Gun Crazy II
Ask any cop or serviceman and he’ll tell you that gunfights at close range are nasty, brutish and short. They are not the multi-magazined battles of Hollywood’s full-auto imagination, in which two parties duck, dodge, weave, take cover and trade shots for minutes on end. In reality — and aside from spectacular gun battles like the North Hollywood bank robbery (which inspired the heart-pounding robbery sequence in Michael Mann’s Heat, above) — most combat ends after one or two shots. As the old saying goes: “If you need to reload — you lost.”
And yet, the anti-gun Left, which has happily seized upon the Newtown, Conn., tragedy to further its stealth disarmament agenda, continues to believe that resistance to a crazed, evil gunman is, essentially, futile; that any confrontation by an armed, responsible citizen will necessarily result in a prolonged hail of bullets that will take more lives than it will save; and that the best course of action is to let the gunman continue to fire uninterrupted until the SWAT team, the EMTs, and the coroner finally show up.
Nearly half a century after a young woman was stabbed to death in Queens, her dying screams falling upon the deaf ears of her Kew Gardens neighbors, to their everlasting shame, the Left would now make us all into Kitty Genovese.
There are many problems with this attitude but since “progressives” consider passivity the “moral” course of action, let’s start with the morality: fighting back, if only with contempt, is always preferable to supine submission to those who would kill you — even if you die in the process. If you have a problem with that, then don’t pretend to want a national “conversation” about firearms. Instead, why not adopt the sneering ad-hominem attitude of Adam Gopnik, writing in The New Yorker, which under David Remnick has become a parody of neurotic “progressive” thought:
After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)
Well, pace Mr. Gopnik, guns really don’t kill people — people kill people. With guns, knives, clubs, poison, explosives, pillows and their bare hands, among other things. And yet what George Orwell first dubbed the “pansy left” continues to insist that not only are guns the cause of crime, but that they have no use in the prevention of crime, unless wielded by the police. And so the Left has come full circle since the ’60s, when every right-thinking hippie loathed the pigs — even wanted to “off” them — and was always looking for ways of sticking it to The Man.
But waiting for the Man is not an option. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away” — in Newtown, they were twenty minutes away. The obscene horror of mass-shooting sites is often compounded by how long the killers have to go about their deadly work in “gun-free zones” (which should be re-dubbed “free-fire zones”) before being interrupted — at which point they typically kill themselves. In the recent Oregon mall shootings, the killer decided to turn his gun on himself when he caught sight of an armed civilian, and the Connecticut monster shot himself once the “first responders” started to arrive.
What would have happened had some civilian at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown or in that movie theater in Aurora, Colo., been armed and had shot back?
The assaults on the helpless and the unarmed would have ceased at that moment.
Nobody, even the craziest of shooters, can ignore gunfire coming in his direction; the instinct toward immediate self-preservation, however temporary, is too strong. The shooter would have turned to assess the threat, perhaps fired back, been fired upon again and possibly hit, retreated to cover – or, more likely, taken his own life — thus giving his victims life-saving moments out of the kill zone, in which to try and escape. But the kids of Newtown didn’t have that chance, nor did the Norwegian youth on that island in 2011, nor the students at Virginia Tech four years earlier. Because nobody was able to fight back.
Amen.
Er…
You know much of the myth of Kitty Genovese is Liberal Media invention, right? Designed to push the “sophisticated” notion that modern man is an uncaring automaton trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare?
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.ca/2007/10/truth-behind-story-of-kitty-genovese.html
http://www.openculture.com/2011/04/the_kitty_genovese_myth_in_the_arts_and_popular_imagination.html
In order to stop an armed attack, you must meet it with an equal or greater force. If the attack comes in the form of a man with a gun, you must meet that attack using at least a gun.
These mass shootings do not occur out in public places where concealed carry is lawfully permitted. They only occur in areas where it is unlawful to concealed carry, and so that guarantees that all law-abiding citizens in those areas are unarmed. Simply lifting the ban on guns in schools will alleviate this. Teachers do not have to be forced to get a permit or carry a weapon. That should be left up to each individual teacher personally. However, they should not be forcibly disarmed by the state, thus making them and their students ripe targets for would-be murderers aiming to exact maximum casualties.
