[VIDEO] Hilarious: ‘Common Sense Gun Control’ People Know Nothing About Guns

Posted: August 20, 2016 | Author: Pundit Planet | Filed under: Crime & Corruption, Guns and Gadgets, Law & Justice, Mediasphere, Politics, Self Defense | Tags: African American, AK-47, American Military News, anti-gun, AR-15, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Common Sense, Democracy, Democratic Party (United States), Gun Grabber, Gun rights, Jim Crow laws, Ku Klux Klan, Left Wing, Louder with Crowder, National Rifle Association, Republic, Rifle, Seattle, Second Amendment, The Daily Beast, United States, Washington State |1 Comment

Political commentator and actor Steven Crowder decided to set up an experiment to see just how well people that want “common sense” gun control knew about firearms.

He set up a tent for “Citizens Coalition for Common Sense Gun Reform” to ask people that do not own or are interested in guns to see how much they knew about firearms and which ones should be banned based on “common sense.”

gun-range

Crowder quickly finds out that the people who are in favor or “common sense” gun control know very little about guns in the first place and what they are capable of. The people justdecided which guns should be banned based on how it makes them feel.

[See John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) at Amazon]

For example, many people wanted more “tactical looking” firearms banned, but yet other kinds of rifles displayed on the table were fine, such as hunting rifles. Crowder does point out on the side that the AR-15 is actually a popular small game hunting rifle but because it looks tactical, it should be banned.

People were also not well informed on what types of guns were used in crimes and thought that the AR-15 is used in many cases, but as Crowder points out, from 2007 to 2015, 70% of shooting murders are from handguns.

Source: American Military News

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”.

— H. L. Mencken

Democracy? In Moderation, Please.

editor-commen-desk

Buried somewhere in the above Daily Beast article is probably a perfectly decent, arguable case for a certain kind of small-ball, incremental legislation. Unfortunately, but predictably, its case is comically undermined by hateful, shallow, silly, dishonest writing.

Ohh! Those evil Republicans! They should be taken out and horsewhipped! Here, hold my drink. I’ll do it. Get outta my way. I’ve got some GOP ass to beat. Oh, never mind.

Never mind that this advocacy item masquerading as journalism doesn’t even attempt to demonstrate how the measures will have any impact whatsoever, to “avert mass shootings”. Which is understandable. One; averting mass shootings is not, and never was, the goal of activist gun-control legislation. And two; There’s no evidence that “averting mass shootings” can be accomplished by legislation in the first place.

Think the gun debate isn’t polluted with toxic stupidity from the Left? Read on:

“…But with the substantial distortion of our democracy around guns, they are the issue with which this particular method most adheres to the original intentions of the progressives who created it a century ago, at a time when large interests such as timber and railroads blocked popular reforms in legislative bodies around the country.”

wilson

The progressives who created it a century ago. Right. Wait, you mean the puritan, racist, anti-constitutional Wilsonian reformers of that era, the progressive activists who gave us segregation, prohibition, and Jim Crow laws, those guys?

The early 20th-century progressives’ “original intentions” are in stark contrast to the intentions of our founders. Cautious, deliberative men, keenly aware of the historically destructive effects of “direct democracy“.

Ever notice how our most sacred and treasured rights are intentionally safeguarded, hardwired in the Bill of Rights? Completely out of reach of voters?

Everett Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), portrait by David Martin, 1767

The founders were no fans of democracy.

“When two wolves and a sheep decide what to have for dinner.”

Benjamin Franklin definition of democracy is as clear now as it was over two centuries ago.

The United States was conceived as a Republic. Not a Democracy. For a good reason. To avoid jackassery like this, from flaming progressive morons, and “journalists” like Cliff Schecter from poisoning our fragile, anti-authoritarian, revolutionary, enlightened system of self-government.

“Additionally, this application of direct democracy is not simply a way to ensure the moneyed death-peddlers behind the NRA can’t veto laws Washingtonians overwhelmingly want, but also provides a model for the 24 states—among them large population centers such as California, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio—that allow citizens to change laws via direct democracy.”

See? This is how sanctimonious, spiteful progressives talk these days. The dues of members of civil rights advocacy organizations are “moneyed death peddlers”. D0es it sound like they hate you? They do.

Democracy? In moderation, please.

Wait there’s more.

Just when I thought my little rant — tagged onto a Steven Crowder video — was overheated and possibly even unfair, I came across this item by Daniel Payne, in The Federalist.

If my level of irritation is chile powder and lime juice rubbed on a bleeding paper cut, Daniel Payne‘s irritation is two sliced-open habanero peppers rubbed directly on his eyeballs. I can almost hear him scream.

Here’s a sample:

I am genuinely curious: is there any other constitutional right, or any other constitutional amendment, that is so consistently and so aggressively handled with such base and inexcusable stupidity, on so regular a basis, and on such an industrial scale? I am not sure. You don’t usually see arguments of this idiotic magnitude when it comes to, say, the Fourth Amendment, or the Sixth. You certainly see dumb interpretations of the First Amendment, but that’s usually a matter of degree, not kind: you will have people arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t protect “hate speech,” for instance, but nobody ever argues that the First Amendment only applies to state governments, say, rather than to individual members of the body politic.

Only the Second Amendment is subject to such illiterate and ahistorical analyses. Once you realize that, you can fully grasp why : many people simply do not like guns, and they will lie—or else keep themselves deliberately ignorant—to prevent other people from having them…(read more)

Source: thefederalist.com