DEVTOME.COM HOSTING COSTS HAVE BEGUN TO EXCEED 115$ MONTHLY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NO LONGER ABLE TO HANDLE THE COST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE DUE TO THE RISING COST. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR ALMOST A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING IT FROM OUR OWN POCKETS. HOWEVER, WITH LITERALLY NO DONATIONS FOR THE PAST 2+ YEARS IT HAS DEPLETED THE BUDGET IN SHORT ORDER WITH THE INCREASE IN ACTIVITY ON THE SITE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS. OUR CPU USAGE HAS BECOME TOO HIGH TO REMAIN ON A REASONABLE COSTING PLAN THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE DEVTOME PROJECT AND KEEP THE SITE UP/ALIVE PLEASE DONATE (EVEN IF ITS A SATOSHI) TO OUR DEVCOIN 1M4PCuMXvpWX6LHPkBEf3LJ2z1boZv4EQa OR OUR BTC WALLET 16eqEcqfw4zHUh2znvMcmRzGVwCn7CJLxR TO ALLOW US TO AFFORD THE HOSTING.

THE DEVCOIN AND DEVTOME PROJECTS ARE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO ITS FURTHER SUCCESS FOR ANOTHER 5 OR MORE YEARS!

Here's Why This Longtime Liberal Totally Flipped On Gun Control

I grew up in a Republican household, and even though as a kid I said I was Republican, I realized that I often identified with the Democrats. Once I left home, circa 1977, in my late teens and moved from the east coast to the west coast, within a few months I was definitely a liberal.

I found many influences, no single source bigger than a liberal talk show host named Michael Benner 1) on KLOS in Los Angeles. There may have been some issues where he didn't automatically side with the Democrats, but if so, they were few and far between.

To be more precise, he might have sided with conservatives once in a blue moon, but when he disagreed with the Democrats, it was usually because they were not liberal enough for him. He was big on being anti gun.

To hear him tell it, the more guns you have, the less safe you are. Having a single gun puts you in a dangerous position because you might actually have the gun taken away from you and used against you, whereas, if you didn't have the gun in the first place, such a scenario could not happen.,

Moreover, if you had a loaded gun in every room, the odds of something really dreadful happening to you or someone in your house, increased exponentially. It made a lot of sense to me. Besides, I did hear and read about instances where people get shot and killed quite unintentionally.

The classic case is when the person thinks she took the bullets out of the gun and she points it at her spouse and shoots him dead. A variation is she shoots herself in the mouth to the horror of several friends witnessing the tragic event. Probably every person reading this has heard of a similar story. There are even cases where some perp gets the gun from a cop and kills him and his partner.

I remember feeling like this stuff seems to happen all the time. I also found it incredibly ironic that in these stories, people get guns for the sake of security, but they end up getting killed, or killing someone they love, instead of protecting themselves and their loved ones.

It sure seemed like a case of self fulfilling prophecy. Back then, it seemed to me that if you live in the fear that you may need a gun at any second, you put out that fearful energy of being the victim of gun fire, and it can easily comes back to haunt you.

I have been robbed at gun point on more than one occasion. I felt like one of the reasons I survived, without incident, is I didn't try to do anything stupid and be a hero. I felt that someone who carries a gun would be more psychologically dispositioned to try to be a hero and end up getting everyone shot who was in the location of the robbery.

Besides, I felt that I would prefer to lose whatever it was that was being stolen from me, than to have a gun, and prevent the robbery by killing the perpetrator. Some people seem to want to get robbed at gun point just so they can have an excuse to take a human life, but I am not among them. Killing another human being is something that would affect me incredibly negatively. I always felt like, I don't want that feeling on my head or that blood on my hands, if it can be prevented.

I knew from Michael Benner that the responsible gun control, liberal position is not to call for a ban of all guns, but to have meaningful gun control laws that ban certain types of guns, and to call for universal registration, as well as a waiting period.