Here’s what happens when teachers are armed:
http://israelinsider.com/Articles1/Security/12596.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
Wonderful article Michael. I’m sure you are already aware of the recent story about Devin McClane. He ran out of his AutoZone store in Virginia during a robbery. Then, in a selfless act, he retrieved a firearm from his vehicle, ran back into the store, and saved his co-worker. For this, AutoZone fired him. When our society no longer rewards acts of bravery by ordinary citizens, we are dead as a nation.
Before WW II, one of the Brit writers said that Leftism is the unrelenting war against everything normal. Leftists will instinctively come to support criminals against the law-abiding, the abnormal against the normal, the bad against the good. oNe effect of gun-consfiscation might be increased govt power, but the goal is simply to make law-abiding citizens helpless against armed criminals. After all, who else campaigns for the release of convicted killers? Who oposes the death penalty for killers, and promotes abortion in any and all cases? Who recommends leniency in the most horrific crimes? Who funds the ACLU campaign against Christianity? The proof is in the case of the English farmer, several times burgalled, who shot and killed a burglar and was sentenced to death for murder. In a nutshell, that is Leftism.
Sorry If i remember Correctly the person he shot did not die but he did go to prison the court’s reason he interrupted the home invaders JOB
Great comment Jacobite, you have them pegged !
The left wants nothing more than what the Radical-in-Chief embodies – total control. And the most efficient way to accomplish their goal is through eviscerating the Second Amendment, via grabbing for legally sanctioned guns!
Now, anyone familiar with cops and gun culture too – as is this blogger, less than six degrees separated! – knows for an absolute fact that relying on police to get the job done is whistling past the graveyard.
While the visibility of police is absolutely necessary for law and order, the fact of the matter is that NOTHING protects the kiddies at schools better than armed guards/teachers/administrators…take your pick – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/18/what-the-msm-is-predictably-blacking-out-in-their-coverage-of-recent-shootings-brief-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
And anyone who is curious about this blogger’s above assertions can just let their fingers do the googling.It is what it is.
If anyone anywhere knows anything about gun safety it is our admired friends in Israel – surrounded as they are by perpetually insane mobs who would rather die than see an Israel child alive . . . I am a now (thank God) retired police officer and know police are not required or expected legally to protect anyone except themselves. I would like to think police were only minutes away, but in my county (Lane County, Oregon, USA), we have only one unit on duty at night and our county is larger than several states. If you call in a burglary and the burglar is not lying dead at your feet, the police mail you a complaint form to fill out and mail back – so police are days away. Strangely enough many of my friends and myself possess firearms and practice with them regularly. In my neighborhood no burglaries. Best wishes to you, by the way. Hopefully some day the US will get back to being honest and truly friendly with Israel.
I know an assistant police chief of a nearby city. He has made sure that all his family is licensed to carry guns and are trained. He knows the limitations of the police. When his daughters grew up and moved out of his house, he gave them concealable pistols.
I live in Texas. There are guns everywhere, but it is very rare to see one away from a gun store or a shooting range. But the criminals know they are there.
There are three different reasons the Founding Fathers gave for the right to “keep and bear arms”:
Personal protection,
the ability to provide food, and
the ability to counter a tyrannical government.
Do not think for an instant that the anti-gun Left actually believes that “guns are the problem.” That’s merely rhetorical cover for a totally different agenda.
The Left is all about total government: total control of individuals by an all-powerful State. They cannot achieve that while we remain an armed society. Therefore, guns must go before they can make real progress.
Indeed, the Left purely loves mass shootings. They pounce on them with an evil joy no conservative could possibly understand. Such events inspire fear, displace rational thought, and make ordinary people look to their protectors. That last part is the most important, for an armed citizen is his own first line of defense; an unarmed man must depend on others…and if there are no armed citizens around him, the State is his only hope.
Therefore, don’t bother arguing the virtues of an armed society with a committed anti-gun leftist. Go straight for his covert agenda — total control of you and everyone around you — and remember that he cannot be persuaded, no matter what you say. You can discourage him, nothing more than that. But discouraging him — and making his aims plain to any third parties who might be listening — is often worth the effort.
Lets face it. For the most part, the police do not prevent crime. They show up after the crime has been committed and clean up the mess. Living in the northeast we recently got hit with a major hurricane. It took out electricity for tens of thousands in our area for over a week. The local criminals took note of the fact that there were no lights and no alarm systems and went on an unpaid shopping spree in some of the more affluent neighborhoods. In two cases occuring within a two day period, they not only broke into an unprotected house, they physically abused and raped the women living in those unprotected homes. Calls to the police didn’t do any good. They couldn’t get their cars into the neighborhood effected because of all the downed trees and most of the local police force was out directing traffic because there were no traffic lights which caused numerous accidents. One of the women who was assaulted was a retired FBI agent who had a gun but had it locked up. Before she had a chance to retrieve her gun she was punched in the face several times, tied up, raped and the animal who attacked her tried to strangle her to death with an electrical cord. Thinking she was dead, he went about robbing the house at his leasure and left. Had she been wearing her gun, the criminal would either have chosen to rob somebody else or would have been shot. Again, the police provided no assistance through no fault of their own, until after the crime was committed.
We home carry in my house, not because we are expecting someone to breakdown the door at any moment; it is the only way to secure your weapon and make it available at the same time. Leaving a loaded gun laying around the house is an accident waiting to happen and you run the risk of being in the wrong place when you need your weapon. In our house when the lights go out and the police are not available the shotgun gets loaded and all the handguns have a ready mag inserted.
I hate the term “first respnder” because it implies you are a passive victim. You are there on point for an accident, fire, natural disaster or criminal attack. It is your responsible to take whatever action is necessary to aid those on the scene within the limits of you capabilities. Yes, sometimes that means the only thing you can do is call 911 but you don’t wait for EMS to arrive to get people out of a burning car. You do it if you can.
It would be more correct to say that the police provided no assistance, by design. Contrary to the propaganda the system is not designed for the police to protect, or to provide timely intervention.
There are two things at work.
The left has never understood the concept of deterrence because they believe that bad actors, be they nations or individuals, act out of impulse and not rational thought. You can translate every leftwing argument for the Cold War nuclear freeze campaign or their views on current day counter-piracy operations into the language of domestic gun control without missing a beat.
The second factor is the left lives in a world that confers moral superiority to victimhood. It is better to be a dead victim than live on as someone who took control of their own lives. The same mentality that blames Israel for collateral damage in Gaza when the IDF attacks HAMAS missile launchers parked next apartment buildings condemns an armed citizen who protects himself or others from criminals and sociopaths.
There is no arguing with this mindset. We live in different worlds.
I was going to respond with something about piracy this morning, but I ran out of time before needing to head to work. You are right. I’ve witnessed this when the left and leftist nations insist you shouldn’t have armed security on ships being sent through harm’s way because it would lead to “escalation” of violence. It does no such thing. Pirates are less likely to take an American flagged vessel because they know they are more likely to end up with the IR laser from a SEAL’s sniper weapon dancing invisibly on their head than they are to collect any ransom. Pirates are more likely to disengage an move on if they meet resistance. They are they for an easy payday, not to get killed, or have their boat rendered unseaworthy fifty miles from shore.
Other countries let their citizens rot in dirty dungeons, sometimes to be raped, while they negotiate a price with their captors. They refuse to allow ships to dock in their ports if the crews have weapons. That’s the leftist way.
The Pirates have learned to stay away from ROKs and the Russians. You end up dead in hurry if they get to you.
The pirates have also learned to keep away from Israeli flagged ships. They usually don’t survive the encounter
Speaking of “Other countries let their citizens rot in dirty dungeons”, have you heard about Jon Hammar?
Marine Held in Mexican Prison, State Department Does Nothing
Jon Hammar, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan and Afghanistan, is being held in a notorious Mexican prison where Zetas gang members hold power. His crime? Declaring an antique shotgun to Mexican officials after registering the gun with U.S. Customs Agents on his way to Costa Rice. Hammar has been in a prison in Mexico for months now and this week, his parents got an extortion call demanding they wire thousands of dollars to the prison. Hammar spoke to his parents on the phone, saying he thought he was going to be killed. Hammar has been tortured during his time in the prison. He’s been beaten and chained to a bed. Mexican officials have justified Hammar’s arrest, saying it came in accordance with gun laws in the country, have no plans to release him and the State Department has done nothing to get Hammar released. He could face as many as 15 years in prison.
Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/marine-held-in-mexican-prison-state-department-does-nothing/#ixzz2FekMMg00
Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/marine-held-in-mexican-prison-state-department-does-nothing/#ixzz2Fek424zU
“(That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)”
Ok. I am a gun owner and I am a doctor. I am also a middle aged embryo who was lucky enough not to have been aborted. The liberal left would have you believe that I should not own my bushmaster at the risk that I would kill juvinile or adolescent embryos in a school. But I think I have a lot more potential to kill embryos as a doctor than I ever would as an NRA member. My colleages have killed 80 million embryos and have become wealthy in the process. Not to mention the loss of human potential.
What is more dangerous to embryos? My bushmaster or a Suction Curette? I am just sayin……
Planned Parenthood was unavailable for comment.
Of course, we all know that the dems have been trying to grab guns for decades and this is just another exploitation of a tradedy to fulfill their fascist goals. They are just as vile as Lanza.
It is not a “tragedy”. It is an atrocity. Please use the correct words, because it helps determine how people respond.
The word tragedy means something that was unavoidable, like an earthquake. The response is sadness and helplessness… passivity.
The word atrocity means something that was horrific and calculated, like a mass-murder. The response is outrage and retaliation… action.
9/11 was an atrocity. These mass shootings are atrocities. They merit outcries. They require responses. They require conversations about morality. They require affirmations of life. They do not require helplessness or gun control. They require more guns, not less.
Let me say this about this atrocity: The shooter was not deranged; He was evil. Lots of deranged people will never hurt you, just as lots of normal people will never hurt you. It is not in their nature. This was a problem of morality, not sanity.
All the talk of mental-health treatment is nonsense. The guy did not need a psychiatrist. He needed a priest. He needed someone to preach to him about the sanctity of life, especially as to his own. Typically, these guys are looking to die and to take as many others with them as possible. They seek death and are lashing out, blaming the rest of the world for their desire to die. They get plenty of affirmation of death, but not enough affirmation of life.
The rest of us need guns to protect ourselves and our communities from murderers.
By the way, they are not killers. They are murderers. They do not go on killing sprees. They go on murdering sprees. Words matter.
+1 across the board.
Well said, and thank you for the clarifications.
I’m engaged in email conversations on this topic with distant family, and have gotten one to drop his support of the Feinstein AWB proposal. The other is still in discussion, but on the defensive. We all have to do our part, even if it is one conversation at a time.
“Words matter.”
And you have an abundance of them.
Remember that the same Obama who mouthed platitudes about protecting children being our most essential duty as a society voted to allow newborn infants to be left in dumpsters to die if they had the bad luck to be born alive while being aborted.
Indeed!
Everyone please STOP linking abortion and gun control.
We were losing the fight against gun control because too many people were linking it with the fight against abortion.
We started rolling back gun control when we stopped trying to fight abortion at the same time.
Try to fight abortion and gun control at the same time (or quote scripture) and we are GOING TO LOSE!
I haven’t noticed anybody un-linking the two issues.
Pro-life is a matter of our responsibility to safeguard the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable.
Gun rights are a matter of our responsibility to safeguard our own lives, the lives of our families, and the lives of our neighbors, against criminals, foreign invaders, and, if necessary, our own governments, should they become tyrannical.
Troll elsewhere, please.
Anything to quiet a guilty conscience, eh Phillep?
Even if it means making up problems that don’t exist, like “linking” gun control with abortion being a losing proposition.
New flash 1 – in terms of public opinion, we are light years ahead of where we were 30 years ago, on BOTH issues.
New flash 2 – solidly pro-life candidates have a much better track record of winning election, and when elected, of standing firm on economic issues and the Second Amendment than so-called “fiscal conservatives”.
From a different angle, it seems to me that a Father is usually missing at the home of these Crazies.It is far easier for the Mother to have a man removed from the house than to pull a nail from a piece of wood.Not only are the Police far away but the young boy at home (its always a male)has no MAN around!Talk about UNBALANCED!A woman owns the legal system,the home,,,,not so much.
The a counter-point to the Kitty Genovese story.
Yeah, he used a hand-gun. Question: what would Obama have done?
Armed faculty and staff in schools would be the lefts worst nightmare. Just imagine if the Newtown shooting had been ended when a teacher pulled out her little Kel Tec and put a prompt end to the mayhem. The left is totally invested to the agenda that individuals CANNOT take care of themselves. We are all just helpless children needing a benevolent permenent ruling class to take care of us. Where does SELF DEFENESE fit into that picture?
Teachers have been armed for decades in Israel, for the past 10 years in Utah and now all over Texas. The media is hiding those facts the best they can because it is working. The airmarshall program has been supported by the propoganda media becasue those are more government guns. Allowing pilots to carry guns was opposed because the government was not in control. Allowing teachers to defend themselves and their children will be opposed by the liberal establishment every step of the way because it will exclude government control and it works!
why even publish this article on PJ? We all know libs have 1 agenda which is to confiscate ALL guns.
“and in candid moments they’ll tell you they like nothing better than to respond to a shooting call to find a perp stretched out on the floor and a righteous homeowner standing over the corpse with a smoking shotgun. Some muss, less fuss.”
Bang on. In the 1970′s my inlaws lived in one of the old ethnic neighborhoods in Toledo, OH. The area was going downhill like a runaway freight train. My mother-in-law asked a friend who was a police captain at the time if she should get a pistol. The captain told her in no uncertain terms to get a gun, get trained, and keep it in a place the kids couldn’t access but that she could get to in a hurry.
He also advised her if she ever had to use it on some bent sonofabitch to shoot to kill.
The kids at Virginia Tech DID have a chance to fight back,and stop their killer,using books,chairs,desks,or their bodies,instead of cowering under their desks awaiting death.The Texas high school cafeteria kids who rushed their would-be killer a few years ago are alive today.What happened at Tech was shameful in many ways.
So gun owners, myself included, will huff and puff as well as attempt to address this issue in a rational manner by pointing out, for instance, that existing gun laws (all 20,000 of them) do nothing to prevent this sort of violence, and that maybe we ought to start looking elsewhere for causal factors.
The question remains: “How do we stop the the gun grabbing idiots as they try to further dismantle the second amendment?” Apologies for the ad hominem, but I’ve been called so many names lately….
I am afraid that Obama may try something via executive order.
So….how are ANY federal gun laws legal?
What part of “shall not be infringed” is not understood.
While the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, why was it necessary to pass the 16th amendment? Why did they not just pass a “law” that allowed for an income tax?
Why did they have to create and pass the 18th amendment to outlaw alcohol? They passed the Volsted Act but that was not sufficient to overrule the states by the feds. So they had to create the 18th amendment. Of course, when it was so unpopular they had to rescind it, again, through the amendment process (in other words, through deliberation and representation of the people).
So, why is it today that congress can just pass any law and it overrides the laws of the states (marijuana for example). For the fed govt. to override state laws, why do they not have to create and pass an amendment as they used to?
Passing a law to “alter” the 2nd amendment, regardless of the Supreme Courts “interpretation” is not only illegal but immoral (divine rights). So, Scalia’s opinion may have made some pro-gun people happy, it was really bullshit because why would he have jurisdiction over an existing amendment? (In his “opinion” he rambled about the mentally ill, felons, and other examples where someone may not be “allowed” to possess a firearm).
To make any changes to the 2nd amendment legal under the Constitution, there would have to be a new “amendment” to the Constitution. This way it would be deliberated, hopefully written to make it clear what those changes were and VOTED on by the majority of the states (representative govt.).
The difference is that in the past the Constitution was accepted as to what it is, the legal construct creating the existence of and delineating the power of the federal govt. as given to it by “we the people.” The states used to claim more power as to their rights whereas today they don’t, which makes all the difference in the world.
The original first 10 amendments – The Bill of Rights are “identified” as rights of MAN, i.e., through God, Providence, Divine will, nature, whatever you wish to call it (as example – off shoot of the 2nd amendment – the right to self protection and preservation). Then are NOT rights ALLOWED to men by other men. So why would men have the authority to alter any rights without the constitutionally proper methods of amendment?
We have a RIGHT to bear arms regardless of the reason, and NO Men, without agreement by “we the people,” have jurisdiction over this Right. That is why our Constitution is structured the way it is.
That is how far we have strayed from OUR Constitution.
Try explaining this point of view to the feds when they come to confiscate your guns!
Unfortunately, we live in a time when the Constitution means whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices say it means, not what is written. The SC has made some favorable gun-related rulings in the past 10 years but previous rulings have upheld many gun control laws.
Unfortunately, we live in a time when the Constitution means whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices say it means, not what is written
This a hundred times. As long as dear leader can get it through the Supreme Court, they don’t even need a law, i.e. Roe V Wade.
“While the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, why was it necessary to pass the 16th amendment? Why did they not just pass a “law” that allowed for an income tax?”
They tried several times, but such laws were always found to be unconstitutional, because of another part of the Constitution which required that laws be equally applied to everyone. Different income brackets means unequal application of law. The 16th Amendment allows an exception to the equal application clause, as regards to taxation.
Gun rights are not absolute. No right is. Your rights can be revoked, but such requires due process of law. You can be jailed for crimes or for mental incapacity which creates a dnager to society. Speech can be limited, to protect the lives of others. Blood sacrifice is not protected by free exercise of religion. Your guns can be taken from you, if you are a proven danger to others.
The problem with gun control is that it takes away MY right to bear arms, just because someone else abused HIS right to bear arms. I get punished for someone else’s crime.
Of course “shall not be infringed” means just that. Certain parts of the government choose to interpret that phrase to mean what they wish it meant.
Obama in his speech yesterday said (so I’ve heard, I didn’t listen to it) that “arms” in the Second Amendment did not mean military weapons. If he bothers to look in any dictionary or encyclopedia he will find that arms are military weapons.
Can we ask the questions, “why do the mass shooting by these nutcases never happen at a crack house? Or at a “crime lord’s” house? Because they know they will be killed before they can fire a few shots (granted, other criminals will do it because they have specific reasons, such as grabbing the stash or rubbing out the competition). I read where some guy tried to rob a store – turns out it was a gun shot where there were several off-duty and armed officers there. The funeral for the robber was held a few days later.
If anything is obvious from the Newtown massacre, it is that there is a shortage of responsible gun bearers.
This is the only means that the slaughter could have been prevented or mitigated in this instance.
But, the liberal left and Democrat Party will continue with their totally illogical and ineffective crusade to disarm more and more responsible citizens.
Well, sure, . . . and, Winston Moseley said that, he preferred to kill women because, “they were easier and didn’t fight back”; so, . . .
“So……..”; Apply the Democrat solution, and take refuge in the nearest “gun free zone”. Too bad the Israeli’s don’t have them.
Maybe they’ll have a few in Afghanistan,; You now, like we used to have “coffee houses” in the 60′s. Never heard of any terrorist attacks at coffee houses. What’s their secret?
Maybe Biden will uncover it with his PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE! Can’t wait.
“In reality — and aside from spectacular gun battles like the North Hollywood bank robbery (which inspired the heart-pounding robbery sequence in Michael Mann’s Heat, above)”
How can that be? According to IMDB, Heat was released in 1995. According to Wikipedia, the bank robbery/shootout occurred in 1997.
I’ve got a few questions about the objectivity and veracity of this article, myself.
otoh, many conservatives have already given up the battle when they talk about registration and licensing of guns, to begin with.
‘Shall not be infringed.’
That’s the line in the sand. No government licensing. No regulation. No ‘special cases.’ Any argument beyond that is to lose the political battle before it begins. At that point, you’ve already given up your freedom and have increased the size, scope, and cost of government.
Shall not be infringed. Period.
Any discussion beyond that is insanity.
LOL 1000% Brother
Bingo. Because if we accept “common sense” gun laws, we have accepted the principle that the government can choose to allow us to keep our guns.
Or not.
Gun control kills people.
That ought to be our slogan.
By the way, the Kitty Genovese story may not be true.
Yeah, right, and, maybe Winston Moseley did NOT say that, he preferred to kill women because, “they were easier and didn’t fight back”; and maybe this is NOT the same Winston Moseley who is still petitioning for parole, saying that, he is a new man, he’s all different now, . . . after that old history, those various break-ins, robberies, rapes, and murders, . . . come to think of it, the Abraham Lincoln stories are maybe just as suspect–don’t you think?
What is your evidence that the Kitty Genovese story is not true??? I was a kid at the time it happened and I remember the neighborhood people being interviewed on television. She screamed her guts out and nobody stopped to help her.
It’s a bit more complex than that, in some respects. In many places around the nation, at the time, if you went to the assistance of another American, the cops would/could hassle *you* for getting involved (still do, for that matter). See also – gun control laws. Many people in metro ares were unarmed. Still are unarmed, for that matter.
Another is that if you took down the perp, the perp and his family or their lawyers would sue you in civil court…and often win. Plus, even the victim could sue you, if you didn’t actually save them…thus, the later ‘good samaritan’ laws. If it was a gang or mob affair, you’d be doubly screwed if you became involved in any way.
So, the choices were stark. Help and be screwed by the government and/or the victim, or mebbe even by the gang/mob who did the deed?? …or don’t help, and listen or watch whle another human being dies? Self-preservation or possible jail and lawsuits? What happens to your family, if you become involved and everything listed above goes wrong and goes against you?
That’s even aside from the physical danger you’d endure.
That was the reality.
Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat.
Kitty Genovese was, of course, a real person, but the story is nothing like as it has been reported. She couldn’t have screamed her guts out, she had a punctured lung.
Then why were all those witnesses saying that she was pleading for help? Those include the people at whose front door she collapsed. Do you suppose that the screams and pleading occurred prior to the stabbing?? Some of them said that she was calling for help as she was being stabbed. Either way, it was shameful that nobody so much as picked up the phone and called the police. Not that they would have arrived in time to do anything anyway.
“hopped up on violent role-playing games”
Excellent article. I am curious why you decided to turn this into a Chick Tract and call out RPG’s while ignoring Battlefield 3 and the other ‘Military shooter’ style games.
The above toss away line struck a discordant note in an otherwise well done article.
On a different tangent, once again we have the Left using a crisis to pursue an agenda (disarmament) while ignoring the real problem (the mistake of de-institutionalization that began in the ’70′s thanks to Ken Kesey and similar works).
I’d express my shock at this turn of events but that would be both trite and redundant at this point.
Chick Tract! Hilarious! I wonder how many people got that reference..?
As a New Zealander, I read these comments with astonishment. This is just not how we live here, thank God. And I hope that we never will. We have murders, of course, but nothing like these; we had a mass murder in 1990 and a few where several family members were killed at a time in the 1990s and none since. We don’t have massacres like these.
You also have a country with a population miniscule in size compared to the U.S. You rattled off three incidents. I’m sure there are more.
Um
2011 population of New Zealand: 4,405,200
2011 population of Seattle Metro area: 4,269,349
Or, to put it another way, the US has over 320 million potential sources of stupid in any given situation. You’re comparing Apples to Asteroids. Yeah, they’re both kinda roundish…..
Um, you do realize that you’re comparing an entire country to just one selected city right?! The population of the entire U.S. is 315 million. The population of New York City is almost 8 million. Selective research is the hallmark of liberal apologists.
Oh, please…I can produce a list of 8000 towns and cities in the US with a combined population of 70 million people that did not have a single murder. I can produce a list of all the counties in the US that also did not have a single murder, 68% of the total. In other words, Anna, there are at least 30 New Zealands in the US that did not have one single murder. So they don’t “have that” there either.
I know a hundred or so law abiding people who own guns—pistols, shotguns, rifles, “assault rifles”. I know a few that have guns with 60 or 100 round magazines. Of the hundred or so people I know with guns, they have used them for crimes zero times. A police officer friend of mine helped me get training, a license and a few guns. Guns, 100 round magazines, “assault rifles” don’t kill people anymore than kitchen knives kill people. People kill people.
Try reading the rules about who can immigrate to your country. Also, slums and minorities who can be convinced that they are exempt from laws have to reach a certain size before crime becomes a self perpetuating life style. Under that size, crime is individual or family.
Great Lady; She is now the Legislative Liason at the Texas State Rifle Assoication. Every time I look at my CHL, I thank her and former State Senator Jerry Patterson (now Texas Land Comissioner); I will not be a victum….NEVER.
Make your own Gun Free Zone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhgzcioPet8&feature=player_embedded
so … do something Sign this petition
wh.gov/RGb8
Encourage the protection of all people in all Schools from harm by crazy people.
Whereas:
1. Laws do not keep crazy people from obtaining firearms
2. Words have no magical properties. Saying that an area is a Gun Free zone, does not make it a Gun free zone.
3. Given tens of millions of people, it is impossible to find every possible crazy person out there who might, in the future, decide that they want to kill many people with minimum risk to their success.
4. No individual has EVER gone into a police bar, or police station, and committed mass murder.
Thus I petition that the president encourage, at a state level, in line with the US constitution, that all states encourage their schools to have at least one staff member be trained to use and carry a firearm while at work at school, or to hire such a person who could also be a clerk or otherwise do useful work.
Created: Dec 15, 2012
I’m just going to point out that it has now been 5 days since the CT police said they have found “very good evidence” that might help explain the motive of the killer. Since then, not one word on the subject has been heard.
I love your closing statement. Ask someone who knows… and it’s a big, fat blank.
oh, haha… not a blank, it’s a video! I thought the writer of the article was making a visual statement. The blank being “there’s nobody left to tell the tale cause they were murdered.” I see the video now (it took a while to load).
