It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again

CommissarObama copyYou’ve really got to hand it to Commissar Obama. When it comes to going all in on his socialist agenda, he’s certainly wasting no time at all now that he never has to face the electorate again.

The latest example is the hysteria over the tragic shootings at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. There are several illustrative elements I think are worth considering. First, how is this incident any different from the one that took place in Aurora, Colorado in a movie theater during the premiere of the latest “Batman” movie (and of which I wrote a few essays ago)? Why didn’t that massacre, with a much higher body count, lead to these panicked Chicken Little gun control efforts from our socialist brethren?

I’ll tell you exactly why: that shooting took place only a month or two before the next national election, and the socialists know that gun control is an election-killer for them, whereas this event happened as absolutely far as possible from the next election, so they’re banking on the electorate’s short attention span in making this the most opportune time possible for them to try to realize their dream of imposing Draconian gun restrictions.

Then there’s the added benefit to Comrade Obama of using this event, and its headline-grabbing nature, to distract everyone from the very real and immediate problem that is facing this country, and his arrogance and ineptitude in dealing with it, namely our looming fiscal insolvency. It’s a classic case of presidential sleight-of-hand: “Hey, look! We need to save the kids and ban guns! Don’t pay any attention to what my other hand’s doing!”

It’s pure, sheer political cynicism, chicanery and hypocrisy of the first order.

Speaking of hypocrisy and chicanery, whatever happened to the investigation into “Operation Fast And Furious”, in which Eric Holder and the BATF ran thousands of full-auto assault weapons into Mexico in an effort to gin up a fraudulent case that American gun laws were too lax, resulting in the deaths of over 300 Mexican citizens and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?

Anyway, here are some points to consider. The Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings both took place in venues which are already under stringent gun restrictions. In fact, Connecticut already has an “assault weapon” ban in place ( Link ), as does Denver ( Link ), of which Aurora is a suburb and under its jurisdiction, under Municipal Code 38-130. So, in light of that, how would any new federal laws have prevented these killings? They wouldn’t have, plain and simple, as both shooters were already violating “assault weapon” bans.

I hear a lot blather about how the Second Amendment was written in the 18th Century and therefore only covers the technology of the time, i.e. flintlocks. Using that rationale, I guess the First Amendment right of free speech only covers hand-operated movable-type printing presses, then, and not the internet, TV, radio, movies, computers, automated printing presses, or telephones of any kind.

The blather continues with the usual nonsense that the Amendment only covers members of the active duty military and National Guard because it mentions a “well-regulated militia”. Here’s the complete text:

“Amendment II

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

MinutemanAnd what is the “militia”? It is the body of the whole populace of able-bodied law-abiding citizens, as defined by the Founders in their contemporary writings and encoded by Title 10 US Code, Section 311. And, as mentioned in the Amendment, this is an issue of “a free state”; it doesn’t mention deer hunting anywhere. It’s about freedom from government tyranny, a condition assured by an armed populace capable of resisting oppression.

This is a country founded on the principle of equality, with no “privileged classes”, and the cops and soldiers are just citizens like everybody else. EVERY citizen has an equal right to equal weaponry. If the cops and soldiers can have them, so can any other law-abiding citizen.

Otherwise, we don’t have an “equal society”; we have a ruling class – the “privileged” – and a subject class – all the rest of us.

Thanks, but I think I’ll pass. I’m not anyone’s “subject”. I’m a free man, and citizen with full rights.

© Brian Baker 2013

Advertisements

When Seconds Count, The Cops Are Only Minutes Away

Unless you’ve been living in a cave you know that a bit over a week ago a lunatic waltzed into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire on the crowd that was attending the premiere of the latest Batman movie, killing a dozen and wounding scores more. And as predictably as the sun rising in the east, the lunatic fringe of gun-haters – always circling like buzzards while waiting for bodies to pounce on – immediately exploited the tragedy to try to advance their gun-ban agenda.

