Violence is out of control and democrats suck at solving problems

It seems like every day there is another news story about some heinous act of violence. Now typically I am used to that sort of thing living in and around Chicago most of my life. But lately its not just Chicago, its all over the country and the world. Something is different about this. It feels wrong.

Of course what kind of conspiracy nut would I be if I didn't at least consider the possibility that at least some of these events are part of a false flag op to gain traction and momentum in the assault on 2A? Its really not that hard to believe if you think about it. But surely there must be more to it than that. I could blame a percentage on some coordinated agenda to infringe on our rights. But I also have to admit that the sheer numbers indicate that many of these events are genuine acts of outright violence perpetrated solely at the discretion of the aggressor. I guess some of those could even be attributed to copy-cat crimes. But still, the numbers demand that a significant portion be allocated to unorganized individuals rather than pawns in some enormous machination bent on the destruction of personal liberty.

Any events that are part of a bigger plan orchestrated by some hidden cabal of some sorts is something that needs to be dealt with. But this thread is directed more at the one-off, unorganized, cheese-slid-off-the-cracker kind of guys that seem to be far too prevalent in today's society. The ones responsible for the majority of shootings, even if not the biggest single event totals.

How do we deal with these guys? The ones we don't know by name, but we know they are out there?

If you ask a democrat they will insist the answer is to get rid of the guns. Nothing short of that will work. And they adamantly insist they are right despite decades of failure in this proposition. In all the legislation ever proposed to limit or ban guns I have only heard how the authorities intend to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I haven't heard one plan yet that describes how they plan to take guns away from criminals. But, the first real problem here is that democrats simply cant admit they made a mistake with this philosophy. And it is costing us lives.

I have personally witnessed the democrat “solution” to this problem for more than 50 years. Even as a child I remember hearing people argue about gun violence and how to solve the problem. And the same problem is still being argued and the same ineffective solutions are still being pushed by the same ineffective party.

A little history:

The 1934 National Firearms Act was the first major step taken to solve the rising problem of violence. This legislation was a direct response to gang violence. This act imposed criminal, regulatory and tax requirements on weapons favored by gangsters: machine guns, silencers and sawed-off shotguns. Yes, you read that correctly. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934. It was also the first big chunk taken out of our 2nd Amendment rights, done so with the guarantee that it would solve the problem. Well, are gangs still dangerous? Do they still kill people? Is the mafia toothless now? I guess the bad guys didn't get the memo...

Then we had the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. That law imposed a federal license requirement on gun manufacturers, importers, and those persons in the business of selling firearms. It also required sellers to maintain customer records, and, prohibited sales of firearms to certain persons who are disqualified from owning them.

Then we had the Gun Control Act of 1968. That law restated and expanded on the provisions of the first acts and repealed the FFA. It also required serial numbers on firearms, minimum age for purchasing, and expanded the categories of persons prohibited from purchasing. It is also the first time “firearms with no sporting purpose” became an issue. However, the GCA only prevented their import, not their manufacture.

Then we had the Brady Act of 1993. This law imposed a five day waiting period for background checks. With the improvement in technology we now have an instant-check but the wait period can be up to three days if the results of the instant-check are unclear.

Then we had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. This law marked the first occasion in which the term “assault rifle” was specifically applied to weapons that were merely semi-automatic and do not meet the criteria of an assault rifle. An assault rifle, as defined by the US military, is a rifle that has a “select fire” switch that allows the shooter to select either single fire (pull the trigger and one round is fired), or automatic fire (pull and hold the trigger and rounds continue to fire until the trigger is released or the rifle runs out of ammunition). Some rifles have a third option called “burst”. A burst option allows the rifle to fire three rounds when the trigger is pulled, then stops. The law banned 19 types, models and series of assault weapons by name (and copies or duplicates of those weapons), and any semi-automatic firearm with at least two specified military features coupled with a detachable magazine. Military features include a pistol grip, bayonet mount, vertical forward grip, flash suppressor, or barrel shroud. This law was written with a sunset clause declaring it would expire ten years after it was enacted. It expired in 2004.

Then we had the Child Safety Lock Act in 2005 as part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law required any importer, manufacturer or dealer to sell or transfer any handgun with insuring the transferee receives a secure storage or safety device.

Then we had the NICS Improvement Act in 2007. This law provided financial incentives for states to provide NICS with information relevant to whether a person is prohibited from possessing firearms. This act also changed the standard for persons deemed to be “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution”.

