About Me

Name: Kerbouchard
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Guns cause crime; and forks make people fat.

Posted by Kerbouchard on Monday, March 09, 2009 10:46:13 AM
I reject the idea that we, as citizens, or we, as the government can prevent a crime. We have a punitive justice system. If somebody is inclined to commit a crime, they will find a way to do it.

If we ban all guns, and systematically go through every house and destroy ALL firearms, it will not lower the violent crime rate. Studies and history has proven that it will increase violent crime.

Confiscating guns, illegal or otherwise, is not a solution to the problem. The problem is the people who would use a gun for a malicious purpose.

According to the Brady's definition of an 'illegal' gun, there is an endless supply as long as any guns are legal. If my firearm is stolen, it becomes an 'illegal gun' by their argument because it is now in possession of a criminal. If I recover my firearm it becomes a 'legal gun' again.

It's still the same gun. It hasn't changed in any way. That is why I reject the idea of an illegal gun causing problems.

If my firearm can become legal or illegal by virtue of who is holding it, than I would say the person holding it should be held accountable. Not the machined piece of metal.

So to respond to the Brady's(and Obama's) campaign against 'Illegal Guns?' and why it won't work and why we reject it; Because the attributes that make a gun legal or illegal are arbitrary. The difference between a legal gun and an illegal gun are completely dependent upon the person who uses it.

Which is why we, as Pro Right, and Pro Self-Defense people, are against any campaign, war, or restriction upon firearms.

You go after the person. You put him in jail and you keep him there until he has served his time. You enact stricter penalties for violent crimes and repeat offenders.

Does this mean that people will be victims to crimes? Or that people will be killed by criminals with 'illegal guns'? Yes, it does. But getting rid of the guns isn't going to change anything.

A lot more people have been killed with sticks and rocks than with guns.  Plus, where do we go next?  Europe banned guns, violent crime increased, and now they are trying to ban knives.  Maybe our politicians need to realize that as long as we have bad people walking the streets, they are going to do bad things; regardless of what tools they decide to use.
 
Look, it's pretty simple to me. They say over 85% of murders are caused by repeat offenders, a large portion of those on a suspended sentence, on probation, or on parole.

If they were locked up where they should be, they would not have the opportunity to commit a crime.

A crime requires a motive, the ability, and the opportunity.
The motive is easy for a criminal to rationalize.
The ability is easy to come by...be it a stick, a butcher knife, a baseball bat, or a firearm.

The opportunity is the only thing we can take away from the equation. Both by being more aware of our surroundings when we are out and about and keeping the savages behind bars where they belong.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Our most important issue(s) for this election.

Posted by Kerbouchard on Sunday, October 05, 2008 1:33:23 AM
   This evening I was involved in a conversation where people were describing which issue they think is most important for this upcoming election.  Overwhelmingly, it was Universal Healthcare and the Economy.
 
Well, mine is 3 part...Universal Health-care, Smaller Government, and the 2nd Amendment.

I do not, under any circumstances want Universal Health-care to come to America. It is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of, and in every country that has attempted it, the health-care system has approached 3rd world country levels. There is a reason why Canadians make up such a large portion of our rehab centers and hospitals. The wait list for health-care in Canada is ridiculous. Universal anything only serves to bring everybody down to the lowest average. Also, the poorest of our citizens already get free health-care in the form of Medicare or Medicaid. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I do not think the Government is the answer to every problem, and when I watch the government creating new solutions to problems that were caused by government in the first place(like the bail out package) it makes me sick. For that reason, I oppose a larger government or anything the government does that is extra-constitutional. There is no Constitutional basis for about 90% of what the government has decided to undertake. There is no provision for a bail out in the Constitution. There is no provision for Universal Health-Care in the Constitution.

Because there are citizens, and people in the government, who believe differently about my first two issues, I hold my third issue to be the most important. Make no mistake about it, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gun Free Zones obviously don't work...here's why.

Posted by Kerbouchard on Friday, March 14, 2008 12:43:13 PM
 
Possible fixes to 'Gun Free Zones', or as I like to call them, 'Criminal Empowerment Zones', and why they won't work...

Solution 1:  Provide adequate security checkpoints to ensure people cannot come onto the property armed.
Problem:  A campus or mall is too large of an area with too many entrance points. Even with high security fences, unless somebody was stationed every 50 feet, people could still smuggle guns or people across and retrieve the gun after going through the checkpoint.

Solution 2:  Force people to go through a single checkpoint with metal detectors at the entrance.
Problem:  A metal detector with the sensitivity set low enough to detect a gun would also be sensitive enough to go off on keys, change, belt buckles, watches, etc. The time to pass several thousand people through a somewhat adequate security checkpoint can be easily seen at your local airport.  You also run into the same problem as solution #1.  Checkpoints can be bypassed.
 
Solution 3:  Prevent a person who intends to commit a crime from coming on the property.
Problem:  You don't know who is the threat until they have already started because the bad guys look just like the good guys.

Solution 4:  Prosecute people who commit gun related offenses in Gun Free Zones to the fullest extent of the law.
Problem:  Our legal system and even our Police Department is a reactionary system, not a prevention system. If you do this, we will do this. For any illegal action, there will be certain consequences. This is done in the hopes that the threat of a consequence will be a deterrent to crime. The trouble with that is; if you have somebody that is prepared to die, and intends to die, to carry out whatever plans he has, he is impossible to stop because of the very nature of our legal system. We could only punish him afterwards, and if he kills himself, we are kind of left holding the bag. A punishment based system, just doesn't work if they guy is willing to die.  It's even less effective if he wants to die.

