"Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country."

Read on....

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Bar Room Conversation

Citizen Bait: When it was written in 1791, the authors of the Bill of Rights meant only for the Second Amendment to apply to rifled muskets, not the type of assault weapons we have today.

Serfs in your conversation circile will nod or cheer in agreement.

Follow: In 1791 rifled muskets were the assault weapons of the day. The authors of the Second Amendment intended for the citizenry to lawfully possess the exact standard issue assault rifle [musket] of the current day.

Follow-on: The above proves that the second Amendment was authored to give citizens the right of self-defense against threatening opponents, up-to and including against the standing army of a tyrannical national government. In order to ensure this right stood a chance of being effective, citizens were allowed to possess the same standard issue rifle [musket] of the contemporary military.

Today, many totalitarian leftists are calling for all semi-automatic rifles and pistols to be BANNED. The result would mean, temporarily, revolvers and bolt-action rifles would remain legal. But let's focus on the semi-automatics:

• semi-automatic means that with one press of the trigger, one round (bullet) fires. In order to fire another round, the trigger must be depressed and pressed again
• Currently, standard magazines for assault rifles hold 20-30 rounds

In the military, regular infantry carry (per army 9-man squad):

• 6 semi-automatic assault rifles. Range to point target 300-500 meters depending on the shooter. Rifle is capable of fully automatic fire with flip of switch. Each man carries 300 rounds of ammunition at the ready. More is packed away
• 2 light machine guns. Range to area target: 800 meters. 1000 rounds of ammunition at the ready, with more packed away. A spare barrel is carried with each gun to rotate if sustained rapid/cyclic firing occurs (800+ rounds per minute cyclic)
• 2 grenade lauchers. Range 350-400 meters. High-explosive-dual-purpose grenade rounds ensure devastation to personnel as well as vehicles
• 1 medium machine gun. Range 1,800 meters. 1200+ rounds of ammo. Spare barrel.
• All carry fragmentation, smoke, and stun grenades. Probably 4 claymore mines per squad. Body armor for all protects from high-powered rifle hit. They have flares to silouette their targets. Intra-squad radios to communicate amongst themselves. Larger radios to communicate with air assets and their higher headquarters.
• Ability to call for devasting indirect fire and air support.

Ladies and gentleman, the American citizens of 1791 stood a much better chance against a standing army than Americans citizens would in 2012. Semi-automatic assault rifles do not amount to 1/1000th of the firepower a 9-man army squad can bring to bear on an enemy. Those that want to ban semi-automatic weapons (fully-automatic is already illegal) are on a demonic quest for totalitarian control. Pure and simple.

More to follow.

The next four years are not going to be easy. So what. I argue that it's easier to stick to your principles then to not have any and flounder between parties and politicians. So the pressure is on the Republican Party, not on the Democratic Party, to make a decision-- principles or politics? The Constitution or evolution? Limited government or gradual expansion?

Boehner and Co. will have to make their choice (many already have), but so will we. In the coming years people will be faced with a choice: refuse the faux-compassionate hand of government or accept "just a little help." It's going to get ugly folks....for those who want to stand on principle. Not for those who do.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/07/boehner-punishes-the-principle/