Then we had the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022. This law amended the GCA to require additional investigation in the backgrounds of persons 18-20 years old when purchasing a long gun, established federal statutes to clearly define trafficking and straw purchasing, and prevented a person convicted of a violent misdemeanor against a current or recent former dating partner from possessing firearms for 5 years.

In addition to these are the many various state and local laws meant to restrict, infringe, or outlaw various types of firearms and assorted accessories.

Back to the present:
Despite all of this, and a slew of local laws, in the city of Chicago the problem is definitely not getting better - despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the country. We even put up “gun free zone” signs. That didn't work either. (Most of us knew it wouldn't) The violence is still at near record levels.

Every day I hear nebulous ambiguous terminology that only clouds the issue and confuses and misleads people who do not know better. The one I genuinely hate is “Assault Style Weapons”. Style is a condition of appearance, not function. This is truly a lost cause if we care more about how a weapon looks than how it works. If we fall for this nonsense there is no hope for us as a nation. People who say things like this are either intentionally making things convoluted and confusing or are just plain lying.

Continued...

The truth is there is no such thing as an assault 'style' weapon. It is either an assault weapon or it isn't. This is a yes or no, there is no in between. I really couldn't care less what it looks like. A assault rifle with pink feathers and sparkles on the barrel is still an assault rifle. A normal every day rifle is just a normal every day rifle no matter how many bolt-on features you add to make it look cool. It doesn't matter what you do to the appearance of a regular every day rifle to change its appearance. The only thing that matters is if you change the manner in which it operates. That I do care about, like most legal gun owners. Function is critical in this discussion, appearance is not.

Another problem is one that has been around for just as long. I am talking about media, politicians, lobbyists, referring to “gun violence” rather than just violence. I learned about the difference, and why it matters so much in this context, when I was in high school.

I had a friend who was killed in Chicago one night when I was 17. He was one of two teens that died that night. My friend was beaten to death by a street gang with baseball bats. When the news anchors talked about the event they said my friend was killed by a gang. They talked about how gang violence was a growing problem. They talked about how cruel and violent the attack was. It was brutal.

Then the news anchors went on to talk about the other teen that had been killed the same night as my friend. Except this time the news anchors said he had been killed by a gun. They made no mention of the shooter, only the weapon. As if the gun did it all by itself.

Of course the next day there was an article in the paper talking about all the different things that led to that teen being shot. The violence on tv, the evils of heavy metal music, violent video games, etc. “Our youth cant withstand this kind of daily barrage of violence.” They talked about holding the gun manufacturers and sellers responsible. It was truly pathetic.

Then I noticed something important. No one blamed baseball for my friends death. No one said Ernie Banks was a bad role model. No one blamed little league. No one wanted to ban baseball bats. No one wanted to file suit against Louisville Slugger. My friend was killed by a gang. The other teen was killed by a gun. That was already the message nearly 50 years ago. And it is still the battle cry today.

But here is the real issue no one wants to talk about. We already have all the legislation we could ever need to solve this problem in place right now. More legislation we cant or wont enforce will do nothing but give lawmakers a reason to pat themselves on the back and vote themselves another raise at our expense.

This is why I believe no amount of legislation will ever solve this problem: legislation does not change behavior. Think about that. Legislation does not change behavior.

Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. If they obeyed the law, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. In case the anti-gun lobby hasn't noticed – murder is illegal. If criminals won't obey that law, and we cant enforce it prior to the act, what good is it? It does nothing to prevent murder. In fact it does nothing at all except give us a way to prosecute someone after the fact, which is NOT when you want to intervene when someone's life is on the line. It doesn't matter how many laws you pass today, tomorrow criminals will still break them. That is what criminals do.

If the democrats got their dream and somehow managed to pass a law making every single firearm known to man illegal – tomorrow there would be just as many criminals in the streets with firearms as there are today. Not to mention the fact that the cartels would be climbing over each other smuggling the new black market gold mine over the border and into the hands of some thug. We have literally millions of people streaming into our country with no vetting. Does anyone believe we could prevent the smuggling of weapons across our southern border with democrats in positions of power? Not likely.

We have the technology to completely secure our border, we are more than capable of spending the money, we just won't do it because it would mean less votes for democrats in the next election. Think about Area 51. Nothing bigger than a field mouse can get anywhere near that place without being seen, heard, and tracked on seismic, thermal, and night vision sensors. Our government clearly has the ability to secure an area if they want to. When it comes to our southern border - they just don't want to.