Quite a few years later, when I moved back to the east coast, I heard another liberal radio talker, Randi Rhodes, also provide what I considered to be more common sense on the subject. Besides universal registration and the ban on assault weapons, it made perfect sense to me, for the gun to have to be not only locked up, out of sight within your home, but also to have a trigger lock on it, even when the gun itself is locked in a safe or cabinet.

The reason for this is because if kids are ever present in the home. I knew that the position of gun owners is that if someone breaks into their home, they don't want to have to find their keys, unlock the gun from the safe, only to have to unlock the lock from the trigger.

They feel like they could be dead by the time they accomplish that. To me, that was typical gun owner fear, giving out bad gun owner vibrations that might even have the effect of telepathically inviting bad guys to come over and break into their homes that otherwise would have left them alone.

As Randi says, she has to put a fence around her pool so that no kid will have an unobstructed path into the pool, even though she does not have kids living with her. It's to protect the kids in the neighborhood. So why shouldn't gun owners have to have locks in their triggers, and then have the guns also locked up? Who is to say that a kid won't ever be in their house?

When people would say to me, that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, I had a standard reply I would tell them. I said that such a bumper sticker mentality demonstrates their lack of ability to fully comprehend the complexity of the gun problem.

(Even though, as a responsible, liberal gun control advocate, I was not calling for the day to come when guns would be outlawed, the fact that I felt the need to respond in that manner to that statement, probably indicated that deep down, I wouldn't mind a world where the only people allowed to have guns were the cops and the military.)

When gun rights advocates would tell me that the cities that had gun bans were the cities that had the worst gun problems, I didn't see a problem with that. It only makes sense, I would tell them: The reason those cities have put such heavy restrictions on gun ownership is because a state of emergency exists, as evidenced by the high crime rates.

It took years, actually decades, of being told I was completely wrong, before I started to realize that I really was wrong. You can deny something for only so long, if you have an open mind, in general.

Okay, on gun control my mind was predominantly closed, but the general open mind I tend to have, finally seeped into the gun control portion of my psyche, and I started thinking, “OK, maybe I'm wrong.”

Those are four very important words that the world does not hear enough of. They indicate the first step one needs to get to the place where one admits, Yes, I am definitely wrong. I now am happy to admit that I was wrong about gun control.

I still don't know that I'm 180 degrees opposed to all my former thoughts and feelings related to the gun and violence issue, but I know I was wrong on the big stuff. For instance, the gun free zones have the worst gun problems because they are gun free zones; not the other way around. They are not gun free because they have the worst crime.

The reason Chicago, New York City and Washington D.C. have gun murder rates and other gun crime rates so out of control is specifically because of the gun ban, and the intrinsic wisdom of that classic bumper sticker.

You could make any city gun free, and crime is abso-freekin-lutely going to skyrocket. It is cause and effect. The bumper sticker eloquently stated the problem in less than ten words. When criminals know that the citizens are disarmed, it is, 'easy pickens.'

It is inviting the bad guys to exploit the good guys. It would be like sending your first grade kid, walking to school with her lunch money pinned to her blouse. She won't have it by the time she gets to class. It's asking for trouble. No thinking parent who loves her child would do it.

Moreover, most of the people who make the laws establishing cities as gun free zones, know that they are setting up the citizens to be sitting ducks. Those politicians are phonies. They are playing us. They are usually gangsters, hell bent on bringing about the New World Order that will not allow the slaves to own guns. Moreover, they also have made sure that the laws don't apply to them. They have permits to carry, and/or they have armed security.

It took me decades to see the light, and now I feel so foolish, there are no words. I hope I can inspire some of my fellow old time lefties to deal with this.

Don't be afraid to own up to not understanding this issue. If you have never changed your mind on any political topic, you aren't being realistic. How could anyone be right on every single issue for their entire life? It's not a big deal.

In fact, it gives you credence. People are likely to listen to you, knowing that you don't just play the same old tapes over and over for all your life, and they'll now be able to see that you don't look at a list that tells you what your position is supposed to be just because you align yourself with one party over another.