As has been proven many times before, the only way to prevent a crime from occuring or from escalating are for there to be good citizens  at the crime's location, who are legally armed and willing to stop that crime.  So, it appears to me, the only way to 'fix' gun free zones is to abolish them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Could they really ban guns? (follow up)

Posted by Kerbouchard on Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:45:42 PM

I don't know. I wish I could answer that question. I started this thread You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands...or not. to answer that very question.

Unfortunately, it raised more questions than answers...Here is what I have figured out so far...

1. I can't fight off a SWAT team. So if the gov't wants to take them, they can...
2. The blueprint for confiscation is already in place, with precedents.
3. The promises of our officials and our inaliable rights go out the window if martial law is declared, or a national emergency, or any other catch-phrase they want to use.
4. The second that the gov't gained access to weaponry that was too sophisticated or lethal for civilian use, we became 'subjects'.
5. It will probably happen in our lifetime, and I don't think there is a dang thing we can do about it.
6. Any armed resistance would be passed off as crack pots/Keresh/Waco type incidents and would be a rallying point for the Brady Bunch.
7. I don't believe there will be much resistance, because it will happen on a 'local'/temporary scale, and before we knew it wasn't local, or temporary, we would be disarmed.
8. Much like the smoking ban, where it was tried 12 or 13 times, and struck down easily every time, until everybody assumed it would get struck down and stopped paying attention...Then it passed.
9. A Representative form of government has outlived it's usefullness. The reason we went to a representative based gov't was because towns got too big for town meetings. People lived too far away to communicate/travel to vote on issues. Technology has put us all a few keystrokes away.
10. A gov't big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it away.
11. The ban will probably start with ammo, in the form of restrictions that make it cost prohibitive to purchase. Either by regulating primers and gunpowder as Hazmat, or serialization. Along with higher taxes on ammo.


My solution...get out and vote, put the strongest constitutionalists into power. Work to overturn 'common sense gun laws', because we have to start eroding the traction and getting rid of the precedents that they have already set. Inform as many people as we can about these types of illegal activity by our own gov't. Press our politicians to follow up with these investigations.

My best solution is the following, and it would take work, time, and organization, but here it goes...
If you see an anti/propaganda type show, jot down the commercials that played on air, make a list of these companies, and write to those companies explaining why you will no longer purchase their products.

That's the best I have so far. And unfortunately, during a local crisis or emergency, I'm afraid none of it will be effective.

__________________
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own."

Who is John Galt?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Banning guns is impossible, right?

Posted by Kerbouchard on Friday, March 07, 2008 9:54:52 AM
I wish I could convince myself of that.

Somebody told me if I woke up one day and found out that guns were being banned then I slept too long...
Well, I wake up every day knowing that if they ban guns that same day, there isn't a thing I can do about it, aside from possibly burying some in my backyard or whatever. And the first time I had to use a hideout I would probably be thrown in jail for not relinquishing my banned weapons.  And that reminds me of a saying I've heard repeated many times, and lately, even more often...
 
"If you are thinking of burying your guns, it is probably time to dig them up."
People tell me that there is no political traction for a gun ban...
But how about the following attempts or successes:

Banning hunting ammo because it can penetrate bullet proof vests
Ammo serialization
Smart guns
Safety locks
High capacity magazines
Outright bans in some cities
Full-auto
Silencers
'saturday night specials'
Background checks
Barrel length
types of ammo
classes of people who the 2nd doesn't apply to
gun-free zones
suing gun manufacturers
registration

I personally think those do establish some sort of traction for the anti's.

The DC vs Heller case really, really scares me. I know what the ruling should be. You do to. It is the only ruling that would be just and make sense, but just because it would be just, doesn't mean that's what it will be.  A cut and dry decision by the SCOTUS could wipe out hundreds of years of gun laws. I don't see that happening. I personally think it will be vague enough to not set a huge precedent. I think they will rule that banning currently legal, operational firearms inside one's home is unconstitutional, and will leave it at that. I would love to hear a ruling saying 'shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed'; I won't hold my breath, though.

I think it is already too late, and I think the more people that realize it, the better off we will be. I see too many people rationalizing more gun legislation as 'common sense' or 'for the good of the people', and I think it would help a lot if people realized how much closer we get to a total ban with each concession we make. I've heard a quote that goes something like this... 'What is a interpretation of the constitution except half way between what it says and what you want it to say' or something to that effect.
 
We've gotten so far away from what the 2nd admendment actually means that it has no meaning anymore except as a rallying point or catch phrase for some conservatives or the NRA.
The only way to win this type of battle is politically. So, you think, well, great. We're doing good on that front, and making enormous progress. And I would tend to agree. In a day to day 'normal' society, I think we are doing pretty well. But in a 'National Emergency', or 'National Fuel Shortage', or any other type of catch-phrase that they decide to use, the 2nd admendment and the politicians promises won't mean a thing.
 
The New Orleans mess has convinced me that our society can be forcibly disarmed, and easily.  Granted, it would have to be on a local level, but what if everybody thought the same things the guys in N.O. thought...That it was only temporary, or that it was localized....Well, I think we're going to see a lot of 'localized' actions, and one day, we'll wake up, and we'll have slept too long.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »