Tag Archives: Second Amendment

RIP Christina and Gun Control

The tragic murder of 22-year-old Christina Grimme by a deranged gunman shocked the music industry.

RIPChristina

Christina was my personal favorite during season six of The Voice. She was a gifted, talented, energetic, enthusiastic, and very likeable performer and artist. Christina will surely be missed.

Some people grieving her loss – and some gun control opportunistsimmediately pushed for an expansion of various gun control measures – as if those measures would have prevented this murder or as if the control of the insane is irrelevant. Banning guns will not stop violence.

One grieving fan championed increased gun control while bemoaning even modest restrictions on abortion. He claimed gun control laws should be more stringent than laws limiting abortion (e.g., parental notification, waiting periods, ultrasound – all deemed too onerous by him).

Actually, gun control laws, regulations, processing, etc. are already significantly greater than current guidelines and restrictions on abortion. In most liberal-dominated institutions, the media, the entertainment industry, and the educational system (from kindergarten classes to universities), abortion is promoted while constitutional rights to own weapons are challenged.

In some states and localities, it can take years for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights (even when in fear for their lives) while abortion-on-demand for young teenage girls remains far too prevalent.

Moreover, every abortion kills an innocent life while guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens preserve lives and protect the innocent.

Gun control laws – often enacted based on emotion and not reason or facts – do not work. Controlling criminals and the insane does work.

As we mourn the passing of Christina Grimme, let us not exploit her tragic death at the expense of personal liberty for the sake of a statist agenda.

Let us, instead, remember Christina’s positive spirit of love. In Colorblind, Christina wrote:

Kiss the future ’cause it’s so bright

There’s no mountain that we can’t climb

But it won’t happen over night

You know, it’s not impossible

Love is patient, love will wait

Love is something we create

Advertisements

Left Fixated on Mythical, White, Right-Wing Extremists!

The Left has gone bonkers again, this time over the Oregon rancher standoff.

Mythical

As reported by Infowars (emphasis added):

“Numerous voices are calling for a literal bloodbath in Oregon – and the exercise of unilateral government power to kill the individuals involved, including supporters. It is an armed and highly-charged, but so far peaceful situation that is, nonetheless, rooted firmly in civil disobedience and principle. But that hasn’t stopped opponents from calling for them to be treated like domestic terrorists.”

The Left is incoherently outraged, making spurious racial charges and demonizing whites, conservatives, law enforcement, and the media over alleged racial and political bias in favor of whites and conservatives. (What world do they live in?)

In the Age of Islamic Terrorists, the Left continues to be obsessed with alleged white, right-wing extremists! Why this obsession? Two reasons. One – they are white.[1] Two – they are conservative. But are they extremists? In the mind of the Left, yes. To more rational human beings, no.

Salon Leads the Charge!

Headline: “No happy ending in Oregon: We can’t reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence”

How is not wantonly killing protesters engaged in legitimate, peaceful, civil disobedience rewarding them? They have a right to protest! (First Amendment: “the right to peaceably assemble.”)

How often do “white, right-wing extremists” “pull a gun and threaten violence?”

The writers at Salon apparently think it is very often.

But, are these justice-seeking ranchers really extremists? And, are they threatening violence? No and no. They are engaged in a peaceful protest, an act of civil disobedience which, if conducted by liberals, would be treated as a noble act of social justice.

Salon’s lead paragraph claimed that the ranchers “are protesting perceived overreach from the federal government.”

Except, of course, the federal overreach is far more than perceived. It is very, very real. The convicted ranchers have already served time for trumped-up charges.

Salon graciously declined to call them “terrorists,” preferring the term “separatists,” because of “the group’s refusal to acknowledge the federal government”

Except, of course, the so-called “separatists” want neither separation nor an emasculated federal government. They want a federal government which operates within the framework of the Constitution.

Salon then compared these white “separatists” “with black protesters and Occupy Wall Street.” Salon claimed that the encampments of “peaceful, unarmed [Occupy Wall Street] protesters” “were brutally dismantled by law enforcement. Police didn’t hesitate to use tear gas, rubber bullets and batons to clear them out.”

Except, of course, Occupy Wall Street activists were far from peaceful and it often took weeks for the government to respond. Indeed, OWS encampments occupied entire parks in the nation’s capital, and other U.S. cities, for months!