And that is one of our biggest problems. Politicians have figured out that if they actually solve the problems plaguing us, we won't need them any more. In fact, I think they figured out that we don't need them now. That is why they cause more problems than anyone else. So they can distract us with all manner of nonsense and continue making runs to the bank to deposit our tax dollars on the way to their mansions with their armed guards while we fight each other in the streets for a loaf of bread and a gallon of gas.

Remember – when things go wrong in the circus they send in the clowns to distract everyone.

Seen any clowns lately? Yeah, I have too.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

A very well written OP and thank you for taking the time to write it.

There is nothing I disagree with that you have just written.

Don't know if you have watched this, but it reminded me of your OP...

Warning. Explicit lyrics!!!!



More and more are "getting it."

Dunno if that is going to help in the long run though.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

But here is the real issue no one wants to talk about. We already have all the legislation we could ever need to solve this problem in place right now. More legislation we cant or wont enforce will do nothing but give lawmakers a reason to pat themselves on the back and vote themselves another raise at our expense.

This is why I believe no amount of legislation will ever solve this problem: legislation does not change behavior. Think about that. Legislation does not change behavior.

If they were really and truly concerned with citizen's rights to safety, they would "deputize" every single legal and responsible gun owner in America. Think about it - a huge, new police force they wouldn't have to pay or give retirement benefits to. I'm pretty sure the crime rate would go down.

a reply to: Lumenari

Thank you!

Excellent video. The guy is spot on. Politicians hide in their bullet proof limos with their armed guards and tell us we don't need guns.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Even if they don't want to deputize anyone it would be enough if they just stopped trying to arrest people for defending themselves. We have made some progress in that but its still an uphill battle.

I always wanted to give our ex-military the option of working on our southern border. Many need jobs and they signed up to protect this country. Why not solve both problems at once?

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

But here is the real issue no one wants to talk about. We already have all the legislation we could ever need to solve this problem in place right now. More legislation we cant or wont enforce will do nothing but give lawmakers a reason to pat themselves on the back and vote themselves another raise at our expense.

This is why I believe no amount of legislation will ever solve this problem: legislation does not change behavior. Think about that. Legislation does not change behavior.

If they were really and truly concerned with citizen's rights to safety, they would "deputize" every single legal and responsible gun owner in America. Think about it - a huge, new police force they wouldn't have to pay or give retirement benefits to. I'm pretty sure the crime rate would go down.

The very first thing the US did for Ukraine last February was arm everyone with fully automatic weapons that would carry one.

Meanwhile, here at home?

Before that, they were trying to help Ukraine with borders.

Meanwhile, here at home?

Before Ukraine, there was Afghanistan.

Before Afghanistan, there was Kuwait.

Etc, Etc.

SSDD

a reply to: Vroomfondel

fantastic OP. I doubt you will get anything other than agreements, your logic is sound.

If only they were as aggressive with criminals and their guns as they are with the law abiding owners.

a reply to: JinMI

That is 100% right!

We send assault rifles to Ukraine so civilians can protect themselves. And this was done by the same people who tell us we don't need assault rifles. They help Ukraine protect its border while ignoring ours. And these are the people who swore an oath to protect this nation and its people...

a reply to: network dude

Thank you!

Every plan dems come up with details how they will disarm law abiding citizens. I haven't heard a single one yet that says how they plan to disarm criminals. Make it illegal today and the only people who will obey that law, by definition, are the law abiding citizens. The criminals couldn't care less.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You didn't have to make this about 2A. What it's really about is defund the cops and, the fact that new cops can't be found and the hollowning out of US cities. By hollowing out I mean people and businesses leaving the cities. And there's a compounding effect. As the cities empty, more people and businesses leave.

It's only going to get worse. Detroit is the model. So, unless you are a gang banger, you might want to get out of Chicago while you can.

a reply to: TonyS

Thank you.

I think defunding police is a separate issue. But I do fully agree that more and more people are leaving cities and as they do the criminal element just gets stronger. And it does compound. In many cities police force strength is dictated by census. As more and more people leave the number of police decreases by charter even though crime is increasing. Of course the city charters can be changed and there can always be special provisions. But in general, conditions are deteriorating and there is no solid plan I am aware of to get things back on track. Just the same lame chant of "ban the guns" echoing off the walls of empty buildings.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I like that visual.

Superbly Written and All is Factual.
GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE.
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
a reply to: Vroomfondel

85% of the murders in America are Black and Hispanics killing Blacks and Hispanics.

Democrats are OK with that.

The USA is mirroring the dark England phase of empire when drugs, violence and corruption are rife all to be set against an empire at end of life trying to socially engineer its own survival with globalism and progressive liberalism..

both of which will invariably fail.