Derek Hunter @ Townhall:
I’ll leave it to others better suited to comment on the horror of Friday afternoon in Newtown, Conn. I am not yet a parent and would not presume to understand the emotions involved in something like this.
But on the media reaction and exploitation that followed the horrific news, I will comment.
Simply put, it was disgusting.
I’ve said before how progressives will exploit anyone and anything to advance their agenda, but I’d always thought there was a line, somewhere, of decency they wouldn’t cross. I was wrong.
With the blood of the victims still wet, progressives began their call for gun control. They had no idea if the guns were purchased legally (they were, and stolen from the first murder victim, the killer’s mother), what kind of guns they were (they were pistols, not “assault weapons,” though a semi-automatic rifle was found, unused, in the killer’s car), or even if the killer was in custody or dead (there were stories of a hunt for a second shooter) before they succumbed to the siren call of their agenda.
Michael Moore, noted tragedy profiteer, took to Twitter with “Only minutes away from pundits & politicians say, “This isn’t the time to talk about gun control.” Really? When is that moment?”
A short time later he followed up with “The NRA hates freedom. They don’t want you to have the freedom to send your children to school & expect them to come home alive.”
No fiction writer could do the sickness of that man justice.
But Moore wasn’t alone, David Frum was his usual self and joined a chorus of his fellow progressives that included Piers Morgan, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and nearly the entire homepage of The Huffington Post in calling for more gun control.
Actress Rashida Jones tweeted, “Gun control is our only road to freedom. Freedom from the fear of senselessly losing children. I’m so saddened. WE NEED LAWS NOW.”
The stupidity of these people is self-evident. States with the most freedom to own and carry guns have the lowest crime rates. Meanwhile, cities such as Chicago, where it’s illegal to own a gun, have the most gun violence.
The real issue is how we deal with those mentally ill.
This is 1st hand and excellent.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
When the hell are people supposed to bring up the issue of gun control, if not after an event such as this?
Jon Stewart raised the issue of when is the proper time a few days before this most recent tragedy, in two short videos.
In the second video, he totally nailed it.
Bringing up the topic isn’t exploitation. It’s the only responsible reaction.
What meaningful response are we getting from the right? All we’re getting is the usual reflexive effort to quash any serious discussion about the growing problem of gun violence in our society.
It’s totally absurd to take the position that the guns themselves are not part of the problem.
@Greg:
Yes, Greg, it is exploitation. If it wasn’t, those same people would be all over Chicago, every year, talking about the gun violence there. Or LA. Or NYC. Or any other large urban area in America where gun violence kills innocents. Instead, we get blasted by talking heads, liberal/progressive politicians, and all manner of gun-control advocates whenever a tragedy such as this occurs. Hell, numerous Democrat politicians voiced their opinion on using this tragedy to their advantage, as early as the night that it happened. If that isn’t exploitation, then you, sir, are a blind fool.
No, what you are getting is the exasperation of having every tragedy like Newtown be exploited by the gun-control crowd, issuing knee-jerk reactionary proclamations about how guns are the problem, and they need to be gotten rid of.
As for “the growing problem of gun violence”, I’d like to see your statistics or sources for such. Every statistical graph I’ve seen in a search on the net showed a decrease.
And one last thing, Greg. Our Second Amendment isn’t there for the things that the gun-control advocates say are ok with them. It isn’t there for hunting. It isn’t there for target shooting. It isn’t there for gun collecting. It is there for but one purpose. To provide the citizens a means of protection against a tyrannical government, hence the part about the militia. And neither you, nor Obama, nor any other gun-control advocate has the right to deny any of us that protection, no matter if one believes the threat of such is real or not.
@johngalt: Unfortunately, the threat from the left goes beyond just gun control, when Sen. Dick Durbin, on a Sunday morning news show, says “We need to sit down and have a quiet and calm conversation on the Second Amendment”. Is it just me, or do others believe that the 2nd Amendment protects all the others?
Mostly ignored in light of Friday’s horrific incident was the story about the Oregon Mall shooting, which as it turned out, was in all likelyhood stopped by an armed civilian stepping up and stopping the rampage mid-stream without firing a shot. And because he didn’t fire a shot, the liberals will say he, and his handgun didn’t have anything to do with ending that incident. When the bad guy saw his “show”wasn’t going to end the way he planned it, he retreated to a stairwell and shot himself.
@johngalt, #3:
This year we’ve had mass killings in Newtown, Connecticut; Portland, Oregon; Oak Creek, Wisconsin; Aurora, Colorado; and Oakland, California. I don’t know what the statistics say, but 5 such incidents in a single year seems to me like an uptick.
Firearm sales have undoubtedly increased. Enormously. I don’t buy into the theory that this is making the nation into a safer place. Mainly because I think the incidence of both “crazy” and “out of touch with reality” are also on the rise.
I deal with my government at the polling place. I know this works, because I’ve seen what happens when majority opinions shift. Republicans had controlling majorities in both the House and Senate for 12 consecutive years, with a republican in the White House for 6 of those years. I don’t recall any progressives organizing into armed militias as a response. This isn’t the Middle East. They organized voter turnouts. That’s how things are done in a democratic republic.
I can defend my person with a registered handgun, or my home with a coach gun. The only reason I can think of that I’d ever require more fire power is because of the alarming proliferation of assault weapons, which seems to be what you’re advocating. I much prefer that my neighbors not have them.
@Greg:
Again, Greg, show me the statistical sources that suggest gun violence is on the rise. And, as I said, every graph, table, or story that I’ve read that provides source material suggests otherwise.
It’s not the guns, Greg, it’s that last part you suggested. In a response to Tom, on another posting, I outlined how the gun isn’t necessarily the problem. In the US, 2/3 of all murders were committed with firearms, while 1/3 were committed using another object(knife, bat, etc.). In other industrialized nations, only around 1/3 are committed with firearms, while 2/3 are committed with other weapons. And overall, the US experiences around 2 to 4 times as many murders as other industrialized nations, depending upon the country.
What that should tell you is that when someone wants to commit a murder in the US, that the reason a gun is used more often is their prevalence in society, not that the murder wouldn’t happen if a gun wasn’t available. It should also tell you that there is an underlying cause, or reason, why out of all of the industrialized nations, the US ranks second, or first, depending upon the source you are looking at, in terms of per capita murder rates. I’d suggest that if our gun laws were as strict as some of these other countries, that the murders would still happen, just by a different means.
Yes, Greg, that is how things are done. Normally. My point about the reason for the Second Amendment still stands. And, it is just as important today as it was back when the US won it’s freedom from England, despite how things are normally done in a representative Republic, or democracy. And it is not up to you, or any other liberal/progressive, to suggest that our reason for having access to firearms has passed. And it is certainly not up to those leading what some view as a “soft tyranny”, i.e. the politicians running the governments, to take away a right of the citizens, or infringe upon it, in any way.
That isn’t what I’m advocating, Greg. Not at all. I, myself, do not own any firearms, even though when I lived with my parents I was around them constantly. That might change here in the future, and it might not. But you do not have the right to restrict access to firearms for other citizens, just because you don’t feel comfortable with them. Or because you “feel” that they are a danger to society. Or any other reason. There are roughly 4-5 million “assault” weapons in the US, Greg, making up only about 1.7% of all privately owned firearms in the US. So unless you can show that the numbers of murders committed by “assault” weapon type firearms, make up a larger percent of all murders committed by firearm than 1.7%, then you have no basis for suggesting that the “assault” firearms shouldn’t be in the hands of average people. None.
@Greg:
That’s the problem with silly socialists in a nutshell. They are never content with taking responsibility for themselves and allowing others the same rights.
The collective does not agree to protect you. It cannot. I insist on the right to protect myself from any risk I can foresee. You are wrong to want the king and his minions to remove my ability to protect my family just because they were unable to protect those children. I’m sorry you need to register your protection where you choose to live. It will be a lot easier for them to remove it from you later. I’m sorry you have bad neighbors.
I’m sorry we allowed our kids to be propagandized like we did. I fear most that the freedoms we once so loved will be surrendered to the elites willingly. The legitimate elected lawmakers won’t strip our rights. That will come by way of unilateral action from the regulators. The useful idiots will approve.
greg liked to acuse Mormons of wearing magical underwear, yet blames inanimate objects for crime. Who’s the idiot?
Reality check for the left:
http://minx.cc/?post=335699
Flashback: Tough Gun Control Laws Failed To Prevent German School Slaughter of 2009
Ohhhh greg
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/associated-press-story-believe-it-or-not-mass-killings-are-not-on-the-rise-they-are-on-the-decline/
Associated Press Story: Believe It or Not Mass Killings Are Not on the Rise, They Are on the Decline
J.G. per 2nd Amendment the reason citizens have guns is to “protect themselves from a tyrannical govt.”
I agree with Greg that the voting booth has done this job the last 200 years.
Defense of self and family, for the range, to hunt. If you feel the need. O.K. But be trained and be sane–30 day wait doesn’t seem unreasonable. Safety features and requirement for proper lock down to keep out of hands of kids or “unauthorized” adults. Automatic weapons? For law enforcement and the military.
I grew up where shooting hoops, turning the double play and catching a long pass preferred to target practice or hunting rabbits and deer. I didn’t hold a weapon till I joined the Marines. Haven’t held one except for shooting skeet since I got out.
Different cultures within our own country. Must be respected.
Canada tried to restrict gun ownership with all sorts of laws. These were abject failures and had one result. It grew another useless bureaucracy. These laws went in the garbage where they belonged.
I now see that Senator Fineswine of San Francisco wants laws restricting assault weapons again. Typical Modus Operendi.
@Richard Wheeler:
I see rich is all for sacrificing the freedom of others. Big surprise.
A right delayed is a right denied. 30 days is anything but reasonable, especially to someone who needs the firearm ASAP. A woman being stalked or under the threat of death from a violent ex is a prime example.
If you don’t like the gun laws here rich, I suggest you move to Australia. You’d just love theirs.
BTW, I’m betting you are one of the two people who voted thumbs down on the link proving greg wrong about the “rise” in shootings. You and your kind just can’t handle the truth.
@Hard Right: Different states have different rules as to the wait time as well. Even as an active duty, sworn police officer in Florida, I had a three day wait to buy a handgun. Here in Oklahoma, the wait’s about 30 minutes while the “instant” backround check is conducted (call to the BATF backround line).
@Scott in Oklahoma:
I know where rich lives they have a ridiculous wait, but I am surprised about Florida, especially for a police officer!
I usually get thru backround checks in about 5-10 minutes max. In fact, I’ve had a few shopkeepers comment on how quick I got cleared.
In all fairness, the instant backround check isn’t a violation in my eyes. A 3 day wait or longer is.
@Hard Right: Believe me, I was surprised too, when I went to get a spare while my duty weapon was getting repaired (we didn’t have issued handguns then). I don’t have a problem with the instant checks, although sometimes they can take a bit if there’s a lot of phone traffic. More than that, not satisfactory at all, especially for a sworn active police officer.
@Greg: A Democrats politicians mouth is a thousand times more deadly than the guns used in this tragedy!! Greg, what about the thousands murdered by abortion every year because of someones “right” to chose? If you want to get serious about an issue then get serious or crawl back in your hole!!
I still believe that a real problem with such violence can be associated with the disgusting video games that anyone can buy and watch. Brutal bloody murder in these games is the object and is rewarded with success. The more you kill the better you are!! If you have a isolated deranged youth who does nothing but play these games for hours it becomes no surprise to me that the line between reality and a game becomes more clouded. BTW, abortion is murder as well but yet the same folks who cry more gun control are to a high degree the same wachos that hide behind someone’s right to choose (like chose to buy a gun) as sacred even though it is 100% effective as a tool to murder innocent children.
@Richard Wheeler:
You have just displayed, like Greg did before you, your lack of knowledge about our Constitution and the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Congratulations, Rich, as we can now identify you with the rest of the liberal/progressives who “pick and choose” which parts of our Constitution we should be living by.
Per St. George Tucker’s popular edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries of the law of England(1803), Tucker writes;
Later, Tucker elaborates upon that;
St. George Tucker was a lawyer, Revolutionary War officer, legal scholar, and a US District court Justice, appointed by Madison.
What he is essentially saying is that governments will find all manner of restricting the access and use of weapons by the citizenry, until only a handful in a thousand can “legally” keep or carry a firearm, and that the 2nd Amendment was expressly written to prevent this occurrence within the US.
Another Justice(a Supreme Court associate Justice) appointed by Madison had this to say;
Read those bolded portions thoroughly, Rich. They are the essence of why the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution.
And just for the record, I believe that the first line of defense against tyranny and usurpation of power is at the ballot box. However, when that fails, the citizenry, if they are to remain free, must have the ability to protect itself from such actions by the government they entrusted power to. If they do not have the ability, either by restriction, or abolition, of such a right as the 2nd Amendment, then the people will soon be put under the boot of that government.
You may not like it, Rich, but that is exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment.
H.R. You’re a nasty old broad aren’t you? You’ve been saying I should move to different countries and suggesting Marines died to protect my life. Was that in Viet Nam? You sound the type crazy enough to be denied a gun permit.lol
J.G. Glad to see you,I and Greg agree the ballot box has done the job the last 200+ years. You wanna worry about the future have at it.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
You suggest to impose a limitation upon a right, based on your own viewpoint, that others hold dear. I would imagine that if someone were to suggest to you that you cannot practice your chosen religion, except in the church, that you would have something to say about that, wouldn’t you? Or if someone suggested that only certain speech be allowed to take place in the public square. Or if someone suggested that only certain items were prohibited from being obtained by police in search and seizures without a warrant. Or if someone suggested that only men, of certain ages, and races, should be allowed to vote. Or if someone suggested that you only have a right to trial for certain crimes, but not all of them. Or if someone suggested that slavery is only abolished in certain states. Etc., etc., etc.
You have no right to limit the rights of others, Rich. Nor to suggest that they be limited. And neither does Obama nor any politicians within the US.
@Richard Wheeler:
You missed the importance of what I said, Rich. The ballot box is the first line of defense. It can be argued that currently, the ballot box is failing to deliver us representation that will continue to protect our freedoms and liberties.
O.K. John How bout however long it takes to determine if the guy is reasonably sane and knows how to use the weapon safely. How’s that?
You can argue all you want about the ballot box failing. That may be because you lost.Get a great candidate and try again in 4 years. Chances are pretty good we’ll still be open for business.
@Richard Wheeler: Rich, that would be the same ballot box that provides a majority of Republicans in the House and enough Republicans in the Senate to filibuster idiotic legislation? Thank goodness it is!!
@Common Sense, #17:
There’s an interesting irony in that comment: Many who express total outrage about governmental intrusiveness the moment anyone suggests tighter controls on the sale of military style assault weapons are the same people who vigorously support governmental controls over a woman’s decision about whether she wishes to continue a pregnancy or not.
Many of those who believe it to be tyrannical for the government to restrict what deadly weapons a citizen can buy or when and where they can be carried, are the same people who think it’s OK for the government to break down your door and haul you off to jail if you’re smoking certain forbidden herbs in the privacy of your own home.
I see this as a glaring inconsistency. Obviously others don’t. I’m not really sure what’s at the bottom of that disagreement.
#18:
Regarding first-person shooter video games, we seem to harbor the same dark suspicion. I believe they can psychologically alter some overly impressionable people, and condition them to act out in the real world on anti-social impulses that are rewarded in the fantasy world of a game. There’s an obvious potential for such games to brainwash disturbed personalities–people who can’t clearly distinguish between fantasy and reality.
I guess we’re getting into First Amendment territory, with that observation.
@Greg: Wishing to continue a pregnancy vs banning certain assault weapons. When an abortion is performed there is a 100% chance that a life will end!! Is that the same as banning assault weapons? I would support that position if it where true. Of course the analogy is not even close to the same. Not that I expected you to understand. I am somewhat amused that we have some grounds for agreement on the video games though. Almost makes me want to re think my position if you agree.
Why is it that when the left wins an election, they always seem to squeeze the term “you lost” into the conversation, yet when Conservatives win elections I don’t hear that term used by us… pretty friggin’ arrogant, especially considering the Liberals then feel that it’s their right to tell us what’s best for us, like they would have clue.
@Greg:
Your “glaring inconsistency” can be looked at from the other side as well, Greg. That the liberal/progressives, who want to remove any government interference from, or intrusion of, a person’s body, willingly support governmental interference and intrusion into most other aspects of a person’s life.
It’s perspective, Greg, and when you only point out one side of the coin, it shows a lack of perspective on your part.
Prove it, Greg. Show me the poll that concludes that very thing.
@Richard Wheeler:
Who is going to determine that, Rich. You? The government? A doctor’s note? And who’s to say that the person purchases a weapon while sane, but then snaps? What then?
And who determines if a person knows how to use a weapon safely? You? The government? A certified instructor? And what defines “safe”? It’s entirely possible that something safe for one person might not be safe for another, such as handloading for accuracy, quickdrawing for competition, etc.
Yes, I can. So can numerous other people. And still many others would argue that the ballot box is working. It all depends upon perspective, Rich. You might think that a government edict or piece of legislation doesn’t affect you, or limit your own, personal freedom, while another might believe that the same piece of government proclamation most certainly does.
What’s wrong rich, those jackboots too tight and making you cranky?
You do not support the rights that others fought and died for. That makes you a hypocrite and a P.O.S. in general. You do not get to decide what rights others have and I don’t expect traitors like you ever will. You can go back to pissing on your dead buddies graves now.
BTW even if I was a woman, I would still be more of a man than you ever were.
H.R I forgot what you ever did for your country other than being a loud mouthed jack ass?? Are you a chickenhawk? A draft dodger? Or maybe just a simple coward?
Donated money to Wounded Warriors and helped send care packages to our soldiers.
I haven’t betrayed America or those that died for it like you have and continue to do.
You swore to uphold the Constitution and have made clear you have no intention of doing it.
That alligator mouth of yours is going to get your lightweight ass into trouble eventually.
H.R. I work for Wounded Warriors here at Camp Pendleton. My name and address have been posted. Come and see me anytime. If you really are a man,which I doubt, why didn’t you serve? Were you 4F or did you dodge it?
Hi Bees Since you seem to agree with H.R. you’re invited to stop by as well. I’ve been in touch with Mata who mentioned you.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler: Thank you for your service at WWP Richard. Now tell me this, if someone didn’t serve in the military, are they not a man? Did they not serve their country? If that’s your small way of thinking. you are far less of a man than most that I know.
BTW, I did not serve in the military. 17 years in what was at the time the busiest all volunteer fire department in the country and 20 years as a police officer, with a two year overlap. So I gave 35 years of my life to the service of others, and I take exception to your comment about not serving and your attitude.
that is so wrong for half of the UNITED STATES TO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR MAINTAINING
THE LAW WHICH WAS MADE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS AMERICA,
49 AND SOME FRACTION TO 50 FOR OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS,
IS A VERY SHAKY WIN FOR THIS NATION,
THEY SHOULD STOP REGURGITATE ON THEIR I WON,
AND NOT FEEL THAT SECURE SO TO IMPLEMENT LAW BY BREACHING
THE LAW WHICH SECURE THE COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THOSE CARRYING WEAPONS
TO SAVE AMERICA IN PERIL FROM MENTALLY SICK HATERS WHO WANT TO DESTROY HER
THEIR FEAR IS VISIBLE, AND THEY KNOW IT CAN’T BE DONE
BECAUSE OF WHAT IS IN THEIR WAY, THAT IS THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH WILL
NULLIFY ANY OF THE DECISIONS THEY SIGN TO LAWS.
Scott I respect your service as a police officer and fire fighter. My back and forth with H.R. see #30 goes to her personally questioning my patriotism and service as a Marine every time I disagree with her views.
Hard to ignore. She has my personal invite to come up here from Arizona and visit the Wounded Warrior Hospital on base. Same to Bees. Visitors come away not worrying about themselves so much and realizing we’re all on the same team.
@Richard Wheeler:
At the risk of having you stupidly blow up at me, Rich, HR has a point that you are missing entirely.
When you repeatedly support positions that run counter to the Constitution, you are betraying the oath of service you took when you joined the Marines. That is, to protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. And HR has a right to point that out to you, whether or not HR served any time in the military, and whether or not you think those challenges to your patriotism or service are valid.
