Gun-free zones means free fire zones

School shootings history

President Bush 41 was convinced by congressional Democrats to do two incredibly stupid things; 1) raise taxes, the broken promise on which they hanged him in the ’92 election, and 2) make schools “gun-free zones.”  Since then the USA has added six school shootings to the Top 20 worst massacres.  Before “gun-free zones” you have to go back to 1966 to find any.

Liberal Democrats say the solution to mass shootings is disarming the citizenry, just as those who enter gun-free zones must be disarmed.  Obama praises gun control in Chicago for making the city peaceful.  Chicago just recorded the highest gun murder rate it has had in fifty years.

Chicago gun control

Democrats have wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment since its inception.  Government, they believe, are the only people who should be armed.  But then, for the last year, they have been waging a campaign to disarm the police under the banner of the Black Lives Matter movement.  All liberal gun control plays into the hands of two groups; Democrats who want the federal government to be the only power in the country to be armed, and their criminal constituents who want law-abiding citizens and police to be disarmed and helpless against them.

Mass shootings

Obama says America would be safer if white people didn’t own guns

Black Lives Matter – an analysis of America’s newest hate group

Liberal intelligence

Related articles;

Concealed handguns responsible for drastic reduction in gun crimes

59 Murders in September, Chicago’s deadliest decade

Liberal intelligence 101

Other articles;

Morality in humanity

America is in severe decline under Democrat policies to deconstruct the nation.

You don’t need science to prove global warming is a scam

Christians crushed the Inquisition, Moslems endorse the Jihad

(Please like and share this with your friends.  Let them know the truth.  To subscribe click on “follow” and respond to the email WordPress sends you.)

(Debate: Honest people wishing to debate will post their remarks in the comments of the article.  Dishonest people wishing to dissuade people from reading the truth will post in the comments of a link.)

About dustyk103

This site is my opinion only and is unpaid. I am a retired Paramedic/Firefighter with 25 years of service in the City of Dallas Fire Dept. I have a B.A. degree in Journalism, and A.A. degrees in Military Science and History. I have spent my life studying military history, world history, American history, science, current events, and politics making me a qualified PhD, Senior Fellow of the Limbaugh Institute, and tenured Professor for Advanced Conservative Studies. 😄 It is my hope that readers can gain some knowledge and wisdom from my articles.
This entry was posted in Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Gun Control, Obama's legacy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Gun-free zones means free fire zones

  1. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    The 2ND Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia. Therefore we need more regulations on police to limit abuse, and private citizens should be required to register their guns so they do not fall into the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.

    Like

    • radman414 says:

      Arthur: I sincerely hope that you had your tongue firmly in your cheek with that comment.

      Like

    • Tom Monfort says:

      Arthur, if you had a Constitution handy, you could finish your comment. After “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, it goes on to say, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We could need to limit liberals to misstate the facts and suggest solutions that have been shown to not work, but, unlike liberals, regular Americans will not advocate restricting your 1st Amendment rights. And guns don’t ‘fall’ into the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, they are stolen and obtained on the streets from other criminals and mentally unstable persons. More regulation is not the answer, as it is a big part of the problem. The federal government creates most of the problems by meddling in areas not given it by the Constitution. Progressive ideas have grown the government into a behemoth unable to get out of its own way. The states are responsible for their police and how they function. The federal government is responsible for protecting the borders, which they have failed to do. How can they dictate how the police do their job, when they have failed in one of its primary functions? Liberals need to quit thinking they have the solution to controlling human behavior and mother nature. You can’t fix what you don’t understand.

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        Why are you against regulation when the Amendment to the Constitution says well-regulated?

        And if a gun is stolen, doesn’t that mean that it has fallen into the hands of a criminal, which is what I said?
        You don’t have to agree with me, but you could at least be consistent.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        Guns are already over regulated as proven by the mass shootings in “gun-free zones.” It is criminals who are no longer being regulated as they should.

        Like

  2. radman414 says:

    Have you noticed that the NRA is the only U. S. organization that gets blamed for criminal acts that virtually none of its members commit?

    “If you are for ‘gun control,’ then you are not against guns, because guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous . . .) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions.” — Stefan Molyneux

    Like

  3. radman414 says:

    In 2003, Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed-Martin plant. In 2007, a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech University. In 2010, a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others. In 2011, a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater, shot and killed 12 people. In 2012, Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis, MN. In 2013, a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.
    And, in September of 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

    Now it’s another 9 murdered in a “gun-free” zone in Oregon, where Christians were specifically singled out by an angry mixed-race, left-wing whack job. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders. But, clearly, there is a problem when Democrats possess guns.

    The solution is intuitively obvious: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Tom Monfort says:

    Arthur, you seem to not understand what the word ‘Militia’ means in the 1st Amendment. It refers to an organized group of citizens to serve as the military when called on and served full time only in emergencies. Later on, the government created the Army and Navy/Marines. So, ‘well-regulated’ referred to the Militia, not the guns owned by the people. Regulation of privately owned guns is the responsibility of the states, not the federal government, and the 2nd Amendment protects the citizens from the states trying to take away their right to own guns. The writing of regulations by the different departments of the Executive branch is not a power given in the Constitution, under Article II. It is a creation of progressive ideas that the Executive branch, by virtue of the president being chosen by a majority of the people, has more responsibility and power than is granted by the Constitution. Bureaucrats writing regulations, under the direction of the president, is nothing more than an unconstitutional way to make law and assess taxes, which are powers given the Legislative branch.
    If a criminal robs a bank, he stole the money. It didn’t ‘fall’ into his hands. If a gun is stolen from a persons home, car, business or by force from his possession, it is stolen. If you leave your gun where it is visible in a public area or not secured, out of sight, and doesn’t require illegal entry or force to obtain, then I would agree it has ‘fallen’ into a criminal’s hands. That’s being an irresponsible gun owner and can result in being held responsible for the consequences. More gun regulation will not stop guns from being stolen.
    I believe I’m being consistent. You seem to put a lot of faith in the government to shield you from danger.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s