Salon also claimed, “Nor was there any hesitation to call in the National Guard on Black Lives Matter protesters in Baltimore. So far, the Malheur occupiers are meeting no such resistance.”

Except, of course, the Baltimore “protesters” were violent rioters and looters committing mayhem while Baltimore authorities actually dillydallied in seeking assistance, choosing instead to give them “space to destroy.” The rioters wanted to purge the city.[2] In contrast, the so-called “separatists” have harmed and threatened no one.

Having made a false equivalence while distorting the facts, Salon then pitched its message:

“This discrepancy is important. Peaceful, left-wing protesters are fair game for state violence. But when armed anti-government zealots seize federal property and promise to defend themselves, law enforcement takes time for tact, maybe even negotiation.”

Salon fabricated so-called “state violence” against allegedly “Peaceful, left-wing protesters.” The actual violence of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter is uncontestable. Moreover, their violent rhetoric encourages more violence as they call for the assassination of their foes and the burning of cities. Their nihilistic sense of “justice” is the killing of those they hate.

In contrast, the “separatists,” as Salon calls them, are defending themselves from government overreach.

Salon concluded, “more important, we cannot reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence. And if there is bloodshed, there is real danger it will spread like the Hammonds’ own fire.”

If only Salon had the courage to challenge left-wing movements which really are violent! And what do we make of Leftists who want these “separatists” to be killed? Are Leftists really peaceful and supportive of the rule of law? Or are they selective in the law’s application?

Protester, Separatist, or Terrorist?

At least Salon did not call the ranchers “terrorists!” Others on the Left were not so sanguine.

As pointed out by Tammy Bruce, “No one’s at risk. There’s no one in the vicinity. They happen to have their firearms. That’s their lifestyle.” In contrast, “the 2011 takeover of Wisconsin’s capitol building by union activists resulted in millions of dollars in damages, yet no one considered referring to them as terrorists.” (Did you see the video at the time? Anarchy and wanton destruction!)

Alan Colmes, on the other hand, focused on race and ethnicity, claiming, “If you had Muslims here it would be called domestic terrorism,” apparently believing the white “separatists” should be called “terrorists.” In fact, Islamic terrorism is the terrorism threat endangering Americans today.[3]

The Left continues to be obsessed with the race of individuals,[4] rather than the nature of their actions. If whites or conservatives do it, it must be bad; if minorities or liberals do it, it must be good.

Justified Civil Disobedience

David French made some salient observations. Having analyzed the original court case, French observed, “What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings.” It’s all about a land-grab by the government.

According to the ranchers, in the 1990s, “the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two ‘arsons’ that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.”

French added, “There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. … To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.”

Unlike Leftist protests this decade (think Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, various college campus protests), these ranchers are occupying “a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders.”

Yet, some on the Left want the federal government to crack down on the ranchers with “shoot to kill” orders because they are white conservatives who do not fit the liberal narrative for social justice activists.

French concluded: “Yet now they’re off to prison once again – not because they had to go or because they harmed any other person but because the federal government has pursued them like a pack of wolves. They are victims of an all-too-common injustice. Ranchers and other landowners across the country find themselves chafing under the thumb of an indifferent and even oppressive federal government. Now is the time for peaceful protest. If it gets the public to pay attention, it won’t have been in vain.”

Are these ranchers “right-wing extremists” and “terrorists” as the Left would have you believe? Or are they simply American citizens seeking justice from a tyrannical government through peaceful civil disobedience?

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Guilty of Being White” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-17.

[2]               See “Baltimore ‘Purged’” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8S.

[3]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[4]               See “Identity Politics Is the Problem” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1l.

Controlling People, Not Guns

The Left’s persistent mantra, “gun control,” is its mob-like chant and talisman against all evil and violence.[1] It is a fraud. Worse than that, it’s a politician’s and magician’s misdirection which actually exacerbates the problems it purports to address while taking away the liberty of the people, all in the name of protecting them.

Gun Control

At heart, gun control is not about controlling guns; it is all about controlling people (law-abiding Americans who have had their guns taken away or been prevented from obtaining them).

Gun control is the panacea advocated whenever there is a tragedy, from school shootings and mass shootings to terrorist attacks and mob violence. For all these different situations, the Left seeks the same solution.[2] All violence is not the same.[3] For instance, terrorist attacks are not gang shootings.[4]

Instead of controlling crime and criminals, the Left wants to control law-abiding American citizens.

