Tag Archives: Gun Control

And Here Is What I Love About Rand Paul

He is fearless in speaking the truth as he understands it…without the Crazy Uncle Harry vibe I always got from his dad.

Leave a comment

Filed under Washington

Irony Upon Irony

Piers MorganPiers Morgan thinks it’s ironic that there’s a campaign to deport him for exercising his right to free speech under the 1st Amendment

I think it’s ironic that Piers Morgan claims 1st Amendment protection in his campaign to strip law-abiding, actual citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights.

4 Comments

Filed under Washington

Cat-Free Zone

Cat-free at last; cat-free at last; cat-free at last!

As the mice celebrated a new life of freedom and safety….

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Shouldn’t The White House Be A Gun-Free Zone?

Shouldn't the White House be a gun-free zone?

The First Family deserves our best efforts to keep them safe.

Update:  Oh, look here; it appears someone took this thought straight to the White House.

I mean, really. If the best way to keep vulnerable children safe at school is to designate schools as gun-free zones, shouldn’t the First Family live in a gun-free bubble?

Oh, I know that John Doe can’t carry a firearm into the White House, but what about all those Secret Service agents milling about the place? They have guns! And what about those Marines? Do you suppose they’ve checked their weapons at the door? I think not! It’s a scandal, really, how cavalier we are with the First Family’s safety!

Does that sound silly to you? I certainly hope so, yet that is the favored strategy of the American Liberal for protecting the nation’s school children…unless they are lucky enough to attend school with Sasha and Malia Obama.

Before [Sasha and Malia] go to their first day in their new school, the Secret Service will run background checks on the school’s staff and maybe some of the students and their families. Agents will accompany the girls to and from school every day. They may, depending on space, set up a small command center inside the building. If not, they’ll set one up outside. They may tap into the school’s closed-circuit camera system if there is one. 

How many agents will be assigned to the girls? “The appropriate number to get the job done,” according to my still secretive friend, Agent Alswang.

If gun-free zones are so safe, why all the fuss?

What about the President himself? Yes, he’s the most powerful man in the world and surely, very, very important, but is he more precious to us as a people than our children? (Note: If your answer is yes, please reassess your priorities.) I can say without hesitation, I would rather see a President dead – no matter who is sitting in the White House – than 20 six and seven-year-olds. At least those who choose to run for President know what they’re getting into.

My point here isn’t to say that the First Family needs less security; I’m saying that our nation’s schools need more. People who object to well-screened, well-trained, armed school personnel because they don’t want their children exposed to guns are living in a fantasy world where guns are malevolent beings in their own right and a gun-free zone sign extends magical protection to all who enter those hallowed halls.

If the events that unfolded in Newtown, Connecticut, last Friday haven’t disabused those magical thinkers of the idea that gun-free zones are anything other than killing zones, then nothing will; they should be ignored as unserious on this issue.

Doesn’t our nation’s most precious resource, our children, deserve the best protection we can provide? If so, arming school personnel should be considered as one part of the answer.


Thank you, John Hawkins, for two links today.

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, In The News, Politics

Bob. Just. Stop. Talking.

Please. Because I don’t really have time for all this writing.

You’re so close to the truth, here, Bob (can I call you Bob?), but you’re blinded by your anti-gun bias.

“Give me one example of an athlete — I know it’s happened in society — but give me one example of a professional athlete who by virtue of his having a gun, took a dangerous situation and turned it around for the better. I can’t think of a single one. But sadly, I can think of dozens where by virtue of having a gun, a professional athlete wound up in a tragic situation.”

Getting back to the idea that you’re a moron, how can you speak those words and not understand what you’re saying? Let me break it down for you.

  1. You can’t think of a single example where a gun, in the hands of a professional athlete, led to a good outcome in a dangerous situation.
  2. You acknowledge that guns do contribute to good outcomes in those situations among the general population.
  3. You can’t think of a single example where a gun, in the hands of a professional athlete, led to a good outcome in a dangerous situation.
  4. You acknowledge that guns do contribute to good outcomes in those situations among the general population.

Do you see where I’m going with this? You’re not talking about a problem with the “gun culture”, whatever it is that you mean by that, Bob, and you’re not talking about a problem with the law-abiding general population. You’re talking about a problem with the pro sports culture.  And when I say “pro sports,” I’m mainly talking about football today and I’m including D1 college ball.

Now, there are many, many fine, law-abiding, upstanding individuals playing pro sports and this post specifically does not refer to them; unfortunately there are also a substantial number who take their own press too seriously. They’ve been pampered, coddled and told they’re special…some of them since before they entered high school. It’s not hard to imagine how they come to feel entitled to special treatment. They indiscriminately father illegitimate children, some of them in numbers that would be comic if it weren’t so tragic. Then, they mock Tim Tebow for declining to join them in their bad behavior.

They’ve not been made to face the consequences of their own actions. A case in point? Jerramy Stevens, a man who should have been in jail for assault but instead was playing football, on “scholarship” (and don’t even get me started on that), at the University of Washington, where he committed rape, but instead of serving time, was drafted by the Seattle Seahawks. And who, a decade later, is still behaving badly.

Maybe it’s just me, but this is not my idea of a healthy sub-culture. And, Bob, you project it onto the larger population. Now you think we need to have a conversation about guns and easy access to guns. I disagree. I don’t think that law-abiding citizens should have to accept, or even consider, any more infringements on their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Maybe it is time, though, to have a conversation about the pro sports culture and how it contributes to producing infantile men-children who blunder about like malicious Baby Hueys, unaware of their own potential for causing harm, requiring ever increasing amounts of supervision to keep them from harming themselves and those around them.

And that’s a conversation where I think you could add some value, Bob.

2 Comments

Filed under Washington

Bob Costas Still Wrong on Gun Control

Bob Costas laments the fact that he broke his own rule about not commenting on nuanced topics unless there’s enough time to “flesh them out.” Sadly, given more time to discuss his thoughts on gun control, he is still wrong.

“Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”

 Isn’t that special? Bob doesn’t want to see the Second Amendment repealed. Good for him! But it appears that he may not be fully aware of the actual wording of said amendment.

“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.”

Bob doesn’t think we need any pesky militias, but that would seem to be the very intent of the authors of the Second Amendment. A wise person once wrote, “Whether or not the ‘framers of the Constitution’ envisioned semi-automatic weapons has no bearing on the advisability of the current legislation. Rep. Kohl-Wells should re-read the 2nd Amendment and try to understand the thinking behind it. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was written to protect the ‘the security of a free state.’ Consequently, it should be assumed that the author envisioned citizens as being well armed according to the standard of the day.”

Sorry, Bob…keep spinning.

1 Comment

Filed under Washington

40 Logic-Based Reasons To Ban Guns

Just one example of a factual, logical liberal argument that is so hard to refute.

No one is more committed to logic and reason than the American Liberal. Take the debate about guns, for example. Who could possibly refute these extremely logical points?

  1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
  2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
  3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
  4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
  5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
  6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
  7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
  8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
  9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
  10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
  11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
  12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
  13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
  14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
  15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
  16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
  17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
  18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940′s, 1950′s and 1960′s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
  19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
  20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
  21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
  22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
  23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
  24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
  25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
  26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
  27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
  28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
  29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
  30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
  31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
  32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
  33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
  34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
  35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
  36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
  37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
  38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
  39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
  40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

I’d love to credit the author of this list but it’s been kicking around the internet, I’ve been told, for at least a decade, it’s hard to say who that may have been. Likewise, I haven’t checked the current accuracy of any of the factual statements.

1 Comment

Filed under Constitution, Politics