Now, you can argue all you want about your positions being supported by the Constitution, and we can debate with you that they are not, and I’m quite ok with that. I like Larry a lot and we hardly see eye to eye on a lot contained within the Constitution. Of course, he doesn’t go around challenging people to personal confrontations when challenged either, so there is that difference in you. I highly doubt that he’d go around wearing his old uniform and puffing up his chest, displaying his medals, to show his superiority either.
Suggestion here, Rich: Instead of being indignant at someone who challenges whether or not you are still upholding that oath you took, and issuing the personal confrontation invites, or using previous military service as the gauge for patriotism, Why don’t you instead, explain why you believe your positions have merit, when compared to the Constitution? You know, like Larry does.
Rich Wheeler
you should re study the CONSTITUTION , SO TO TRY TO CONVINCE AND POINT OUT, TO THE OTHER DEMOCRATS WHERE THEY ARE BREAKING THE PARTS OF IT, AND THROWING THEIR WEIGHT ON THE PEOPLE IS BAD WHEN THEY THINK THEY HELP THEY ARE DOING WRONG,
THIS KIND OF HELP IS NOT GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE, ONLY FOR YOU DEMOCRATES
I suppose anyone who acquires a firearm automatically becomes part of a well-regulated militia.
@Greg:
I see that you are intent on fomenting misconceptions surrounding the Second Amendment, Greg.
You might want to actually do more research before you send off your inane comments.
Get that? It is an individual right, for a collective purpose. Such historical individuals as St. George Tucker (Revolutionary War officer, US district court justice, legal scholar), William Rawle (US Attorney for Pennsylvania, appointed by George Washington), Justice Story (appointed to USSC by Madison), and James Madison himself, stated such.
Tench Coxe, after Madison’s Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, had this to say about the Second Amendment;
No counterpoint was ever offered during that period, by anyone, using any means, including speeches on the floor of Congress.
Coxe also had this to say;
Again, no counterpoint was offered to this viewpoint, during the period it was written.
Madison himself, in arguing for the adoption of the Constitution, but before his admission of the Bill of Rights to Congress, had this to say, in Federalist Paper no. 46;
The intent is obvious to any objective reader. That is, to allow the people their right of private arms to prevent the tyranny that would otherwise subjugate them to the government.
Hamilton also had much to say on the topic, in both Federalist Papers no. 28 and 29, and suggested that the militia was We, the People.
And finally, in 1999, the USSC upheld that very idea, that the militia clause is not purposed to exclude any citizen of the United States from the right to own and bear arms.
Lastly;
Greg
with the way the GOVERNMENT IS CEASING POWER ON THE PEOPLE,
WHICH BY THE LAWS Of THE LAND BELONG TO THE PEOPLE ONLY,
and who are served by the ELECTED PRESIDENT AND HIS HELP
ON THE DOLE OF THE PEOPLE,
IT WOULD BE A BETTER SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE IF THE MILITARY WOULD BE THE ELECTED ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP, AS FAR AS MORE FREEDOM , AS FAR AS FOLLOWING THE LAWS THE CONSTITUTION,
THE ONE CONSTITUTION WHICH OBAMA CLAIM TO BE IN HIS WAY,
THE JUSTICE WOULD BE FOLLOW BY THE BOOK, AND PEOPLE WOULD BE REAL AMERICANS,
NOT A LOST GLOBAL BUNCH OF SHEEPS FOLLOWING A PROPAGANDA INDOCTRINATION OF THE YOUNG NOT A BUNCH OF UNION THUGS BREAKING THINGS TO GET MORE BENEFITS FROM THE PEOPLE’S POCKETS,
THERE WOULD BE MORE TRUST IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW NOT THEIR LAWS WHICH BENEFIT ONLY THE GOVERNMENT LOBBYIST OR THE PAYER TO GET BENEFIT FROM THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE ORGANIZATIONS PRESSURING THE GOVERNMENT TO GET GOD OUT OF AMERICA. ECETERA, ECETERA.
Nan G
I JUST HEARD ON FOX , MARINE COMING HOME,
WOW I’M SO GLAD
BYE