New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, always the calm voice of reason (that’s sarcasm, in case you missed it), called for cops to walk off the job until “lawmakers get guns off the streets” (Link). Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) also swooped down to dig into some of the carrion (Link). The New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post have been running foaming-at-the-mouth editorials almost daily screaming for more gun control.

But let’s take a look at the reality of the situation. I’m not going to debate the Second Amendment; that ship has sailed. In the Heller and McDonald decisions, the Supreme Court held that the amendment means exactly what it says in its simplest interpretation, and that people have the right to own guns. Period.

First of all, if the mere presence of guns is what causes violent crime, then the streets of Switzerland should be ankle-deep in blood. Private gun ownership there is mandatory. Every citizen of military age is required by law to own – and keep in their homes – military firearms including full-auto submachine guns, along with appropriate ammunition, and to maintain proficiency in their use. Even once they’re past military age, they’re given the option to retain those guns. A similar situation exists in Israel. Yet both nations have very low crime rates in spite of the fact that almost everyone’s armed, Switzerland’s being among the lowest in the world.

Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming forks for overeating. They’re both simply inanimate objects.

As a matter of fact, peer-reviewed studies have shown that there’s a positive correlation between gun ownership and lower crime rates, most notably those by Professor John Lott and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Privately-owned guns are successfully used somewhere between 750,000 – 1.2 million times annually by potential victims to prevent victimization. Since Florida started the parade of states that have loosened restrictions on concealed carry licenses back in 1987, 36 other states have done the same and the experience has been a reduction in the rates of violent crimes in every one of those states. Contrary to the anti-gun-hysterics’ assertions, an armed society is a polite society.

The reality of life is that when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. You are your own “first responder”. There were cops right outside that Aurora theater doing crowd control duties; the Virgina Tech cops waited 45 minutes before going in. If you’re counting on the cops to protect you, you’re probably out of luck.

Nor is that their duty. According to the Supreme Court, they owe no duty to individuals. Their duty is to society as a whole.

If more people were legally able to arm themselves and carry their weapons, there’d be fewer of us taking knives to a gun fight. And as the statistics have shown, more guns equal less crime.

There’s also the reality of the political scene to consider. Gun control has almost always been a huge political loser for its backers. Fearless duck hunter & gun rights advocateClinton owes his 1994 loss of congressional majorities at least in part to the “assault weapon” ban passed and enacted earlier that year by the Democrats. Gore and Kerry both credited the gun issue as being a significant factor in their losses. Who can forget the image of Kerry in brand-spanking-new cammies and carrying a borrowed shotgun for a photo op in a futile effort to convince voters he wasn’t anti-gun? Look at the accompanying picture; those cammies aren’t even wrinkled! How did he do that, if he actually hunted in them? Was there a dry cleaner out there in the woods? Pathetic…

I think the majority of Democrats wish the gun issue would just go away, and that they viewed the recent Supreme Court decisions as a blessing that got them off the hook for it. Greeceifornia Senator Dianne Feinstein – the rabid anti-gun attack-dog who said in 1995, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it.” – has backed away from the issue, saying on “Fox News Sunday” that she doesn’t believe the middle of an election year is a good time to renew the issue. “It’s a bad time to embrace a new subject,” she said. Especially in an election year, I’ll bet, and if that “subject” is guns. The ObaMessiah himself wants nothing to do with it, coming out with a mealy-mouthed and tepid endorsement of gun rights in the wake of Aurora.

According to a Reuters article dated 24 July 2012 (Link), “Gallup polls over the past two decades show the percentage of Americans who favor making gun control laws ‘more strict’ fell from 78 percent in 1990 to 44 percent in 2010.”. Further, “A Reuters-Ipsos poll in April found two of every three respondents had a favorable view of the NRA…”

Anti-gunners can read polls as easily as I can, and I think most Democrats nowadays look at gun control in the same way Superman looks at kryptonite: deadly toxic.

Let’s keep it that way.

© Brian Baker 2012