Admit that it just makes sense that there are bad guys out there. Yes, they were born innocent babies, but for whatever reason, they are now doing bad things and they love to take advantage of good people.

Anytime, a city bans guns, these bad people are going to gravitate to that city and commit crimes, because they don't care about breaking the law. They own guns, and they know that everybody else does not. Advantage, criminals.

Use your imagination. Even though you would never rob somebody, pretend you are a thief for a minute. You have to rob a house. You have a choice. You can go to the house where there are people, or you can go to where a house is empty. Which would you choose?

Obviously, you would break into the empty house because it's easier and safer. Well, if you were going to rob people, would you rather do it in Texas where chances are good that they are packing heat, or would you rather do it in Manhattan where they don't pack heat, because they don't want to go to prison? It would be easier to rob someone in Manhattan. See? It really is simple.

So now, let me ask you; if you want to bring down the crime rates in gun free zones, what should you do? If you just answered that you would turn gun free zones into second amendment zones, you are definitely understanding the reality of the situation.

What would likely happen if the second amendment was brought back to New York City, for instance, tomorrow, is that for the first few to several months, there might be a sudden increase in gun violence. It would be due to the good guys defending themselves from the bad guys who were attempting to rob them or otherwise assault them.

It would not take too long before crime rates dropped sharply and stayed dropped on a permanent basis. You can count on that as much as you count on the sun to rise in the morning.

On the other hand, that actually was not what happened in Chicago recently (first quarter of 2014.) Chicago relaxed, to a significant degree, at least, the super restrictive requirements for exceptions for getting the concealed carry permit. The anti gunners were apoplectic, warning that the streets would become more unsafe than ever.

This writer was hoping that the word would get out that the immediate increase in the homicide rate would be temporary and a necessary part of the process as criminals started getting shot, but the statistics totally took me by surprise.

The murder rate did not go up at all. In fact, it simply dropped to a record low, not seen since 1958. That is not a typographical error. The last time the murder rate was that low, Dwight Eisenhower was president. This surely must have frustrated the hell of Rachel Maddow, who you can guess failed to mention this fact in any of her narrowcasts. 2)

One thing that most people are not aware of is that street crime, including gun crime, has overall, been reduced quite sharply in the USA in the past two to three decades. 3) The way the news media likes to focus on the worst that life has to offer, you can be forgiven if this is the first you are hearing about the steady reduction in violent crime that has been happening in the United States for roughly 25 years.

It is interesting how the media plays up crime stories to get us to believe things are getting worse, year after year, decade after decade, when, in fact, the opposite has been true. The reason it seems like we are always hearing about gun tragedies is because the corporate media, controlled by the globalists whose ultimately goal is a disarmed world in their control, wants us to feel unsafe about guns.

The last thing to elite cabal who run the world want us to know about is the fact that on average, guns being legal, in the hands of the law abiding citizens, make the world a safer place. Again, this is due to the fact that the non law abiding citizens have guns and will always have guns and will do bad things with them, especially when they know other people do not have guns.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I know that is what it takes to get through to people, like I used to be, who are closed minded on this topic. Even when it comes to registering guns, and having a background check before being allowed to buy a gun, the truth is that will not help in terms of overall crime reduction.

What it would do is create a system for the globalist thugs to deny a large percentage of the population their right be protect themselves. As we have seen, when that right is taken away, more crime is committed, not less crime.

What do you think the protocol will be on doing background checks? It is going to search to see if the person has ever gone to any kind of psychological, mental, emotional or relationship counseling. That means, that people who have taken steps to improve themselves are not going to be allowed to own a gun.

Millions of people have gone to psychiatrist, psychologists and other counselors. That is no reason to prevent them from owning a gun. It is just another invasion of privacy involving the government in our private lives that is none of its business.

Furthermore, it does not protect society, because a criminal who is determined to get a gun and do something bad is not going to be concerned about obeying the law. She is going to go to the black market that will always exist. The truth is that by preventing millions of people from gun ownership, more crime would occur, not less crime.

