Inevitable: “We Need to Look at Handguns”

gun-control-works

When Democrats talks about a living breathing constitution, they are really talking about rewriting the Constitution to fit their fashionable PC ideology—whatever that might be on in any particular voting cycle.

And when Democrats talk about gun control, they are really talking about the banning and confiscation of all weapons purchased by law-abiding citizens. Like totalitarians everywhere, Democrats want to centralize power and weapons in the hands of the state. The fact that they are also centralizing power in the murderous paws of millions of various criminal enterprises is, to liberals, a big yawn. In fact, the criminals reliably vote the Democrat ticket because they know who best represents their interests. So, in a very real sense, the Democrats are pandering to their base.

Seraphic Secret also finds is fascinating that the very people who wail and gnash their teeth about ”gun violence” are the very people who oppose capital punishment for the very barbarians who gleefully slaughter innocent citizens with weapons obtained illegally.

But then the very people who claim to want to protect our children are the same creatures who advocate loudly and relentlessly for the murder of children in the womb, even in the third trimester.

But then a consistent morality has never been the hallmark of postmodern liberal-progressivess.

Last Friday night Representative Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL) told Melissa Harris-Perry that the violence in his Chicago district should cause lawmakers to take action not only against semi-automatic weapons, but also handguns. Gutiérrez correctly noted that nearly 97 percent of Chicago gun murders in 2011 were carried out with handguns. What he didn’t think worth mentioning is that the murders are overwhelmingly black on black slaughter, carried out by gangs who traffic in, surprise, illegal drugs! The fact that heroin, cocaine and meth are illegal should make these substances—according to liberal-think—extinct. But that has hardly happened, has it?

Said Gutiérrez: “It’s clear that we need to look at handguns also.”

Well, at least he’s telling the truth. Which is the least you can expect from a democrat who is somewhat to the left of Che Guevara.

YouTube Preview Image

 

This entry was posted in Democrats, Drug Trade, Gun Control, Second Amendment and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

Comment Rules


Seraphic Secret is private property, that's right, it's an extension of our home, and as such, Karen and I have instituted two Seraphic Rules and we ask commentors to act respectfully.

  1. No profanity.
  2. No Israel bashing. We debate, we discuss, we are respectful. You know what Israel bashing is. The world is full of it. Seraphic Secret is one of the few places in the world that will not tolerate this form of anti-Semitism.

That's it. Break either of these rules and you will be banned.


18 Comments

  1. exdemexlib
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    However if a state executes even one person in error than I see that as murder.  I agree that executing a known murderer is punishment, but I don’t want to condone even one accident.
     
    The gold-standard of the validity of an argument of principle, is if the principle can be objectively applied equally to all people.
    While there have been many many liberals protesting and decrying an impending execution, (the last one I remember was of Troy Davis in 2011, 22 years after he murdered a cop, and was unequivocally guilty, with eye-witnesses who were his friends, testifying, and who became, in Ann Coulter’s words,
    the media’s current baby seal of death row “),
    yet, there has never been a similar liberal outcry for a stay of the death penalty, when the victims were black, and the murderer was a white hateful racist (which happened a short time after the protests in the Troy Davis case).
    Now, I happen to believe that the white hateful racist deserves the death penalty too, but neither more nor less than the black cop killer.
    Our sages have said that “ a Sanhedrin (supreme court in Talmudic times) who issues a death penalty once in 70 years, is a bloody court
    but they still honored the death penalty.
    Your position would be much stronger, if, just as you posted to this blog, you had written in to liberal blogs protesting the death penalty of this white racist, and asked why there was no similar liberal outcry …
    For all I know, maybe you did, and if so, please let us know, and I will consider your position a strong valid one, even though I personally disagree with it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • LondonTrader
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

      I have not posted on any liberal blogs, but then I don’t frequent liberal blogs – I just get too annoyed by them.  I have only been reading this blog for a couple of months but have frequented and occasionally commented at Neoneocon for many years.  I am a conservative and my guess is that on most things we will agree completely. 
      You are correct to say that the Sanhedrin honored the death penalty but, as you also point out, if they used the penalty once in 70 years it was considered a bloody court.  This indicates to me that while the death penalty was approved for use in practise it rarely was.
      I hope that my comments on this blog are appropriate.  I like to comment when I have something to say but haven’t received so much attention in return when I have commented elsewhere.  I don’t mean to offend just to enjoy good discussion.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. Posted February 12, 2013 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Actually, it’s perfectly consistent.  People who advocate gun bans are essentially advocating for more violent crime and greater protection of criminals from the law-abiding. 
    How tragic that Brianna is so correct here.  I’ve never thought of it this way; God help us all.
    Gutiérrez is clearly an idiot. Because the existing gun bans in Chicago – across-the-board-bans – are working so very well.  Let’s ask the families of the 200+ children who were murdered in Chicago in 2012 how they feel about their existing gun ban or gun control in general.  No one is asking them and they aren’t pushing themselves to a microphone either; they are too busy grieving and are apparently tough enough not to allow some scumbag politician to use them as props for an agenda that they likely disagree with.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  3. Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    But, but, but… how is this possible, Robert? 
     