Sorry and thanks for the great article.
Retired Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, has his own interpretation of what the amendment means. He said, “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have” (cited in The New York Times, January 25, 2011). Representative Dickey is in favor of overthrowing the government of the United States by force and violence. If the purpose of the Second Amendment really was “to stop the federal government from disarming state militias,” as Representative Dickey agrees, then the Founding Fathers supported the idea of overthrowing the government. Is that what the Constitution is about?
The US Constitution is full of checks and balances to keep any one part of the government from getting too powerful. I was taught in school that the Second Amendment was the ultimate check on government power—if the government became a tyranny, an armed populace could stop it.
“And so the Left has come full circle since the ’60s, when every right-thinking hippie loathed the pigs — even wanted to “off” them — and was always looking for ways of sticking it to The Man.”
That’s because the Left IS The Man. The present establishment is left-wing.
And the Left WANTS individuals to feel helpless. The better to offer up more government as the “solution” to that helplessness.
Make no mistake, the Left feels like it’s on a major roll right now. With Obama’s win, with the pending GOP capitulation on the so-called “fiscal cliff”, with what happened in Connecticut, the Left absolutely has its boot in our faces at the moment. And, unlike us, the Left NEVER compromises. NEVER relents.
I saw a clip the other night about a boy who survived the connecticut shooting. His father was a policeman who I believe had arrived along with the first responders. The boy explained that when the father arrived he immediately picked him up and hugged him. The little boy said that his first words to his father were “what took you so long”
It’s worth remembering that both of California’s lady senators – Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein (former buddy of Jim Jones) have concealed carry permits. Regular citizens are rarely issued such permits.
I teach at a large Central Texas high school, and I have a CHL. Currently, if attacked, I will defend your children with my highly vascularized and easily punctured internal organs, and possibly a heavy textbook and a pair of scissors. That’s long odds against a delusional young man with a head full of spiders and a gun or three. I will likely die doing what I can to save YOUR children, not mine, and it won’t be much.
I’ll try this again since some of you are unusually thickheaded – LET TEACHERS WITH CHL CARRY ON CAMPUS – CHL holders train more often than the police, have a better record for both accuracy of fire and obeying the law than the police, and they do it on their own dime. The only ones who will carry on campus are the ones who know that can do what is necessary come that dark day.
No more soft targets. No more goddamned soft targets.
If the purpose of the Second Amendment really was “to stop the federal government from disarming state militias,” as Representative Dickey agrees, then the Founding Fathers supported the idea of overthrowing the government. Is that what the Constitution is about?
Pretty much. Right or wrong, the drafters of the US Constitution had only recently overthrow the legally constituted government.
The lefties seek to prevent another American Revolution….their overthrow.
Right now the Second Amendmant keeps them honest…sort of……
Police chiefs and other political animals are against it [citizens with guns], naturally, since they want a monopoly on the use of force, . . .
In addition, police chiefs (and county sheriffs) are the first level of what I call the “judicial-industrial complex” — a cohort of people and institutions that depend on high crime for their power and money. They are bureaucrats with badges. More crime means a bigger budget, which lets them hire more officers and buy more fancy toys. That’s why they always pitch a fit whenever an armed citizen stops a crime or kills his attacker, and chant “Don’t fight back — just give in, then call 911.” They know acquiescence breeds more crime, which is exactly what they want. Of course, they must tread a fine line — if crime gets too high, they risk getting fired or not getting re-elected.
The next tier of the JIC is the court system. This includes the judges, DAs, defense attorneys, bail bondsmen, bailiffs, court clerks/reporters, jailers and the like, plus the construction companies that build the courthouses and jails. Think how many of them would be laid off if crime dropped significantly.
The top tier is the vast prison system, both state and federal. Here we have the legions of prison guards and support personnel, the construction companies, and the private businesses that do contract work for the prisons. Worse yet, we now have privately run prisons that get paid on a per-inmate basis, and even have minimum-occupancy clauses in their contracts.
Now you know why the US has more prisoners per capita than any other country, and why the idiotic drug war rolls merrily on despite being an even more gargantuan “epic fail” than liquor prohibition. For the JIC, “crime is money.”
Here in Florida, the big state penitentiaries are clustered in the north central part of the state, and several small towns have sprung up there to support them. If crime took a big plunge (like the drug war ending), those places would become virtual ghost towns.