The Following is a speech given today by Count President Raoul from the White House:
Ladies and gentlemen, I am standing before you in the Rose Garden at the White House to announce a dramatic new initiative designed to save hundreds, maybe thousands of American lives annually.
Effective this morning, I have asked the Attorney General, the Director of the FBI and the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to present to me in six months time a plan to remove within five years, all handguns and high volume rifles from the non-law enforcement citizens of America. This plan, to be called the Protecting Innocent American’s Act (PIAA) will not be a rebuke of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, but will instead encourage the recreational and protective use of most rifles and shotguns while making it illegal for most Americans to own a handgun or unnecessarily lethal long gun.
Handguns, both concealed and exposed are the number one tool for violent crime resulting in death in America. Recent statistics show that assaults with handguns is not only the leading cause of murder in this country, but roughly the equivalent of all other weapons, including other guns, knives and blunt instruments combined.
During 2010 in the previous president home state of Illinois, of 364 murders by firearm, 355 or 98% were committed with a handgun. In fact, 78% of all murders in the state were the result of handguns. What would the statistics be if those guns did not exist?
Taking these handguns away from law-abiding citizens and criminals alike will be difficult and expensive for obvious reasons. The Cabinet-level decisions to carry out my order are likely to include the purchase at fair market value of existing handguns, the purchase and retooling of all domestic handgun manufacturers and the significant raising of penalties for handgun possession after the designated ‘no handgun’ date.
My goal under PIAA is not to lose a single job in the domestic handgun manufacture industry. All import licenses for handguns will be suspended over PIAA. As Isaiah said in The Bible, we shall beat our swords into plowshares. Handguns have served their purpose in America. Tools originally designed for protection are now being used for murder. The time for them to be eliminated is now.
Similarly, the use of rifles with more than protection level magazines will be outlawed. No more ammunition clips holding more than designated maximum rounds will be sold or possessed in America. In hunting and protection, rifles are valuable tools. Providing them with the firepower and volume to create mass murder is wrong and the PIAA will stop it.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is rather short. It includes the words: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I, like all Presidents before me, have sworn to uphold and defend these words. But just as surely as these words are sacrosanct, I believe they allow the limiting of the type of arms allowed.
Citizens are not allowed to own and discharge howitzers, bazookas or certain types of high powered ammunition. We have accepted these restrictions because Americans know they are unsafe and unnecessary for personal protection and sport. Before I was President, I protected my home as the Constitution allowed by storing a locked shotgun in my closet. During the time of our Constitution's writing, single-shot flintlock pistols were as small and easily hidden as a firearm could be. Today, the obvious variety of small and lethal handguns has resulted in murder and injury rather than protection.
Many will disagree with me. Most of the disagreements are likely to come from good Americans who just don’t want to be told what to do. And the argument that most gun owners of any type are law-abiding citizens is not part of the debate. But most auto drivers are safe and sane also. Yet the objections to seat belt laws and speed limits have waned as lives were saved. I expect a similar long-term result of this new law.
I know that the road to this eventual lawmaking will be long and challenged at every turn. Americans have grown accustomed to being armed and many are suspicious of the federal government enforcing new rules regarding what they consider personal liberty. That’s OK. I think we have the will of the people on our side.
And as we argue, negotiate and compromise on PIAA, let’s think of the prospects of a high volume rifle and handgun free future when we read stories in the newspapers or hear them on the radio and TV. The stories about innocent people being killed in fits of rage by friends, family or strangers that chose to use a handgun or high volume rifle to make their case. What would the result have been if these weapons were not in existence?
Thank you and God Bless America.
I have already agreed with Raoul that we don't need machine guns and RPGs in our living rooms. But we have a highly disfunctional government that tends to mess things up, and this is too important an issue to give to them. Dave, thank you. I carry extra insurance, and have taken lessons. I don't get enough time to practice, but can hit center mass with the first round at 15 yards. And, I know my limitations, so I will not try to hit a fly at 100 yards.
I hadn't noticed the "conversation" mentioning anyone's political or sexual orientation. Your familiarity with the gay community and the political orientation of its members is laudatory. But I believe the "conversation" is focused on an imaginary world in which an imaginary U.S. President got serious about the carnage wrought by assault weapons.
As for the Japan argument, We can take snippets out here and there whenever we want to support our personal views, but if you look a little deeper into what makes it even possible in places like Japan, you see all types of other issues that one could ask, "Do you want that in America too"? For instance, Japan is on a 2 year roll of having extremely high suicide rates for their country. They pretty much always rank in the top 10 (currently #6 or #7) on the list of countries with a high suicide rate. What is the point? Specificallly you can't compare and apple to an orange. You can't take specific pieces out of one country and compare it to another country without also comparing every other aspect as well. Where do we start that list? I don't know, how about the fact that in America we have an abundance of gangs like MS13, etc.
Yes, always delighted to help clean up after a bad guy takes a dirt nap. Give me a call, I'm in the book. People know that if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile. You yourself, Mr. President, have proven this by enlarging the ban debate from just assault Rifles to hand guns and assault rifles on only your first day as President. You have proven this logic that "enthralls" you, to yourself. Again, this debate is silly. There will never be a Federal hand gun ban. I,too, have been on this thread too long. I'm gone.
"Long guns for protection are fine unless you are attacked in your car, on the street, or the like." What then? I cannot imaging private citizens carrying around long guns in their daily routine. As for assault rifles, I don't see them in the same argument as hand guns. I do not own one and never will. I do not like them. But the fact is that you will never get them out of the hands of the bad guys. They do not play by the same rules nor the same thought process as law abiding citizens. If you are a liberal, have you ever tried converting a conservative? If you are a conservative, have you ever tried converting a liberal? Will hardly ever happen. Same with the mind set of a criminal (or wanna be).
The biggest differences between the two groups of would-be "good guys" seem to be that the CCC <i>1) tend to be just as well practiced in the skill of drawing and firing</i> (no really, they spend just as much time at the range, and in some cases MUCH more), <i>2) they tend to be shooting in daylight or well-lit conditions, </i>compared to the poor lighting most police shootings take place in, and <i>3) are usually by themselves when they shoot. </i> This avoids the "bunch-shooting" phenomenon seen so many times in NYPD and other police records. You can find some insight into questions regarding the comparative ineffectiveness of police firearm useage and training, and some ideas for further research here: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf
As for settling the argument... I doubt it. Ever. ^_^
16 shots were fired by 2 officers (9 for one, 7 for the other). 10 of the 16 rounds hit the perp. 9 bystanders were hit and injured in the shooting. 3 of the bystanders were hit directly by police rounds (not fragments). 0 shots were fired by the perp (after the one killing the original victim inside the shop, that is). Don't misunderstand, the perp got his just desserts, and the officers probably did the right thing by shooting. But these are the mysteries of bunch-shooting: why 16 rounds on a non-shooting subject (when theoretically a non-cooperative, threatening subject could be dropped with one or two each)? Why did only 10 of the 16 hit from 5 yards or less, even though both officers are certified out to 25, and it took place in daylight during good weather? It also brings into question the rationale of using hollow-point bullets solely to reduce or prevent injuries to unintended objects/people nearby due to bullets passing through the target. (cf. this rather old NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/09/nyregion/new-york-police-will-start-using-deadlier-bullets.html - and this much more recent Wash.Times editorial: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/23/dispelling-bullet-myths/) I apologize for being slightly off-topic, but I thought it might interest some people following the thread here.