We spoke about how the media like to give publicity to the stories of gun tragedies. The reality is that, day in and day out, guns are successfully used to defend people from criminals, many times more than guns are used to successfully commit crimes.

Even more importantly, because guns are being used defensively, a lot more crimes that otherwise would occur, never even happen, because the bad guys decide it's not worth taking a chance. If they think someone may have a gun, they rarely attempt to commit the crime.

What about waiting periods? What's wrong with making someone wait 3 days for their gun, in case they are getting it to do something stupid? After 3 days, cooler heads might prevails and lives could be saved. Right?

Waiting periods go hand in hand with universal background checks. There will never be one without the other. It's true that some gun tragedies will occur that might not have occurred if there were checks and waiting periods, but a lot more tragedies will occur as a result of the checks and the waiting.

Many times, someone's life is in jeopardy. They have been death threatened. They need a gun now. More people will die from those checks and waiting periods than will be saved, but even beyond that, the waiting and the checking is a ruse that will deny millions upon millions of people their right to protect themselves.

When these millions do not have the guns they should have, more crime will occur as a result. More innocent people will die and suffer. More families will lose children and parents. The fact also remains that most people hell bent on killing somebody will find another way to do it, even if they are denied a gun.

Well, what about felons. Shouldn't there be checks for felons? Actually, states have different laws. In some states some types of felons can own guns. The problem with checking for felons is you have to enter the name and address of everybody into a state data bank, which is the same thing as registration.

What has been unspoken in this piece until now is that registration is ultimately about confiscation. Historically, that has always been the case. When governments ban guns, they access their lists of gun owners and bust open their doors to seize their guns, and God help anybody who even looks at them the wrong way.

Please don't be naive enough to say that such a scenario would never happen in the United States. There have already been small scale operations done to test the public and train troops. The public completely accepted it and the troops followed orders during Hurricane Katrina. There was also more recent martial law psychological operations in the aftermath of the alleged Boston Marathon bombings. The globalists definitely have plans for confiscation, and registration is what they are seeking to help make it go smoother.

Is there a chance we can avoid such a nightmare? That's a definite maybe, but if we do manage to avoid it, you can believe that part of the reason was enough people stood up and said no to registration.

Well then, is there any gun control I support? That's a good question. I'm glad I asked it. At the risk of upsetting my second amendment brothers and sisters, perhaps the gun that Walter White used in the last episode of Breaking Bad should be off the table. If a family has kids, perhaps the trigger lock inside the locked cabinet is not a bad gun control law, but I think those laws usually aren't dependent on the the gun owners having kids who live with them, so I think that might be pushing things. I mean, why not add a third layer, in requiring the gun must have a trigger lock and then be put in a small locked box, and then have that locked box be place inside another locked structure, just in case kids come over and start looking for trouble.

Perhaps there should be a fourth layer for gun owners who live within a half mile of a school. Yes, that's sarcasm, in case you weren't sure. However, one thing I still feel is valid is my feeling on how the world works. The law of attraction is valid. If you are putting out a lot of fear, you can draw negative events to you that otherwise would not happen.

I can't prove that to anybody who feels I'm crazy for believing that, but I have seen too many of those kinds of self fulfilling prophecies in people's lives for me to not believe there is something to it. I am not saying that all gun owners are primarily living in that kind of fear based vibrational frequency, but there are probably a lot of people who are.

I'm talking about people who, without a special reason, wouldn't dream of leaving home, for any amount of time, without their piece. Even if you don't believe in telepathically drawing events into your life, that level of paranoia is probably what causes spouses to shoot and kill their better half when they lost their front door key and went around to the back door to get in the house.

Another point to think about when the gun control people give statistics regarding gun deaths is the fact that the majority of these murders are black market drug related. They are gang bangers and thugs killing off each other. If drugs were decriminalized, we would see a sharp decline in those statistics.

There would still be some of that going on, but not nearly as much. The proof of that is that is what happened with the prohibition of alcohol. Once the black market was taken from them, their turf wars dissipated.

