Indianapolis Mayor advocating stricter gun laws?
I have talked about this "study" before. For example, California ranks number 6th on this list of top 10 states. Is it because they have lax or strict laws? Hardly. It is because they are a large state with a big population. Indeed, that helps explain most of the states on the top 10 list. Why is it that large states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas have weaker gun laws? I am not sure, but there are lots of other problems with this study. The Indianapolis Star discussion is here:
The bipartisan national group with the apt name Mayors Against Illegal Guns has won a major victory. For some states, including Indiana, there's more to lament than celebrate.
The coalition made up of more than 350 municipal chief executives -- 10 from Indiana, none from Central Indiana -- managed to persuade Congress to ease access to once-closely guarded "trace data," the federal records of traffic in firearms used in crimes.
And what did those records show?
That 10 states, Indiana included, were the source of 57 percent of the guns used in crimes outside those states.
That those states tended to have the weakest laws governing the sale and tracking of guns. . . .
Labels: GunControl
posted by John Lott at 2:58 PM
2 Comments:
If in fact, the path of the least resistance is the method by which criminals obtain weapons, why must government place the path of the most resistance upon those who truly have a need to defend themselves?
Congress reluctantly gave up the trace data under pressure? The following is the quote that I refer to when I state the aforementioned.
"The coalition made up of more than 350 municipal chief executives -- 10 from Indiana, none from Central Indiana -- managed to persuade Congress to ease access to once-closely guarded "trace data," the federal records of traffic in firearms used in crimes."
Persuade? I do not think so. Sounds more like an out for the Dem controlled Congress. After all, do not those whom we elect, always seem to have an excuse for whatever they do? So often is that the excuse which is used to undermine the Constitution, so that they who wish to remain in power may do so without restrictions placed upon them? Is that not the goal of the weak? To control those whom threaten them the most?
The story, as presented by INDYSTAR, shows clearly my position on this subject.
"That 10 states, Indiana included, were the source of 57 percent of the guns used in crimes outside those states.
That those states tended to have the weakest laws governing the sale and tracking of guns.
That those weak laws correlate with higher rates of in-state murder and shootings of police officers.
In the current furor over the fate of the Second Amendment at the hands of a Democratic president and Congress, the mayors' report supplies a wake-up call about the need for balance. The right to bear arms must by all means be protected; but the freedom to deal in deadly weapons must stop where public endangerment begins."
A very powerful argument, if no one stands up and provides clear evidence to counter the argument. Those who do stand up and with irrefutable evidence are mocked, are they not?
What about the dichotomy of "The right to bear arms must by all means be protected; but the freedom to deal in deadly weapons must stop where public endangerment begins".
The above, in and of itself cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny. To infringe upon one, is to deny them their right, or rights.
In order to preserve Liberty, it was necessary to prevent any means whatsoever to disbar any from obtaining, owning, and bearing arms. To allow any means by which Government could do so, would simply allow government to disarm all, by means of law. An absolute, if you will. So was the Militia Clause, as States needed protection from the Federal Government. It was the States who came together to form the Federal Government, and they understood that they too, as individual entities stood to lose much from an all powerful central government. Hence the balance provided by the Constitution.
Should I ever seek office, by means of deceit, I can always rely on the excuse that I, Martin G. Schalz, was drunk when I posted this, and I never swallowed any alcoholic beverages at any time.
Nor have I snorted anything either, as I merely liked the way it smelled.
Bear with me, as there are those nasty right wingers out there, who would do anything to discredit I, based upon anything I have done in the past. Heck, maybe they made up this post just to get me, should I ever run for office...
I apologize for the sarcasm, but damn, it seems to me that if one is supported by the media, one can do damn near anything they please, and it will be overlooked.
Education, not legislation!
Post a Comment
<< Home