the extent that you indicate. I think, that stockpiling firearms and ammunition goes beyond just consumptive behavior; people are stockpiling based on a specific world view perception and fear. They are preparing for the worst case scenario, which may become self fulfilling, if left unabated. The control, flow and spin of information can be the trigger that would escalate from just planning to actuality. The more stockpiles, the higher the probability of becoming a reality of horror.
GearHead January 31, 2013 at 03:44 AM
Since the brilliant Lyle is so puzzled why someone would legally "hoard a quarter million rounds of 223", perhaps he can stop barking up the wrong tree, and examine wht DHS has been the biggest hoarder of all. To the tune of 1.4 BILLION rounds. Why is that, Lyle? Shore wood expecting to be overrun by terrorists? Please enlighten us on the need for this. Wake up! Any sane individual can see the government is arming against the citizens, and they aren't banning themselves of 30 round magazines. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/why_does_homeland_security_need_14_billion_rounds_of_ammunition.html
GearHead January 31, 2013 at 03:45 AM
More... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/obama-administration-repositioning-homeland-security-ammunition-containers/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
$$andSense January 31, 2013 at 04:52 AM
Very well said Brian. If Pelosi was still around, that would have made 4 stooges. We have become a country of emotional reactionary dolts ran by rapacious Constitutional gutters going after it like a filet knife to a trout. I hope they cut themselves in the process.
$$andSense January 31, 2013 at 04:57 AM
I see Lyle the ever present intellect is on the ball. Where is 'ole paint brushes Carlson?
vocal local 1 January 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Excellent Point GearHead. Periodically I'm seeing reports of government agencies buying huge amounts of ammunition, Fema, RFP's for ready to eat meals, coffins, major city response drills including helicopters flying above. And, always a lack of critical information on rationale.
vocal local 1 January 31, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Sorry $andSense. Lyle is not an intellectual. Lyle is a product of his socialization and education. At times he accepts and argues from an inaccurate learned knowledge base. Enlightenment results from challenge. I'm sure he means well, he argues politically correct it's just his accepted facts are at times false when put to the test and he has not tested and proven his accepted fact base. Lyles ideology is dangerous in that it blocks advancement of the whole. Kinda like the accepted belief that the world was flat. Unchallenged, America wouldn't have been discovered possibly until the advent of the airplane.
KHD January 31, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Vocal, agree 100%.
GearHead January 31, 2013 at 02:44 PM
Vocal, the airplane wouldn't have been discovered, because the smart smug people "knew" that if man was meant to fly, he would have been given wings. This, coming from a culture headed by kings, where beheadings were commonplace. His ideology is more dangerous than you let on, because he thinks he's on the leading edge of social advancement. It constantly amazes how unfounded his conclusions usually are.
Jeff Hoffman January 31, 2013 at 09:02 PM
I respect the author's opinion, but his tone is not serious, nor respectful. I suspect he is mostly preaching to the already converted. If he truly wants a discourse about the subject, he should treat those with different views as he would like to be treated. Reasonable people can disagree, but smearing those whom aren't in lockstep with your own views just makes it harder for every one of us to live together. I struggle with this issue, as one who bought my first shotgun at eleven years old and a proud Army veteran; I've wanted an AR-15 for years. Still, I can see the downside of assault weapons when the wrong, irrational, person decides to inflict mayhem upon his fellow man/woman. I am not sure what the reasonable solution is to this dilemma. However, I tend to think that a just and proper solution would leave both sides at least somewhat disappointed. Perhaps that sort of solution is truly the wisest.
$$andSense February 03, 2013 at 12:31 PM
Jeff Your post comes across a little scary. At least to me. How did you as an 11 year old be able to buy a shotgun? My father handed down my first shotgun to me when I turned 12, with the caveat that I could only use it if he was present until I turned 16 and after passing Hunter Safety. That shotgun was locked up otherwise. Please explain.
Jeff Hoffman February 03, 2013 at 04:37 PM
@$$andSense, The sale was between me and my Uncle Bud, with my Dad in the mix too. I think it was 1971. I paid $50 for it second hand. It was my money, and I'm not even sure I fired it before I was 12; it stayed in a locked closet. My Dad held the keys. The side by side, Spanish 20 gauge double barrel had a malfunctioning safety when we first got it, so we took it to a local gunsmith immediately and I paid the repair bill from my bank account too, as I recall. I took the hunter's safety course right around that time also, so I would be ready to hunt immediately when I turned 12. My Dad had a few guns, including a CO2 pellet pistol that I had used under the watchful eye of my Father prior to turning 12. He was always careful with me, only letting me have one shell at a time in those early days and correcting me sternly if I did anything he deemed as potentially dangerous. I ultimately saw his wisdom while hunting with a cousin my age whose muzzle discipline was sorely lacking; he eventually killed his family's beagle while rabbit hunting. After my Dad died a few years ago, I took all his guns to be appraised by a local gunsmith. He informed me that my little 20 Gauge, with its pretty engraving of dogs, birds and hunters, was now nearly twice as valuable as any other gun in the collection.