Then of course, there is the other drug problem that often gets confused as gun problems. Prescription drugs, particularly anti depressants. In almost every single case of a mass shooting, the culprit is on SSRI drugs, prescribed by a doctor. The inserts that come with the drugs tell the customer that violent reactions are possible, yet for some reason, doctors keep prescribing these homicide/suicide pills.

Now some people would say that is why guns should have a waiting period, because nobody who is on those drugs should be allowed to own a gun. That's missing the point. We need to get everyone off those pills; not prevent them from being able to protect themselves. (…And by the way, the gun controllers would take guns away from anyone who ever went to counseling; not just the people who are currently taking SSRI drugs.)

The fact is, there are natural supplements that do a better job with depression, including Saint John's wart and red deer antler velvet. So, if people are really concerned about lowering the homicide and suicide rate, their time is much better served educating the public about the dangers of SSRI (anti depressant) drugs, and lobbying for the decriminalization of illicit drugs.

I will also go on record and say that owning a gun is not a panacea. As I write this, I do not own a gun. Believe it or not, every person who loves the second amendment is not a gun owner. Similarly, I believe in the importance of drug decriminalization, yet I'm drug free, including alcohol, tobacco and prescription and over the counter drugs.

So yes, it's true. Having a gun can be a bad decision if you aren't mature enough to handle it. George Zimmerman wasn't mature enough. There is something about knowing you have a gun that inspires people to play the tough cowboy role they wouldn't otherwise do. Without a gun, Zimmerman stays in the car and waits for the cops.

I have a friend who had a similar situation. A neighbor was blaring music past 3 in the morning. Instead of calling the cops and letting them take care of it, he packs his piece in his waistband and goes over to guys yard where the party is going on.

The guy cusses my friend out and picks up two beer bottles and tells him he is about to get knocked out. My friend shows the guy his gun, but the guy charges toward him anyway. My friend started to run, rather than use deadly force, hoping the guy would quit chasing him, but he kept running toward him, so my friend aims and pumps two shots into his chest, killing him on the spot.

My buddy was brought to the police station and told they might be charging him later, but not at the moment, since he was defending himself. It helped that the guy had a huge rap sheet including several violent crimes, but my friend is dealing with death threats from the guy's friends and could be charged with murder or manslaughter, all because having a gun motivated him to be a big man and confront the neighbor instead of playing it smart and calling the cops.

There is no doubt that bad things happen with guns and owning a gun can be risky. The question is, does that mean that nobody should have the right to own a gun?

Cars kill 35,000 people a year in the United States alone. Should they be illegal? The argument is that cars are not made for the purpose of killing people, whereas guns are. The reality is guns are made to save lives because they have the ability to be lethal. More crimes, including homicide, are stopped and prevented because of guns, than are committed by people using guns.

Every day you are in a car on an undivided highway, you are inches from death and horrendous injury. If a car going the other way veers just inches into your lane, your life can be over in an instant.

Being alive is a dangerous proposition, but the people who would grab our guns for our own safety don't seem to understand that. Plus, they fail to see how taking guns away from the public makes us less safe, overall.

That said, I do believe that in some instances, what Michael Benner said in the 1970s, regarding the more guns you have, open and loaded, in your house, the less safe you are, can sometimes have merit. That is especially true if there is alcohol and/or other people in the house, having loaded guns in every room, under every pillow could lead to needless tragedy. If you're going to own guns, be smart, wise and mature.

In the final equation, though, the truth is that, on the streets, the more the general public is carrying guns, the less crime is committed. The anti gun people like Rachel Maddow try to spin statistics to deny the facts, but the real stats are undeniable. Less guns equals more crime, and vice versa. 4) 5) 6)

By the way, in deference to the amazing Michael Benner, I wouldn't be surprised if he is now a big second amendment person himself. 7)

Politics


QR Code
QR Code here_s_why_this_longtime_liberal_totally_flipped_on_gun_control (generated for current page)
 

Advertise with Anonymous Ads