When the crazies kill, why sanction the legal and responsible?

Here we go again …

Another crazy gets hold of an arsenal of weapons; breaks almost every law in the books; and shoots scores of innocents.  And the result is predictable … a groundswell of opinion that never wavers … PASS LAWS TO RESTRICT GUN OWNERSHIP!

The problem with that sentiment is that third word … “LAWS”.  Because “laws” only apply to those inclined to obey them in the first place!  

It’s one thing if our elected leaders had the backbone to take on such an unpopular position (unpopular that is to most people who do not live in large, liberal-run cities) and accept the political consequences.  But that’s rarely ever the case, when politics and power are of greater value.  And that’s exactly the sentiment that was expressed by Democrat stalwart Senator (CA) Dianne Feinstein, who stated, although a sane discussion on gun control and a ban on military-type assault rifles was important, an election year was not the time to address it. 

Huh?!?  Wouldn’t that be the PERFECT time to address the issue?!?

Apparently the Democrats see a discussion of gun control to be a political loser in a year when President Obama is fighting for re-election in what is expected to be a close election.  For these Democrats, the subject of limiting gun violence by restricting access to guns for everyone is trumped by White House aspirations.  It says much about where the issue really sits with the political animals of the Democratic Party.  So, if they refuse to have this discussion now, why should they be taken seriously when they finally get around to it? 

In that same vein, we are still waiting for The President to get around to his 2008 campaign promises on gun control.  Instead, President Obama has signed bills allowing guns in national parks and even on Amtrak!   He has steadfastly refused to seek reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.  And maybe that’s the real reason Democrats – like Senator Feinstein – do not wish to bring it up now!

But in truth, even if we did have this conversation today, it would accomplish NOTHING for keeping guns of all shapes, sizes, and magazine capacities from the criminals and the crazies. 

If it were that easy, we wouldn’t have had Aurora … or Columbine … or Howard Unruh … or the University of Texas clock tower … or Virginia Tech …

That’s the REAL problem … the criminals and the crazies.  You have no right to ask law-biding citizens to give up access to responsible gun ownership if you have no prospects for denying similar weapons to the criminals and the crazies.  And it’s mind-boggling that anyone would propose such a ban in an age where our own Federal Government openly distributed guns to the most dangerous criminals currently on the continent.  They must solve the problem of keeping automatic assault weapons from the drug runners, the gangs, and criminally insane before asking John Q. Citizen to even consider doing the same.   

I ain’t holding my breath on the former, but fully expect continued efforts to do the latter.

For another reason entirely, I laugh when gun opponents run up the flag of the Founding Fathers to claim that they had no intention for gun ownership to exist outside what was needed for the purposes of organized state militias.  That may well have been their original intent, just like it was to restrict the voting rights of women or to count African slaves as 3/5 of a person.  In reality, the concept of militia had little-to-nothing to do historically with the development of a gun culture in the United States.

Every household in 18th century America REQUIRED the possession of a firearm.  This was not a legal requirement; it was a requirement for survival.  For if you lived anywhere other than the relative safety of early American cities, a gun was as important as food in surviving the dangers and hostilities of the unsettled frontier. 

Whether it was dealing with the growing hostility of a native population or using the point-of-a-gun to discourage foreign intervention and push American civilization West across the North American continent, the National Government fostered the concept of private gun ownership – far removed from the concept of militia service – among its citizens.  Huge tracts of territory were settled and controlled; colonial forces from Spain, Britain, and France were pushed out; and the Wild West was colonized, then civilized with the help of armed citizens that NEVER once stepped foot into a militia formation.

It renders the concept of “militia” a convenient interpretation of a badly worded phrase in the Bill of Rights.  So for better or worse – depending on your point-of-view – America grew and flourished as the result of a gun culture that was accepted by a Government led directly by those same Founding Fathers.  The same ones who supposedly never intended private gun ownership outside of a quasi-military apparatus. 

The irony seems lost on those who want to blame the carnage on law-biding citizens and their long-held rights.

12 thoughts on “When the crazies kill, why sanction the legal and responsible?

  1. Timely post. Interesting you would mention Sen. Feinstein and her gun control views. She is well know for anti-gun stands here in Ca. by, in part, limiting CCW laws. Guess what was later found out? Regular citizens were prevented from having a CCW due to her legislation, but guess who did have a CCW, that is right, Sen. Feinstein!