$$andSense February 03, 2013 at 05:33 PM
And now I know the rest of the story. Thank you Jeff. My father was much the same when it came to firearms. He gave me my first shotgun because I think he was embarrased that I could do better than him with it when it came to flying clays. But, put a rifle in his hands and all bets were off. Dad was spot on at 100 yards and beyond. I guess his WW2 military service taught him that.
Keith Worst February 05, 2013 at 02:54 AM
I'm with yah on this one Brian. Taking a loaded or automatic gun out of the hands of even one person is immoral, unconstitutional and it makes Thomas Jefferson's ghost weep. Like all conservatives I only believe in passing laws that criminals will obey. By senselessly passing gun laws they will not obey you just put people in jail instead of finding laws they will abide by. It's like drunk driving or murder laws. By passing them you do nothing to protect the public. In fact, if we had more drunk drivers it would make the roads safer because everyone would be more attentive.
Keith Worst February 05, 2013 at 02:59 AM
JB is right. After all our guns would take out the United state's army's tanks and predator drones. By putting our poorly educated gun owners who for whatever reason are salivating at the idea of shooting American soldiers, I think they will be a stable defense against the army when they come for you. After all, these citizen patriots I'm sure are far more skilled in combat than our army. Right? In fact if we put these patriots in Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe we would have won those wars.
Keith Worst February 05, 2013 at 03:01 AM
Gearhead is right. Doing anything to keep the guns out of any one single person's hands is immoral. Look at the patriot in Alabama with his underground shelter. He just exercised his 2nd Amendment rights. Can you believe Obama wants to take guns away from a guy like that? It's enough to make any republican's blood boil. Don't tread on our rights Barry!
Keith Worst February 05, 2013 at 03:04 AM
An I' with Craig! By having all our neighbors with their host of criminal and domestic abuse histories going to Cabelas's and loading up on guns before Barry sends troops door to door to confiscate then just because he thinks they're "unfit" to carry a gun and use it how they please. He's going down as tyrannical as Lincoln when he started taking guns and history has shown how little respect Lincoln gets. Most of us modern conservatives see that he was the original socialist for trying to take away the guns of the southerners.
Keith Worst February 05, 2013 at 03:07 AM
Born Free is right. There is absolutely, positively no difference than living in America than being a subject of an English colony. Granted I'm not sure who Born Free is advocating who he wants to blast with this post, but still, I think his rock solid logic and solid grasp that if you take a gun out of the hands of even one person it would make Gandhi sad. After all, Gandhi never knew what gun victimization was. RighT?
Brian Dey February 05, 2013 at 03:13 AM
Keith Worst- Automatic? What are you talking about?
NObama 2012 February 05, 2013 at 03:27 AM
No one hates white folks more than the half white. Remember that.
C. Sanders February 05, 2013 at 03:45 AM
Truly a shame that his grandmother was just some wealthy bank executive, that could not measure up, in his mind (or his book) to his father ... the low-life philanderer. Enough said.
Keith Worst February 05, 2013 at 02:10 PM
Brian I'm just agreeing with you that Obama's sick dream for america is a country where any person can't get their hands on any gun they please. Can you imagine such a horrid country? It would be so scary to walk around and think that the criminally insane, those with domestic abuse histories or and other form of criminal pasts wouldn't be allowed full and total access to guns and bullets that can rip right through a bullet proof vest. It would be such a sad time.
Brian Dey February 05, 2013 at 02:28 PM
Kieth Worst- Answer the question? What automatic weapons are you talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? And why don't we enforce the laws on the books that already ban the criminally insane, domestic abusers and felons. You can have all the laws you want, but unless someone enforces them, the y are totally useless. You are the perfect example of the uninformed and uneducated when it comes to firearms.
Keith Worst February 05, 2013 at 05:59 PM
Brian, as Wayne LaPierre has told us, we need to have absolutely no restrictions on guns. Automatic, semi-automatic or anything in between. And enforcing "laws" against guns? Really? And harm the 2nd Amendment? Enforcing any laws against guns is highly unconstitutional as any one who understands the constitution knows. I'm with you. Let everyone have guns without any restrictions and use them as they please. Only liberals are foolish enough to pass laws that criminals will not obey. Strong conservative know you only pass laws criminals will follow otherwise it's foolish and impedes the rest of us.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something