Gun Laws and Media Spin and A Reminder of Anti-Gun Statism by Krauthammer

Posted: April 4, 2013 by ShortTimer in Government, Guns, Media, Ruling Class, Second Amendment, Wyoming

I read this article over at Yahoo, lamenting that there are so many states pushing against gun control, and saw some odd states lumped in with Imperial New York:

Despite a major push from the White House, more states have cut back on gun regulations rather than pass gun-control reforms in the wake of the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

Five states—New York, Colorado, Mississippi, Utah and Wyoming—have enacted seven new laws tightening restrictions on guns since Dec. 14, when a gunman shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning the weapon on himself. A sixth state, Connecticut, passed the toughest gun laws in the nation this week, banning some types of semi-automatic weapons and requiring all gun buyers to undergo background checks before purchases. (Gov. Dan Malloy is expected to sign the bill into law on Thursday.)

New York passed the NY FU2A Act, Colorado passed the FU Magpul Act, Misssissippi… passed what exactly?  Utah passed what?  And Wyoming, which is pushing bills that would make enforcing unconstitutional gun laws a felony passed an anti-gun law?  WTF?

The reporter just went to this WSJ graphic and looked at the “strengthened vs weakened” and put those states in the anti-gun category without reading them:

Wyoming – WY H 216 – Would allow a judge to carry a weapon in his courtroom and prohibit someone else from carrying a weapon in his or her courtroom.

New York is going after gun owners, banning magazines, banning everything that exists, cranking out propaganda and pushing for total confiscation, screaming that anyone who opposes them is paranoid – all the while going out to utterly eliminate the Second Amendment.

By contrast, Wyoming said “yeah, a judge can carry a gun and can tell others they don’t need a gun in court”.

One of these things is not like the others.

Mississippi’s new law S2647  allows for petitioning by those deemed mentally unfit to restore their gun rights, and allows for some mental health reporting to NICS.  Utah’s H 50 allows for restraining orders against people dating to include the same restrictions on arms as a married restraining order; and H 121 allows a gun owner to give their guns to the state for 60 days for actual safe-keeping if they feel someone they live with is a threat.  It’s the state actually supporting gun rights by giving gun owners another option.  And Arkansas’ H1503 mirrors federal law with regards to the 4473 and the actual purchaser/unlawful procurement.

HotAir has a few notes on this story (but doesn’t dissect the “anti-gun” bills that arent), and includes a little political analyzing by Charles Krauthammer.  For those who’ve forgotten Charles Krauthammer’s opinion on guns, I suggest you read his column “Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet“:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first — and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end — is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go.

It’s important to remember that Krauthammer thinks “it is simply crazy” that you don’t trust your personal safety to the authorities, and that you don’t “follow the way of other democracies and disarm”.  It’s best for you.  He’s part of the DC Ruling Class, and he knows what’s best for you.

  1. n0njy says:

    Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
    Sarah Brady is NOT ddoing God’s work…. sorry. Disarming people is the work of Satan…

  2. Right Thinking says:

    Charles has a great mind, but he forgets that the police only excel at knocking out case reports after your body has assumed room temperature. If you believe you are responsible for your own safety, then a gun make good sense in a world full of danger.

  3. Those who rely on guns and bullets to “save” them are filled with fear. They believe their brothers are out to get them, and that there is no loving Creator to protect them.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s