    Other than when the assailant fired the shots, I don’t believe anyone has claimed the violator broke any laws, it appears he got the equipment legally. Here in Ca. though the 100 round mag / drum would have been illegal.

    Typical Liberal over-reaction let’s outlaw guns they kill people. Look at today’s Inquirer and read about the off-duty cop shooting and earlier morning pair of cat burglars in his home as his wife and kids cowered nearby. Guns are useful, just as many other dangerous things are.

    If we are going to outlaw stuff that kills people we better bring back Prohibition and also make cars illegal, they kill people more often than guns. We could outlaw all cars but Gov’t provided Chevy Volts since they likely don’t have the power / speed to kill.

    • I assume CCW = Carry Concealed Weapon permit?

      It’s ridiculous that some people think the right thing to do is to make law-biding people even more exposed to the criminals and crazies.

      • In PA it’s called a License To Carry Firearms (LTCF). And I hate it. As far as I’m concerned the 2A is all the permission I need. It’s a right the government cannot infringe upon, yet they have…..and I’m mad about it. It’s one thing to give up the right as part of the penalty for commiting certain crimes but very much another to force us to qualify in light of no criminal background.

        While I admit I have a tinfoil hat, it’s not a very thick one. I’m suspicious of a government which violates our rights. It’s historical fact that any government bent on taking away power from the people begins with disarmament. As Mao stated “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” I don’t know who said this one, but it fits…..”Those who beat swords into plowshares will be controlled by those who don’t.”

        But my immediate need of arms is much more personal. Since the Supreme Court validated that the police have no duty to protect us we are responsible for our own security. The issue has been before the court several times including the recent Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chigago. In essence we’re on our own folks, with a judical system which allows violent felons to plea down merely to clear the docket.

        I’ve been carrying for 33 years now. When they tell me I no longer can I will disobey the law. If this comes to pass I imagine some of us will be meeting at the bridge. If you don’t recognize the reference, it pertains to the colonists who met the British at Concord. Just 3% of the population of the colonies beat the strongest army in the world into the sea. We might have to do it again.

    • You poor thing, stuck in California. What a shame that one of the most beautiful states in the country is also one of the worst states for freedoms. I have a brother well entrenched there. He shoots competitively, as do I. He is quite envious of the relatively free conditions gunowners enjoy in PA. Hell, he can’t even own the 1938 Winchester 62 Dad taught us to shoot with because it holds too many rounds of .22. All 14 of them.

      • Ya know, when the Chinese invade, they’re coming right through California! No muss, no fuss … Hell, they’ll probably throw a fund-raiser for them on Clooney’s tennis courts!

        • That invasion is already well under way, and they’ll never have to fire a shot. We owe them huge amounts of money that we don’t have. Then we spend our cash in hand on junk we don’t need that is imported from them.

  2. Good report Mike….as usual. A couple of other things to keep in mind are these. First, militia includes all male between 18 and 45, though during the Civil War the age was increased to 50. So every male within the range is considered in the miltia. Second, the words “well regulated” meant something different in 1787. It meant well numbered, as in well populated, not well trained or well regimented. The notion was that the militia be well manned.

    The militia wasn’t just for domestic defense against outside forces, that was just part of it. It was also the arm of the civilian population that helped insure our government stayed within the confines of the Consititution. Written in the Federalist Papers is the explainantion that we as citizens have a duty to keep the government whom we consented to govern us adherent to the COTUS.

    The Second Amendment, according to the Federalist Papers, grants us access to the common battlefield weapons of the infantry. This is expressly so that we will not only outnumber our standing army but are equal in equipment. In other words, we are more powerful militarily than our standing army’s infantry.

    Current gun control is nothing more than a political fooling of some of the people all of the time. It controls only the law abiding. Criminals by definition don’t obey laws. A politician likes to be able to say “Look at me, I banned assault weapons and limited magazine capacity…..your all safe now.” All that politician has accomplished is forcing those of us who stay within the law to be at a disadvantage to the criminals. And at the same time weakening We The People’s ability to fight back when our government grows beyond it’s madate of the COTUS. Ask anyone in 1932 Europe, or Russia between 1920 and 1989 if allowing a government to run unabated is a good idea. Allow North Koreans access to world media and arm them with a few million rifles and see if they don’t beat back the tyranny they live under. Our 2A makes sure we never have to know what a North Korean knows.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s