Moreover, gun control is about expanding the power, reach, and scope of government at the expense of the liberty of We, the People.

It is for that reason – self-defense, not hunting – that the Framers of the Constitution insisted upon including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

According to the law of the land – the Second 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.”

To be clear, the Second Amendment invests the right to bear arms to “the people,” not government.

Gun control is a clear violation of the Second Amendment, yet those who do not respect the Constitution (or merely give it lip service) do not care that gun control does not work. All gun control succeeds in doing is to make law-abiding citizens vulnerable to criminals and the government (redundancy alert!).

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Let’s Stop the Insanity Over Gun Violence” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1o.

[2]               See “Making Sense of Madness” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-aY.

[3]               See “The Left Goes Gaga Over Paris Attack” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c0.

[4]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

Commonsense Guns Laws

President Obama and the Left have recently called for “commonsense gun control laws.” They are right about the need for “commonsense” but wrong about the laws to be enacted.

The operative words in their mantra – “gun control” – reveal their intent and the heart of the problem: they reject “criminal control” laws (which would curb most gun violence) and they refuse to address the mental illness (which animates mass shootings).

GunLaws

What would Commonsense Gun Laws (not “gun control”) look like? Well, the exact opposite of what Barack Obama wants.

Here are a few areas where legislation and implementation of policies would immediately make America safer:

Eliminate gun-free zones. Virtually every mass shooting has taken place in a gun-free zone precisely because the killers knew they could maximize damage while minimizing risk. Federal buildings, banks, convention centers, and other venues have armed security forces which deter crime and prevent mass shootings. Why are politicians and the wealthy protected by armed security forces, but most Americans (even our children) unprotected and told to run for their lives if a madman targets them?

Expand private ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens. Make it easier for citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and to thereby protect themselves, their families, and their local communities. Expanding the pool of law-abiding citizens who own guns makes it harder for criminals to do their own thing. As noted by National Review, “The number of guns in the United States has increased by 62% since 1994 but gun violence has decreased by 49% since 1993.”

Increase concealed-carry permits for law-abiding citizens. An armed populace is a deterrent to crime. When criminals don’t know who might be armed, they exercise far greater restraint in their criminal activities.

Stop coddling criminals. Giving criminals and rioters “space” to commit violence is lunacy. Providing politically correct rationalizations for criminal behavior encourages more criminal behavior. Releasing violent criminals in the interests of “fairness” endangers the American people. Get back to basics: If you do the crime, then you do the time.

Robustly address mental illness in America. Mental illness (not guns) is the root cause of most mass shootings.

Deport violent immigrants and illegal aliens. Violent crime by immigrants and illegal aliens is escalating. If they are unwilling to abide by our laws, then they should not enjoy the benefits of living in America. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens.

Reclaim the culture. This will be the hardest task of all. It requires restoring God and America to their proper places in the public school system and higher education, returning to traditional values and respect for our Judeo-Christian, Western Civilization heritage, and championing adherence to the Constitution. (Much of this is cultural, not legislative.)

The Great Society, victim culture (grievance culture), and growing sense of entitlement in primarily urban communities has engendered a culture of violence. Moreover, a culture which reveres cop-killers and promotes killing cops is dysfunctional to its core.

A culture which claims only black lives (and only those killed by white cops) matter, while all others do not, is a thoroughly bankrupt culture.

A culture which defends Planned Parenthood’s grotesque butchery while equating Southerners with Nazis – and gun owners as evil incarnate – needs rescuing.

A culture which tramples on the American flag and finds fault with everything American is suicidal.

The Left would have us do more of the same – extend the ever-expanding welfare state, subordinate local and state control to an all-powerful federal government, and escalate the demise of our American culture begun by the Countercultural Revolution of the Sixties.

Commonsense Gun Laws are indeed commonsense, but they are in opposition to the Left’s agenda of fundamentally transforming America. Most Americans want to restore American greatness and preserve (and expand) liberty, including adherence to the letter and the spirit of the Second Amendment.

Will the Constitution survive? Not if the Left succeeds in stripping it of its power.

Update: Like Socialism, gun control never works (unless, by “works,” one means limiting liberty and growing government). The following four charts demonstrate the fallacy of gun control logic.

imageedit_1447_2367824908

newgunchart.jpg

12079155_10156233379385093_7673665897653919283_n

fbicrime