Posts Tagged ‘Connecticut’

The sympathy I expressed for them a few days ago and the belief that they are simply tragic victims driven by grief is something I now find myself calling into question.  Many may still be blind with grief, but read the story by Politico “Newtown Families: Victims Turn Lobbyists” and you may find yourself becoming rapidly cynical:

… the Newtown families, political novices just a few months ago, are proving to be savvy, effective advocates as they promote the gun legislation that has finally begun to move through the Senate. The families are well-educated, and many are well-off. They have been polished and sharp on TV. They’re mostly non-political, but quite accomplished in their own fields. With access to money and media, they’re using persistence, visibility — and, most all, their unique moral authority — to help prod Senate action. They also have their own lobbyists — several of them, in fact.

They’re pushing anti-rights legislation.  Maybe some among them think it’ll “save children”, but as I illustrated last time, the things they’re asking for wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook.  They are pushing for exactly what anti-gun groups have been pushing for for years, though.

They’re pushing for something that is a step towards widespread disarmament, emotionally pushing for things that they feel are so critical that they “must” be done, emotionally pushing for things so hard that “now is the time” before anyone starts to look at the bigger picture calmly and at the long-term implications of what happens when citizens are left disarmed.

Then there are the comments by their Democrat political handlers:

“These are smart, articulate people, who don’t have a scintilla of Washington about them,” said Matt Bennett of the centrist Democratic group Third Way, which has been helping the families navigate D.C. “But they virtually cannot be denied a meeting. There are not many groups of people that can get a meeting with any senator they want, whenever they want.”

He’s a lying about his group.  They Democrats came in and the families have been embraced by the Democrat party and anti-rights, anti-gun citizen disarmament groups as the heartwrenching emotional story they need to use to acquire more power.  There’s keeping rights, restoring rights, and loss of rights.  They’re pushing for loss of citizen rights, and they’ve got leftist Democrats guiding them the whole way.  There is nothing “third way” about Bennett’s group, either – they’re a partisan Democrat group used to target low-information moderates.  Their notable members include such partisan leftist Democrats as Kathleen “F the Hatch Act” Sebelius and Ken “Boot Stamping on a Human Face Forever” Salazar.

He is right about the demands they can make.  They can portray anyone who rejects them as devoid of sympathy, of being a cruel monster who wants dead children.  They and their handlers are exploiting the respect we offer the grieving to push their agenda.

A group of experienced operators is guiding these families — to a degree that has irritated some pro-gun Republicans. An uber-strategist for the families is Ricki Seidman, a familiar face at the top levels of Democratic politics ever since she ran the Clinton-Gore campaign’s famous 1992 war room. Seidman, a senior principal with TSD Communications, was Vice President Joe Biden’s communications director during the 2008 general election, and helped the White House win confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotmayor.

Bennett’s Third Way connected the families with a lobbying firm, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, that set up more than 25 Hill meetings this week alone. And Lara Bergthold, a veteran of Democratic presidential campaigns now with Griffin, Schein in Los Angeles, is helping to manage the media onslaught.

These are political operatives using the families as props (at best).  It would be nice to believe that the families in their grief are simply pawns in this, but then there are comments like this:

“This is now part of my day-to-day life, and it is a full-time job to me and my family,” Jillian Soto said. “To be honest with you, I still don’t know how the mechanics in Washington work. I still find it absurd that senators can even say my sister wasn’t murdered with an assault rifle. She was shot multiple times in front of her kids, and that’s not OK to me. It’s not OK to most Americans.” (As her raw language indicates, Soto is working with Bloomberg’s group.)

An assault rifle is select-fire, so no, she wasn’t murdered with an assault rifle.  Those are highly restricted and have been since the GCA of 1934.  The killer did not have an assault rifle.  So no, she wasn’t.  Soto’s indignation is intended to get you mad at pro-rights senators for questioning her – with her dead sister as a moral bulwark, she can scream and it’s considered callous and heartless and horrific to correct her.  The constant push against the rights of citizens, ignoring the actual data, is now, to her, “part of my day-to-day life and it is a full time job to me and my family”.  She’s going to press to restrict your rights full time based on the acts of a madman – a madman who would never be stopped by the solutions she champions, and if her solutions pass, a lone madman who in time will be replaced by an administration of madmen – as history shows us again and again.

This is a very clever political movement being handled by the Democrats.  They’re going to dance in the blood of those children as long as they can to get more power.

What started as a support group is now a lobbying force unlike any other to descend on Capitol Hill. The family members typically begin their pitch to senators softly, telling the story of the child that they lost. They gently say they could not have imagined themselves in this position, but they’re doing it to honor the memory of their children. They say they’re supporters of the Second Amendment, and just want to have a conversation.

They don’t want a conversation.  That’s a lie, just the same as their “I’m not racist, I have a black friend” claim of support of the Second Amendment.  They have demands.

They aren’t having a conversation and asking about how to deal with madmen, they’re pushing for laws that violate the Constitution and serve as a framework to disarm the populace – their handlers know it, their handlers have been pushing for it, and most likely the families know it, too.  They may well be pushing for it because they think it’s a “good thing” and they don’t understand the nature of rights; or driven mad with grief, they only understand that some alien thing that they don’t understand but want to do away with has taken their loved one.

But there’s nothing subtle about the way some of them conclude their visits: by leaving behind a color card with a photo of their slain relative. Nicole Hockley, who introduced President Barack Obama in Hartford this week, hands senators a card with three photos of her son Dylan, who was 6 when he was gunned down. One frame shows him grinning, in a Superman shirt.

“Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06 – 12/14/12,” the card says. “Honor his life. Stand with us for change. NOW IS THE TIME.”

“Now is the time” is the kind of fierce urgent emotional demand that stifles debate.  The entire purpose is to generate an emotional response and demand NOW NOW NOW without stopping to question why or what is being done.

The universal background checks they want, the universal registration that background checks require to be complete, the denial to citizens to actually bear, trade, or acquire arms, the denial of citizens to own modern arms – none of that would’ve prevented the murders at Sandy Hook.  But they demand action “NOW NOW NOW” because that stifles debate.  They demand “NOW NOW NOW” and any question of why, or what these things will change is stopped by bringing up their dead children.  The argument for immediacy and the argument for necessity are well-known pleas of tyrants, and are the hallmark of liberal fascism, where something must be done for your own good right NOW…  Again, if you take the time to ask about why, or what the long-term effects are (say as in “we need to pass it to see what’s in it” Obamacare), you’re shouted down.

-

I’m a veteran.  When I write things like “for those who’ve fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know”, I mean it.  It’s not a cliche, it’s a reality.  There are a lot of people, myself included, who fought for our rights and our Constitution.  Our nation is unique in that we don’t swear an allegiance to a president or a king or an autocrat.  We swear our oath to a piece of paper.  We swear it to a contract made by free people to create a government that serves us.  We swear our oaths to that Constitution and the protection of those natural rights it guarantees.

The natural right to self defense against oppression, against tyranny large and small, whether it be a dictatorial government or a lone criminal, is something that many men and women have fought and died for.  The forces against the natural right to self defense are those who would be our masters, who demand autocracy and think they know best and should tell us how to live – tyrants.

The demand that we surrender rights that our forefathers and sometimes our friends fought and died for is unacceptable.

arlington cemetery

Those rights were fought for, and men and women died for those rights, so that people back home could be safe with the protections those natural rights provide.  They the honored dead and we the veterans did not fight for those rights so that those rights could be hastily abandoned to a political cry of “now is the time”.

No.  Never is the time.

The Newtown families, if truly driven by grief, will still have my sympathy, but what they demand in the name of children and family who would not even be protected by the unconstitutional laws they demand is anathema to those who have served and those who remember our honored dead who fought for those rights.  The contract that our honored dead and we the veterans signed was to protect those rights.  Against more than two hundred years of adversaries within and without we’ve fought to preserve those rights with millions of men and women who’ve served and hundreds of thousands who’ve died in service – all to protect those rights.

normandy american cemetery

The emotional demand that one tragedy, manipulated by fiendish politicians for their own power and demand to control the American people, mean that we the citizens give up the rights bought and paid for in blood by our honored dead and our veterans and often ourselves as veterans is one that can only be answered with a resounding no.

Today those demanding the surrender of our rights and our arms do so with words, because we have arms.  With history as our guide, when we have no arms, they won’t use words anymore.  This is again why we have fought for those rights.

-

There may be solutions to limit the horrors in the world, but abrogating the right of self defense that is intrinsic to the contract of our safe and secure society is not an option.  We may still have individual madmen and criminals, but we have no tyrants here – our tragedies are counted in ones and tens but never in millions.

Stalin famously said that a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.  To a dictator’s perspective, he’s right.

To a free man’s perspective and to a patriot perspective, that’s not the case.  A single death is a tragedy, and a million deaths is a million individual tragedies.  The twenty-six individual tragedies at Sandy Hook do not outweigh the incomprehensible human suffering and death endured by millions of individual citizens who fought so that we could live free covered by the protections of the natural rights our Constitution provides.  The willing and also unwilling sacrafices of those millions of individual tragedies and sufferings thus prevented millions more individual tragedies.  Those who fought and died knew that they fought for that piece of paper and the rights it guaranteed.

Gardens-of-Stone arlington cemetery

The actions of one madman and the desire to correct those twenty-six tragedies can be understood.  They are fathomable.  The rows upon rows of graves of those who fought to prevent greater tragedies are often beyond comprehension and thus some folks can miss the far bigger picture.  They aren’t seen as a million individual tragedies and lives of suffering undertaken for a larger cause to ensure greater rights that protect us all – those lost lives are right in front of us and yet some forget both those lost lives and the payments in blood they made on liberties.

Each one is an individual tragedy.

iraq war cemetery cr

Each individual tragedy was undertaken as an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

And yet there are those who would still trade away that liberty bought at so dear a price for temporary security… and they would soon find themselves with neither.

First a bit about the parents, then the gun-control ideas they’re putting forth – because it’s important to look at those ideas by themselves.  It’s also important to note the difference between addressing the ideas, which I harshly criticize (gun control leads to tyranny large and small, not safety), as opposed to the parents themselves, who everyone can empathize with in their grief.  For all the empathy shared with the parents, the difficulty lies in the “solutions” they are putting forward, and the people pushing them to those “solutions”.

From CBS:

Bill Sherlach: This is– this is a marathon. And you have to be prepared to run all 26 miles. This is not a sprint. That’s been the typical reaction. Get the legislation. Get it now. And then it– it fades. Time goes by. News cycles happen. Other headlines come up. Now when you take a multifaceted approach, and you can build a wagon big enough for a grassroots movement to get involved, it has the legs to go the 26 miles.

Scott Pelley: This is a lifelong pursuit for all of you?

Voices: Yes. Yeah.

Bill Sherlach: Shame on me if it’s not.

Despite the highly political-machine nature of that first statement, I’m going to hope that it’s still their continued grief that’s driving them, and err on the side of empathy – and thus why I’m only criticizing their ideas and not them, but very bluntly, they are pushing for greater state authority, weakened rights for citizens, and they’re ultimately pushing for tyranny.  I don’t think they necessarily even understand that they are, and I’m not even sure they can understand that if their grief is so great.  I hope that for many of them, it’s just their grief driving them, but they are declaring that a “lifelong pursuit” to work against a key fixture of the Bill of Rights has become their goal.

By contrast, Dr. Suzanna Hupp, whose parents were murdered along with 21 other people in the Luby’s Massacre, did understand that taking the horns from the gazelle does not protect the gazelle from the lion.  Losing two parents in a massacre that you have to escape from yourself isn’t the same as losing children to a massacre, but it is quite a parallel.

But from Sandy Hook there also is Newtown father Mark Mattioli, who understands that disarming good people doesn’t protect you from bad people, and is out to make sure that good people aren’t left defenseless.

Mark Mattioli, as a father of a child murdered at Newtown, presents a very sharp contrast to the parents who are flying around on Air Force One with Barack Obama in order to push against the Bill of Rights.

For someone else not as clear-headed as Mattioli, struggling through grief, and for someone from an urbanized, liberal, extremely wealthy state like Connecticut, they probably don’t have much connection to firearms through sporting, self-defense, or hunting traditions (unless they work at Colt or one of the other Connecticut arms makers), and so they probably don’t view it as a right, but just as a horrible thing that took their child away.  A thing that some caricature of a person they don’t understand in a flyover state cares about – but whose words they don’t or can’t hear.  A thing that flyover state caricature needs to be taught about by people like them so the flyover state caricature can understand it’s a horrible thing.  A thing that flyover state caricature needs to have taken away for the collective good of all children because that thing killed their kids.

It’s tragic and it’s altogether understandable, given what they’ve been through.

To them, it doesn’t matter that it was a madman (thus also forgoing the complex issues of how to deal with madmen), it becomes the piece of plastic and metal that did it, it becomes that thing of so-called rights and guns and all that horrible thing they blame for the loss of their child.  By their region and culture, they’re already politically predisposed at best to apathy towards the Second Amendment, and now they blame the rights of free men and women for the deaths of their children because it’s a horrible thing to them, and that’s all they can feel through their grief.

I feel for the parents, I can understand why they do what they do, but at the same time, they don’t understand what they’re asking for, and they don’t understand who is pushing them to these demands.  They don’t understand the consequences of their anti-gun, anti-rights, anti-freedom, pro-state actions.  If they got all they’re asking for, they’d find they’d leave the world a less safe place.  In the long run, nothing good comes of citizen disarmament:

Now to those same recycled gun control anti-rights ideas.  From CBS:

Scott Pelley: In terms of the things that are being considered in Washington, are any of them at the top of your priority list? If you could have one thing or you could have two, what would you choose?

Bill Sherlach: Personally, I would– I would think the ma– limiting magazine size and universal background check. If I had to pick two-

Universal background checks step on private citizens’ rights.  Universal background checks mean the government has to get involved in everything between law-abiding citizens.  Universal background checks mean that you have to prove you did a background check on any firearm you own, and the only way to do that is with a universal list and registration.  Universal background checks create universal registration… a tool for those who want and desire universal confiscation.

Universal background checks are meaningless to criminals who steal guns, and meaningless to madmen or terrorists who up until they time they snap present the image on paper of being upstanding citizens – neuroscience PhD candidates, or Army majors, for example.

Banning magazines is banning a tool.  The VA Tech murderer used 10-round magazines in his second pistol – a Walther P22 – and he murdered more adults than the Sandy Hook murderer did children with two pistols and a rifle with no 10-round cap.  And on the other end of the evil-good spectrum, New York has already passed a ban on everything above 7 rounds – limiting you to seven chances only to save your life in a confrontation.

Dana Loesch, when ripping Piers Morgan a new one, showed how magazine-limitation logic works.  To them, 30 rounds means 30 dead kids, and they want to go to 10 rounds, to “save” 20 kids.  Of course that means that 10 dead kids must be acceptable.  So then they want to 7 rounds to “save” 23 kids, but that means 7 dead kids is acceptable.  So really they want to go to 0 rounds to “save” all the kids.  And that means total disarmament – which is what anti-rights tyrants want; and is something that ultimately leaves entire nations – adults and kids – defenseless.  There are huge consequences to citizen disarmament.

Fists/A World Without Guns by Oleg Volk

And then there’s this idea, which would have made no difference in Newtown:

Nicole Hockley: And anything that helps reduce– gun trafficking as well, in the straw purchases, to know that you can’t buy a gun for someone else.

The Terry family wants somebody to go after gun traffickers, but Eric Holder hasn’t gone to prison for sending thousands of guns to Mexico.  I have yet to hear the media (beyond the politically attuned right and Sharyl Attkisson, anyway) complain about the hundreds of dead brown kids killed next door by guns sent to narcoterrorist cartels by the US government.

Straw purchasing is already illegal.  You can’t make it “double illegal”, and criminals by their nature as lawbreakers do not care.  You could ask that the Obama administration enforce gun laws against criminals, which they aren’t.

The parents have an entire political caste that is pro-tyranny that’s willing to use them as props and tell them that guns killed their kids and use them to support an anti-rights agenda.  A mother in a Newtown situation who’s distraught over the loss of a child doesn’t care about straw purchases, because if every straw purchase past, present, and future never happened, it still wouldn’t save her kid.  She’d know that in so many mass killings, it’s done by madmen who aren’t known to law enforcement, and who thus don’t care about straw purchases because they don’t make straw purchases.  After dealing with her sadness and grief, she’d get past the powerful feeling of loss and see that it’s nothing but a political ploy for greater control by the state that cold never bring her child back.

A father who lost his child wouldn’t care about 6 bullets or 10 or 30, because if his child was killed by the first bullet, it wouldn’t make a difference.  Wishing away every magazine over 10 rounds wouldn’t save his kid if his kid was one of those first 10 rounds.  He’d have to wish away the rest of them as well – hence why NY has a 7-round ban, and other states have pushed for 5.  Ultimately, those who oppose citizens’ rights are going for zero – which the father, after dealing with his grief  – may well understand isn’t in any way a good thing.  It wouldn’t bring back his child, but it would endanger others against tyranny by an individual madman or by a powerful state.

Parents who want to do something about gun trafficking should be asking Obama why he exerted executive privilege on Fast and Furious.  They’re riding on Air Force One with him – they can ask him personally.  In their grief, and perhaps because they’ve given the issue little thought until having it thrust upon them, they are either steered away from those questions or don’t even know to ask them.  They’re in mourning, but are being used.

The parents are not being helped to heal, they’re being used as political props.  They’re repeating anti-rights, anti-gun, pro-tyranny messages that they’ve been fed by a political caste.  Their grief is being flown around the country to be showcased so the left can push its agenda.  The parents are lost in grief and with the media spotlight, are pushing for something to make sense of what’s lost.  They’re trying to make their children into something greater by providing a lasting legacy – and they mean well – but in their grief, they don’t look at the long run.  They don’t look at the greater consequences of the things they’re asking for.  They’re surrounded by political operatives who want to use them to “never let a crisis go to waste” and push for gun control on the backs of their dead children that could never make it through otherwise.

HARTFORD, Conn. (CBSNewYork) — Connecticut state lawmakers came to an agreement Monday on what they said will become some of the nation’s toughest gun control laws.

Connecticut state lawmakers came to an agreement Monday on what they said will become some of the nations toughest laws that infringe on the right of the citizen, bragging that they’ve done more to squash the puny serfs than anyone this week, all through “agreement” between one ruling group and another ruling group on what they should do to the peon citizen.

As CBS 2′s Lou Young reported, the deal included a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one that was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre in Newtown. The deal also calls for a new registry for existing high-capacity magazines, and background checks that would apply to private gun sales.

One small step for a tyrant, one giant leap for tyranny!

Another registry would be set up for dangerous weapons offenders.

Y’know, we used to not put dangerous people on a list.  We used to put them in prison until they either learned and stopped being dangerous, or until they just stopped being.

Connecticut House Speaker Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden) said he hopes the agreement sends a message to Washington, and the rest of the country.

“This is the way to get this job done; to do it in an effective, meaningful, thoughtful way, and to do it on a bipartisan basis, because our children deserve no less,” Sharkey said.

It sends a message that the Second Amendment shall be infringed, and sends a message that, on a bipartisan basis, between different stripes of tyrant, our children deserve to grow up in a society in which the state will dictate to them what they may do, and how they may do it, because the state knows best for the little people, who all need to be controlled, lorded over, supervised, and taken care of.

  • Same story, different take from the BBC:

Criminal background checks would now be required of all prospective gun purchasers. Currently, federal law exempts so-called private transactions, which can include online sales and sales at gun shows.

So-called “private transactions” between so-called “private citizens” who think they’re so-called “free men” whose lives shouldn’t be subject to “so-called” tyranny and control by government.

Where do you buy guns online?  Every online gun shop I see requires a transfer via FFL holder, as does every private seller on Gunbroker or Auction Arms.  The only exceptions are antiques.  Is there really a problem with blackpowder pistols being sold online?

In a compromise, legislators did not ban existing ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. Instead, already purchased high-capacity magazines will have to be registered.

In a compromise, citizens’ rights were only partially stripped, and rights that citizens thought they had will now have to be registered, though the state may be unsure of when they acquired these “rights”, so they may have to surrender them anyway, and they may not be able to pass these rights on to their children.  It’s a compromise in which you compromise your rights, and the state increases its power.  What a wonderful compromise!  Just the tip, baby.

Gun control advocates in Sacramento are putting a new twist on an old NRA slogan: “Guns don’t kill people — bullets kill people.”

Democratic lawmakers are pushing like never before to regulate or tax ammunition sales. They say the logic is simple: A firearm is nothing but an expensive paperweight without ammunition.

And a printing press is nothing without ink, and a computer is nothing without electricity.  Goodbye, Bill of Rights, hello tyranny!

“It’s a way to red-tape the right to bear arms to death,” said Chuck Michel, the California Rifle and Pistol Association’s attorney, promising to sue if any such bills pass. “It’s all part of a campaign of shame, the fight to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to make the choice to have a firearm for self-defense.”

As lawmakers mull how to curb gun violence in the wake of December’s massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., some note that California and federal laws also forbid those who aren’t allowed to own firearms from owning ammunition — but there’s no way to tell who’s buying it.

Skinner’s bill would require all ammo dealers to be licensed and all ammo buyers to provide identification information that would go to a state registry. The registry could then be compared with a state database of people prohibited from owning guns and ammo because of crimes, mental health issues or other reasons. It also would tip police to massive purchases.

Because a RIGHT means begging the state for a license.

Another bill, SB53 by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would require a background check and an estimated $50 fee for a one-year permit to buy ammunition.

Because a RIGHT means begging the state for a license.

10 percent tax on ammunition to fund crime prevention — might merge with another lawmaker’s proposed nickel-per-round tax to fund mental-health screening for children. Bonta, D-Oakland, said his tax is mostly about generating money to “combat the gun violence in our communities,” but could have the “secondary benefit” of stemming “rampant sales.”

These are a couple boxes of .22s, with Indiana Jones and a horse for scale:

1100 rounds

That’s 1100 rounds.  In the beforetimes, back before the panic, that would run you about $20/box, so $40 total (a few years prior, before QE and metals prices spikes and Obama, they’d be $10/box).  With a nickel tax per round, you’d be looking at a $27.50 tax per box.  So even at recent prices, the price would go from $20/box to $47.50/box.

That $40 couple of boxes there would be $95.  And that’s before local sales taxes.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

- Chief Justice John Marshall

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.  Except to the ruling class, to whom it means, “license, regulate, tax, eliminate, shut up, destroy, destroy, EXTERMINATE!”:

AB 48 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley — Would require ammunition sellers to be licensed; ammunition purchasers to show identification; ammunition sellers to report all sales to the state Justice Department, which would create a registry of ammunition purchases. First hearing: April 2.
AB 187 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland — Would impose a 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in the state, with the revenue directed to a fund for crime-prevention efforts in the state’s high-crime areas. No hearing date set.
AB 760 by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento — Would impose a 5-cent tax on each bullet sold in California, dedicating the revenue to an existing program to screen young children for mild to moderate mental illness — and intervene with strategies to address their problems. First hearing: April 15.
SB 53 by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles — Would require anyone buying ammunition to first pass a background check and receive a one-year permit, for an estimated $50 fee, from the state Justice Department. First hearing: April 16.

And in Congress, because the Second Amendment can’t be infringed enough at the state level:

S.35, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013, by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. — Would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, require licensing of ammunition dealers and reporting of bulk purchases of ammunition. A companion bill in the House, HR142, is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.
S.174, the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013, by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. — Would require an instant background check for the purchase of ammunition and would restore pre-1986 requirements that sellers track their inventory and keep records of their customers. Purchases of 1,000 rounds or more, or thefts of large amounts of ammunition, would have to be reported to law enforcement.

They really hate online ammo sales, but let’s revisit that, shall we?

In regular old economics, we’re talking about the government establishing a barrier to entry for you as a citizen in order to stop you from exercising your rights.

Last month, New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” that would impose a $10,000 penalty on any gun owner who fails to purchase mandatory liability insurance.

And Erika Johnson gets it:

The bill would require gun buyers to provide proof of insurance from a company approved by a state insurance regulatory authority for “losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” In a nutshell, you need to take out a preemptive policy for any violence you might inflict with your firearm — which doesn’t really make sense, because the people inflicting non-defensive gun violence are criminals anyway. This is just another poorly disguised legislative attempt to deter gun ownership, and man, talk about regressive! Looks like self-defense is only for people who can afford to take out an extra insurance policy.

The oh-so-esteemed bureaucrats at the United Nations have been looking to slap some regulations on the small arms trade via an international treaty for quite some time, but the United States has never really cottoned on to that idea. The Senate has to ratify all treaties by a two-thirds majority, and in one of the amendment votes to their budget just last month, the Senate voted 53-46 to specifically prevent the U.S. from signing on to the U.N.’s proposed Arms Trade Treaty.

The Obama administration don’t care. The president expressed a willingness to get behind such a thing near the start of his tenure, conspicuously backing off as last November’s election approached but then jumping right back on the progressive globalist bandwagon.

The Senate, however, has vowed to block ratification, which requires a two-thirds majority and is needed for the treaty to be legally binding on the U.S.

Good.  TX Senator Ted Cruz tweeted this:

UN Arms Treaty should be rejected outright by US Senate. It is international gun regulation, plain and simple & it must never be ratified

Allowing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets to remain in the hands of gun owners would leave a gaping loophole in the law, said Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting.

“It doesn’t prevent someone from going out of the state to purchase them and then bring them back. There’s no way to track when they were purchased, so they can say, ‘I had this before,'” Barden said. “So it’s a big loophole.”

This is where things get unpleasant.  It’s very difficult to explain to someone who’s still in the throes of grief that the rights that we as American citizens have recognized by our Constitution are in fact natural rights, and also rights that are inherently necessary to protect ourselves as individuals and as a group from tyranny small and large.  It’s very difficult to explain to someone that their son shouldn’t have been murdered because the mental health system, which has stigmatized mental health so severely, has made it so people who need help or who should simply be locked away can get help or can be secured far from normal society.

It’s very difficult to break past that wall and explain to people that the very real fears of government tyranny are very real fears – because governments invariably end up becoming tyrannical unless they’re kept in check.  It’s very difficult to penetrate that wall of grief and explain that restricting the rights of American citizens, infringing on their natural rights of self-defense, giving the state more power over their lives, and ultimately putting flawed men who are in government charge of those of us citizens will never bring his son back.

It will never bring his son back, and it will never prevent the Bath School Disaster, or the World Trade Center bombing in 93, the Oklahoma City bombing in 95 – but it will cause the Amanda Collins of the world to be raped again.  It will enable government use of force against a disarmed citizenry.  It will enable police brutality and governmental corruption.  It will lead to a nation where there are the Rulers and the Ruled.

It may not do it tomorrow, and it may not do it in idyllic Connecticut, but it will.  History is very harsh, and history is right.  History shows us what will happen, and history shows that the only place where governmental tyranny has been stymied is in nations where the people retain the individual power to resist oppression.

Sadly, it’s a very big picture and someone grieving for a lost child is unlikely to look at the big picture and wonder if they are not asking for something that not only would have not, could have not, and cannot save their lost child, but that will ultimately make the world a more dangerous, repressive, destructive place where hundreds, thousands, or millions of children might die because of his requests.

Then again, Darrell Scott, father of Columbine victim Rachel Scott, knew that there is an even bigger picture than the worldly knowledge of history, and looked to address it in a different way:

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc.

“Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.

“What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence.

“And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.

“We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

“We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored.

“We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgement that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes–He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

“I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999 , at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.

Henson Ong speaks out about gun control.

A must-watch.  He humbly says he’s not eloquent… which is the only thing he says that isn’t true.

By the number of views, looks like it’s going viral.

Update: Utinni!

Update 2: If this has you fired up, especially with the push still on for gun control, write your reps.  House, senate, or alternately Ruger has a helpful tool here to write them all.

Update 3: Crimefightin’ Katie Pavlich has a bit of Bill Steven’s speech transcribed:

“You want to take my rights are away, lets go to court.  But criminals and tyrants, tyrants especially, beware. Lockdown is not an option at the Stevens residence and 911 will be dialed after the security of my home has been established. Why is that same security my daughter enjoys at home with her dad not available at school in Newtown? That is what you should be considering, not making her dad a criminal. Charlton Heston made the phrase ‘from my cold dead hands famous’ and I will tell you here today, you will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands.”

Drudge has these three stories stacked together to tell a larger story this morning.

Armed Guard Disarmed Teen In Atlanta School Shooting

Atlanta • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Wayne LaPierre’s simple statement proves true again, and those who reject defense seem that much more foolish.

Georgia School Had Metal Detectors

ATLANTA (AP) — A middle school where a 14-year-old boy was shot and wounded in the neck by a fellow student had metal detectors, and school officials were investigating how the shooter made it past them.

At airports, we have metal detectors.  The objective is to control points of entry to airports, and guarantee that most weapons are prevented from getting on the plane.  The TSA’s intrusive measures and the treatment of everyone like a criminal (they even molest pilots who could fly the plane into the ground if they so chose) are somewhat akin to gun control – they focus on tools and not on people with ill intentions.  But for the moment, let’s look at how they use metal detectors to deter weapons with metal parts from being brought onto airplanes.  This is airport security:

airport security

See those big silver, gray, and black things?  Those are metal detectors.  See those other things that are varied colors up top, mostly blue in the middle, and black on the bottom, with a shiny spot on their top right corner?  Those are guards.  Some may be armed, some may not be armed.  Some just act as screeners, some act as responders.  The metal detector is just a tool.  The person doing the guarding is what makes the difference.

So how could he get past the metal detectors?  By walking.  How did he get past the guards is what people should be asking.

An off-duty armed resource officer who was at the school was able to grab the gun away from the suspect, who was taken into custody. Charges against the shooter were pending, Campos said.

Or they should be asking why the guard who was there was off-duty and why they’re relying on his dedication to be there on his own time – or just luck that he was there, and why they don’t have full-time guards.

And the third story: Newtown Calls For Armed School Officers

The Newtown Board of Education wants more armed police officers in the towns four elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary last month.

Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year’s budget.

Today, members of the board will be meeting with state and federal officials about obtaining additional funding for security.

“Our parents are demanding of us that things are made safe and secure and certain measures are put in place,” Chairwoman Debbie Leidlein said. “So we’re being very thoughtful.”

Remember, that federal school security funding was stuff that Obama cut off.

 

Via HotAir:

Pretty harsh, saying he’s a murderer.  Lets you know exactly what kind of propaganda the left is spitting out.  HotAir notes that the line that came after Barrow introducing his grandfather’s revolver went like this:

“Long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here….”

It cuts the Augusta congressman off there. How did Barrow finish the sentence in the original, and what did the CSGV choose to omit? This:

”…to help stop a lynching.”

Guns, according to the left, are only used to murder children.  Barrow murdered the children at Sandy Hook because he took “blood money” from a group that doesn’t want total government power and authority over the citizen.

From Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals:

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

All guns are always evil, and always used to murder children, according to the left.  You will never hear them talk about gun control and how it was used to disarm blacks and leave them vulnerable to Democrat domestic terrorist night rider Ku Klux Klansmen.

HotAir notes via Breitbart that the leftist anti-freedom anti-gun pro-government power thugs are busily working on propaganda, and unapologetically so.

From Newsbusters, H/T Freedom Outpost:

Because everything is about politics, and the more horrific, the more people can be scared into Democrat schemes that have failed for decades.  They really don’t care about the kids.  All of the anti-gun proposals they’ve put forward wouldn’t have done a damn thing to stop the murders at Connecticut, and everything they do makes government abuses (and ultimately massacres) more likely in the future (however far along the road that may be).  The more the narrative can be changed, the more the story can be told that if you’re opposed to giving more power to the government, you’re a “loony”.  You’re a “loony” if you can look to history across the globe and even within the US and see that governments unchecked by citizenry become despotic, that individuals denied the tools to resist tyranny at the individual level (crime) and the national level (govt. oppression) end up suffering for it.

Let it sink in: Democrats loved those murders.  It allows them to push their agenda.  Anyone shaken with grief and loss can be more easily swayed into doing “something”, and with relentless calls for tyranny, people can believe it even sounds good, even though they logically know it cannot work.  That’s why Democrats love the horror and shock.  They want more murders, they want more blood, they want more innocents dying because it pushes their agenda.  They positively revel in it.

Video was recently found of the Democrat strategy meeting held shortly after the Newtown murders:

Every time concealed carry or some other pro-gun measure passes, Democrats yell “the streets will run red with blood” and that “it will be the gunfight at the OK corral/the Old West”.  Never happens, but they have to scare you with fanciful tales of things don’t happen, and history proves every time doesn’t happen.  Every time the streets do run red with blood – almost invariably in a “gun free zone” – they cry that they need more government power to make you “safer”.  Their definition of safe, however, means disarmed and subject to tyranny – whether it be from a regular criminal or defenseless against a massacre killer (whether a lunatic on his own or a lunatic in a government uniform).