    The Liberals say we need to ban “assault weapons”, but 97% of the murders were by handguns and not Assault Weapons… but, but, but…  Chicago HAD a handgun BAN for 28 YEARS (before it was struck down by the SCOTUS in 2010) and murders have continued to rise. How is this possible in our Democrat-run Utopia on the shores of Lake Michigan?
    And this Chicago (ABC-7) news report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1tSXK1AeBo&feature=player_embedded) says the murder rate is higher now (with extremely restrictive gun control laws) than it was in the wild 1920’s and 1930’s when Al Capone was shooting it out with the North Side Gang.  Ironically, it was the St. Valentine’s Massacre which brought about the original gun control legislation in 1934.
     
    Society won’t learn that it is the criminals (the drug selling gangs) and the mentally ill who are committing most of these murders and massacres. Tackle gangs and mental illness problems first.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  4. exdemexlib
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    If you have to guess which path a Leftist is going to take, pick the path that will destroy Western civilization faster.  Most of them aren’t conscious that this is what they’re doing; nevertheless, it’s a quick and easy way to guess a Leftist’s position on an issue, and it works nearly all the time.
     
    This is a very good criterion!
    Over the years, I have been trying to understand the liberal hierarchy over which liberal positions outweigh which other liberal positions.
    So far, have theorized the following, (in order from lowest to highest)
    Free Speech – trumped when even liberal groups are voicing criticism of a liberal’ cause celebre du jour’ ; 
    Animal Rights – trumped when interfering with Muslims ; 
    Human Rights, even anti-slavery   – trumped when interfering with Muslims ;
    Women’s Rights –  trumped when interfering with Muslims ;
    Gay Rights – trumped when interfering with Muslims ;
    Abortion – (Jury is out , some Muslims have reported killing wives who delivered girls instead of boys)
    So, as long as Muslims don’t oppose abortion, it seems they are guaranteed a free pass …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • Larry
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      Of course, the shortsightedness of “destroying Western civilization” is when freedom is eliminated what do they propose to replace it with. Of course, they all expect to be exempted from such outcomes.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  5. LondonTrader
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    SeraphicSecret says”But then a consistent morality has never been the hallmark of postmodern liberal-progressivess.” with which I totally agree.  However I see the same disconect on the right.  If we are against abortion then how can we be pro the death penalty.  Surely it is morally wrong to kill (other than in self defense) in any case.
    I am of the right amd am pro-life/anti death penalty which seems to be a somewhat unique view.  However I do believe that murderers should get life without the possibility of parole.  I believe that the extra cost of incarceration is something that a just society needs to accept.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:07 am | Permalink

      London Trader:

      Executing murderers is not murder. It is killing those who murder. And it is justice. Nor is killing in self-defense. Abortion is industrial scale murder.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      • LondonTrader
        Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:17 am | Permalink

        Self defence and defensive war (or pre-emptive agressive war) agreed.
        However if a state executes even one person in error than I see that as murder.  I agree that executing a known murderer is punishment, but I don’t want to condone even one accident.  I don’t see this as the same as collateral damage in a war because that is unavoidable whereas there is an alternative to execution; life in prison without the possibility of parole.
        My view is that only hashem can take a life.  
         

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • Robert J. Avrech
          Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:25 am | Permalink

          Londontrader:

          As for executing one wrong man. Name one man or woman in America who has been executed by mistake.

          In fact, it is murderers who are frequently found inncocent in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary: Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson.

          The same kind of logic can also apply to thieves or to any crime? Mistakes are made, right? So why have punishment?

          We have a system of justice not because it’s perfect, but because it’s the best we can do.

          When you seek perfection you create hell.

          As for giving murderers life without parole, well, that usually results in more murders because a huge number of murderers serving life sentences committ more murders in jail. Why not? What do they have to lose? Nothing.

          As for Hashem being the only one who can take a life. This is not a Jewish position, nor is it Jewish law. This liberal moral preening posing as theology is not in the Torah in any manner shape or form. In fact, the Torah mandates capital punishment as a requirement for a lawful and just society.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          • Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

            Robert, while I do agree with the use of capital punishment in some cases, I believe it is used indiscriminately at times.
             
            I would suggest, however, that your argument “Mistakes are made, right? So why have punishment?” is not sound because the levels of punishment are not equal. If a thief is wrongly convicted and sent to prison and then later exonerated, we can compensate him for his pain and suffering (and we do so with some regularity). If a person is executed, then exonerated, (surely) no adequate compensation can be made.
             
            Since 1970 there have been 142 people (in the US) sentenced to death and later exonerated. While that shows the system works (they weren’t executed), it also shows that the system far from fair. I have long suggested a component of the judicial system which reviewed the merits of the case, not just the procedural aspects of the case (which is what the appeals courts typically review). I’m aware of too many cases where the courts ruled that the defendant received a “fair trial by a jury of his peers” which turned out not to be the case.
             
            http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-30/news/ct-met-whitlock-steidl-appeal-20120531_1_wrongful-conviction-case-police-officers-appeals-court
             
            Having said that (and played the devil’s advocate), I would have pulled the lever to fry someone like Richard Speck or John Wayne Gacy with no moral reservation in my heart.
             

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

            • Robert J. Avrech
              Posted February 12, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

              Prophet Joe:

              Regarding proportionality: Your argument is correct… in the abstract. But this argument will hardly be comforting to a prisoner serving time for any crime of which they are innocent. As for compensation. If someone is, G-d forbid, executed by mistake, compensation goes to the family, as is common.

              No system is perfectly fair. The 142 who were exonerated is proof that the system is more fair and careful than not.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

            • Larry
              Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

              I agree with all of Robert’s arguments, but I did want to comment on one thing you bring up, ProphetJoe:
               
              <i>”I have long suggested a component of the judicial system which reviewed the merits of the case, not just the procedural aspects of the case (which is what the appeals courts typically review).”</i>
               
              I don’t trust the judicial system to review the merits of the case for the same reason that I don’t trust the Supreme Court as the sole arbiter of what is constitutional, a perspective created by Justice Marshall, not by the founders. The reviewing of the merits of the case and of the law itself is supposed to be done by the jury. It’s called Jury Nullification.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Nickie Clifford
        Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:14 am | Permalink

        You’re correct, Robert – “justice” is certainly NOT murder. An ‘eye for an eye’ is a tenet I strongly believe in.  Execution of an individual who has engaged in wanton, depraved murder is the strongest censure of sin mandated by society. It is our way of saying “you are not fit to live amongst decent men”. Simply warehousing these monsters would in no-manner convey the moral-enormity of the crime. I do not care AT ALL about any argument for rehabilitation – they are beyond that.  

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • LondonTrader
          Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:28 am | Permalink

          No disagreement from me on rehabilitation.  However “an eye for an eye” has been interpreted by the Rabbis from the earliest days as meaning monetary compensation to the value of the injury and not in its literal sense.  The idea is that the punishment should not be more severe than the crime and not the other way round. Having said that it doesn’t much matter in the context of this discussion because I don’t believe that it applied to murder but rather injury and property crimes.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          • Nickie Clifford
            Posted February 13, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

            L.T., I’m certain you’re correct about the rabinacal interpretation – I wouldn’t know as I’m a Catholic homemaker from California:)  I was speaking from MY conviction regarding what ‘an eye for an eye’ means to me –  in a broad sense that is fairly well-accepted by general society. It was never my intent to infer that I have any knowledge of Judaic teachings.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. Miranda Rose Smith
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    I have a nasty suspicion about why liberal politicians and the liberal media ignore or downplay Black-on-Black crime. A lot of them are racists who secretly hope that all the expletive deleted N-words will just eat each other up, like the Kilkenny cats. 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  7. Brianna
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    Seraphic Secret also finds is fascinating that the very people who wail and gnash their teeth about ”gun violence” are the very people who oppose capital punishment for the very barbarians who gleefully slaughter innocent citizens with illegally obtained weapons.”

    Actually, it’s perfectly consistent.  People who advocate gun bans are essentially advocating for more violent crime and greater protection of criminals from the law-abiding.  People who advocate against the death penalty are ALSO advocating for more crime and greater protection of criminals from the law-abiding, first because they’re not letting us kill the murderer (I assume he’s a murderer, anyway) and second because when you let the guy live, he might eventually get out of jail and kill again.
    If you have to guess which path a Leftist is going to take, pick the path that will destroy Western civilization faster.  Most of them aren’t conscious that this is what they’re doing; nevertheless, it’s a quick and easy way to guess a Leftist’s position on an issue, and it works nearly all the time.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting