PINAR DEL RIO


support babalú


Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying


bestlatinosmall.jpg

quotes.gif

activism


ozt_bilingual


buclbanner

recommended reading





babalú features





recent comments


  • George Moneo: What do you expect from the scumbag who sued Chris Kyle’s widow.

  • asombra: To my mind, Ventura and Franken did for Minnesota what Ted Kennedy did for Massachusetts: I cannot respect either state.

  • asombra: This guy strikes me as the embodiment of the worst political stereotype–just seeing him makes my skin crawl. Talk about...

  • asombra: Cretina and Putin, the Botox twins. Ugh.

  • asombra: That Delia crone is almost too witchy to be true. Perfect casting, though.

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics


elsewhere on the net



realclearworld

Dana Loesch nails it on gun control

"Gun Control Isn’t The Answer. Here’s Why" by Dana Loesch:

Friday was a day of horror, heartbreak, and prayer. Despite this, some of our progressive brethren couldn’t resist using the tragedy to make a case for risking lives by preventing families a means of self-protection via their Second Amendment rights. Let us have a frank discussion: Progressives believe that our Second Amendment rights are what perpetuated the horrific massacre in Sandy Hook. They believe that if firearm ownership was illegal then Adam Lanza wouldn’t have murdered. They say that Americans shouldn’t be able to own “assault weapons,” as they call them.

Where have these mass tragedies occurred? Virginia Tech. Aurora, Colorado. Schools, the majority of them. What do these locations have in common? They are designated “gun-free” zones. Are progressives unable to recognize that their gun control was already in place? Guns were already forbidden? The only solution left is “confiscation,” which goes beyond what they imply by “control.” I would like to hear it explained how a gun-free school zone, in a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, would have prevented the actions of a man whose intent was not following the law that day?

[...]

Lanza could not have legally obtained the firearms he used because it is illegal in Connecticut to purchase or possess a firearm under the age of twenty-one. Lanza was twenty. You must have a permit to purchase and carry a handgun in CT and pass a background check to merit a handgun eligibility certificate. He stole his mother’s firearms. That is not a failure of gun laws, it is a failure of personal responsibility. What will more, redundant laws do when the laws already in effect fail to stop a criminal — who, by the very definition of the word, has no intention of following the law anyway? More laws for criminals to not follow? Chicago’s homicides have exceed 436 this year, beating last year’s figures. Pretty high for a state which previously banned guns, right? I’d like for the left to explain how it is people are dying from gun shots in Chicago when the city explicitly banned them? (The ban was overturned by a court of appeals this week but has not yet been implemented; the city has 180 days from the ruling to apply). Does the left expect criminals and mad men who already don’t follow the laws on the books to suddenly become law-abiding citizens because progressives pass new anti-gun laws? I would like to know where the absence of outrage is from the left: many Sandy Hooks take place every month in Chicago, the progressive model for gun control. [...]

Brilliant. Read it all.

Comments are closed.