By contrast, every life saved by a defensive gun use against crime is a win for the Second Amendment and supporters of the Constitution.  Every robbery or attack or rape deterred by show of force that results in no shots fired doesn’t make it to the news, but strengthens the argument for citizens’ natural right of self defense.  Every day that goes by where no Americans are herded into camps because they’re the wrong color, or every day that goes by where there are no lynchings because minorities can arm themselves (after all, the roots of gun control are there as racist controls of people), every day that goes by with less tyranny at the individual to national level is a win for the Second Amendment, and for the Second Amendment’s vocal supporters.

The Second Amendment arms the good guys, and prevents the worst bad guys from taking over government.  Individual bad guys may break the law and commit crimes, but will always they do that anyway; and the Second Amendment respects the good citizens’ natural rights to a means of defense.

To start off, the First Amendment is under attack as well as the Second.  From Bunch Blog:

All of these video games, do they really need to be so violent? is the question that will come next. Studies show that video games lead to murder! ideologues will shout. Why are we teaching our kids to kill? Don’t believe me?

axelrod video game tweet 121216My point? Just this: Gamers should be extremely, extremely wary about the liberal impulse to “do something” in the wake of a tragedy. Guns aren’t going anywhere. Video games about war marketed to easily impressed teens and young adults (the demographic that tends to commit mass murder)? Well, they’re slightly less secure.

Keep in mind the people who wanted to ban music the most in the 1990s were Democrats led by Tipper Gore; and those who went after video games included then-Democrat Joe Lieberman (now an independent due to totally unrelated factors).

Quentin Tarantino’s new movie Django Unchained, which is a dose of the old ultra-violence, struck me as strange over the weekend.  Listening to CNN and FOX on XM radio, almost every commercial break from the Connecticut mass murder was an ad for a movie… about mass murder.  Is it justified in context of the film?  Haven’t seen it.  But it brings up some questions, which Tarantino has addressed by having the premier cancelled, but otherwise just saying:

Speaking in New York Quentin Tarantino said: “I just think you know there’s violence in the world, tragedies happen, blame the playmakers. It’s a western. Give me a break.”

The Oscar-nominated director of Inglourious Basterds and the Palme d’Or winning Pulp Fiction, said blame for violence should remain squarely with the perpetrators.

The only people responsible for crimes and violence are those who commit them.  Millions of people every day who are also immersed in popular culture don’t go out and commit murders.

Reason Magazine has a couple of good pieces today on how gun control doesn’t work – the first about how mass shootings aren’t really on the uptick:

those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer….

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Another Reason piece highlights the Magical Thinking of Gun Controllers, summed up easily in their last sentence:

The notion that restrictions like these can have a noticeable impact, let alone that they can “end” or “stop” occasional outbursts of senseless violence, is hard to credit unless you believe what Obama insists he does not: that evil can be legislated out of the world by acts of Congress.

And finally, from the Atlantic, a piece that notes that we’ve already had the debate on gun control.  And gun control lost to gun rights:

There isn’t anything wrong with gun-control advocates lamenting what, by their lights, is a public that’s reaching wrongheaded conclusions on the subject and is trending in the wrong direction.

But too many pieces I’ve read make a mockery of robust debate in a pluralistic society by ignoring the fact that current policy is largely (though not entirely) a reflection of the U.S. public disagreeing with gun reformers. The average American is far more likely than the average journalist or academic to identify with gun culture, to insist that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, to exercise that right, and to support various state concealed-carry laws.

Opponents of gun control have been widely vilified in the past week. Very few attempts have been made to understand what motivates them — and given that they’re a subset of Americans with little representation in the national media, attempts at understanding would likely do a lot to inform the rest of the American public. For the most part, these people aren’t in fact motivated by selfishness, as so many critics have stated or implied in the last few days, and almost without exception, gun-control opponents are as horrified by the events in Newtown as anyone calling for a new assault-weapons ban or better background checks or a ban on ammunition.

The point isn’t whether they’re being treated fairly or not. It’s that a gun debate can only be productive in a country as pro-gun as this one when the folks on either side at least understand the deeply held disagreements at issue. So far, too many newly vocal reformers are operating under the conceit that if only America “finally” had a conversation about gun violence, everyone would immediately see the wisdom of the position reformers have advocated all along.

It’s an interesting piece in that it recognizes that journolists and reporters are widely in opposition to the actual citizenry.  It’s somewhat screwed up in that it assumes there’s a debate to have between the wrong (gun grabbers who ultimately support tyranny, whether knowing or unknowing) and right (citizens’ rights advocates).  There are a few restrictions (violent felons, mentally ill, etc.) that are important, but beyond those very, rare few who are incapable of being responsible citizens, shall not be infringed means what it says.

Many people need to understand how rights work:

A HUMAN RIGHT.

“What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?”

Posted: December 17, 2012 by ShortTimer in Guns
Tags:

From Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit:

SEEN ON FACEBOOK:

          “What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?”

          “I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?”

Ouch. But a fair response to unfair stigmatization. With the gay community, everyone would complain about smearing millions for the deviant and predatory behavior of a few.

oh-snap-o