Jan 27, 2011 Political
The Democrats do not like guns. Let me rephrase, liberals do not like guns in the hands of We The People. Some of them have armed guards and some have their own carry permits but they are not too keen on the rest of us having the ability to defend ourselves. Barack Obama is looking to introduce some kind of stricter gun laws but he avoided saying anything at the State of the Union because he did not want to appear as if he was trying to capitalize on the Tuscon shootings.
But that is what he will try to do. He and his gun grabbing friends (many of whom were upset he did not call for it in the SOTU) will try to make laws even more stringent and will try to infringe on our rights even more. They will claim that loopholes need to be closed to prevent people with mental disorders from getting guns.
The loophole that needs to be changed is the loophole in the office of the local sheriff in Tuscon. The gunman had many interactions with the law and gave a number of indications that he was mentally unstable but the local sheriff ignored all of that and allowed this unstable man to run free. A background check was done on him (contrary to claims from the left that background check is required on all regulated firearms) and since there was nothing negative, he was allowed to buy the gun. If the sheriff had taken the man into custody and had him undergo a psych evaluation (and he was diagnosed with a mental disorder) then he would have been in the database and unable to purchase the weapon.
The problem lies not in the laws but in the inept members of the sheriff’s department who did not do their jobs.
Not to mention that if he could not buy the gun legally he would have bought one illegally. A person who is determined to do harm will do harm and little things like the law will not get in the way. It is that simple.
We do not need more gun laws. We have about 20,000 of them now and they do not work because the criminals do not obey the law.
Gun control does not work because criminals will get guns. Gun control ONLY disarms honest, law abiding citizens and makes them prey for the criminal class.
But Obama and his gun grabbers do not care because they do not care about the Constitution, they do not care about our rights, and they want to disarm us so they can enslave us.
Obama has no use for guns but he has quite a large number of heavily armed people who can shoot any threat to him. He does not want you to have the same ability to protect yourself and your family.
So Obama will be looking to push more gun control and he will have lots of support from the gun grabbing left. Fortunately, the right is in charge of the House. But if he succeeds all he will do is make a bunch of law abiding citizens a criminal class because they will not turn over their guns.
I got an email from a friend with an essay entitled “The Gun Is Civilization (March 2007)”. It is widely attributed to Maj L. Caudill USMC but the actual author is Marko Kloos. (Big Dog salute to WT)
It is a well done piece that makes a lot of sense. Obama and his gun grabbing elities should read it.
In fact, most people would benefit from reading it.
Perhaps those in Congress who support our rights should read it into the record…
In any event, we will have a fight on our hands as the Obama freedom wrecking ball continues to smash away.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 16, 2011 Political
Among all the conservatives that were falsely blamed for the shooting in Tuscon, George Bush was surprisingly absent. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and any conservative with a platform from which to speak was blamed for the shooting. Before I go on, let’s be clear. The only blame lies with the shooter.
I had expected George Bush to be among the names mentioned as responsible and was finally rewarded by a commenter here who claimed that Bush was as guilty because he ended the assault weapons ban which restricted high capacity magazines like the one the shooter used. The argument is that if the magazine was not available he would have been reduced to a 10 round version rather than a 30 round one. Obviously a 10 round magazine would have allowed at most 10 people to be shot but this ignores two things.
One is that a person who is intent on injuring someone will do so and a skilled shooter can change magazines during a heated situation. This would be slower than using a 30 round magazine but skilled shooters (which this shooter did not appear to be) can do it.
The second and most important issue is that the weapons ban only prevented the manufacture of new high capacity magazines.
The shooter could have bought a used one or a new one that had been manufactured before the law went into effect and he would have had a perfectly legal magazine.
Therefore, the expiration of the AWB had nothing to do with allowing this psycho to obtain a high capacity magazine. He could have gotten one legally regardless.
And since he was not a particularly law abiding citizen he could have gotten one illegally.
The argument that Bush was also responsible is moronic at best and demonstrates a lack of understanding.
The only person responsible for this tragedy is the shooter who was mentally unstable.
Perhaps if the big mouthed sheriff out there had done his job the shooter would have had a mental evaluation. A diagnosis of a mental illness would have prevented him from legally buying the weapon in the first place.
Real Clear Politics
Never surrender, never submit.