Let Them Do Their Worst, And We Shall Do Our Best

Bad:  The Obama Administration and the Senate’s Diane Feinswine (Hypocrite, CA) think they have the momentum to push more victim disarmament [1]

Worse:  The GOP may prove them right.

Republicans control the House and, thus, could be expected as the party of Second Amendment rights to be ready to stop whatever the president and the Democrats come up with in the Senate. But the Doc Thompson radio show has posted what it is says is correspondence with a source in one of the Republican congressional leaders’ offices. The emails were apparently exchanged between December 27 and 30.

Click below to view the entire scan:

 

The crucial email is the one sent at 3:06 pm on the 27th. The source notes that Newtown would not have been prevented if Feinstein’s bill had been law, but allows that the Republicans may assist in banning “high-capacity magazines” and move on background checks, along with mental health and enforcement of existing law.

I use the term “victim disarmament”, since none of Feinswine’s proposals would have the faintest effect on criminal use of firearms; they’d place the entire burden on the law-abiding.  As always.

The Newtown killer may have been stalled by the NICS — some reports say that he attempted to buy a gun at a sporting goods store but failed — but he clearly was not stopped. He apparently stole his guns from his mother, killed her, and then went on his rampage. His mother had no criminal background and owned the guns legally. The Webster, NY shooter was a known career felon and could not have bought his guns legally. So, as criminals do, he found a way around the system. He either stole the guns he used from his neighbor, or he used her as a straw purchaser to get the guns for him. His neighbor, Dawn Nguyen, has been arrested and charged with being his straw buyer two years ago. She reportedly says that Spangler stole the guns, but he was with her when she bought them, and she never reported them stolen.

OK, let’s get down to brass tacks.  Any Republican that betrays the Second Amendment can count having their electoral head held underwater until the political convulsions stop.  I’m speaking purely rhetorically, here.

Any Republicans entertaining ideas of going along with any Democrat ban should realize that they’re being played by the Democrats and the media, again.

If you are a Real American – ergo, a supporter of the Second Amendment, as defined in the Constitution, reiterated in Heller, and incorporated on your masters the states by McDonald, you need to call your representatives.

Here in Minnesota, they are:

Timothy Walz
1529 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2472
Contact:
http://walz.house.gov/

John Kline
2439 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2271
Contact form:
John Kline contact form

Erik Paulsen
126 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2303
(202) 225-2871
Fax: (202) 225-6351

Betty McCollum
1029 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6631
Contact form: email form

Keith Ellison 
1027 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4755
(202) 225-4886 fax
Contact form:
Keith Ellison contact page

Michele Bachmann 
412 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2331
Contact form:
http://bachmann.house.gov/Email_zip.htm

Collin C. Peterson
2159 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2165
Contact form:
http://collinpeterson.house.gov/email.htm

Chip Cravaack  (for another couple of weeks, anyway)
508 Cannon House Office Building

(202) 225-6211
Contact form:https://cravaack.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

Please contact Walz and Peterson because they’ve always run as 2nd-Amendment-friendly Democrats; they need to be kept honest.

Contact Kline and Paulsen because I’m not aware that either has really had a 2nd-Amendment hot potato on their legislative plate.  While I have every confidence that neither of them are idiots, they need to know how their Real American constituents feel. Over and over again.

As to Rep. Bachmann?  Contact her to thank her for being a stalwart on the issue, and for spitting tacks at those who’d say nay.

And Ellison and McCollum?  They might as well know that we Real Americans outnumbers the pants-wetting class and their ilk.

 

[1] I refuse, any more, to use the Orwellian “gun control” to refer to the left’s mania to disarm the law-abiding.  It is nothing but victim disarmament.  The more Real Americans refer to it as such, the more people will get the idea.

You with me on this?

31 thoughts on “Let Them Do Their Worst, And We Shall Do Our Best

  1. “gun control” “victim disarmament”…still sounds like blah, blah, blah to me Mitch.

    This issue is front and center and the leftists are going to make sure low information voters don’t get distracted from their BS rhetoric.

    Our job is to distract them with the truth….

    It’s not guns, it’s MENTAL ILLNESS, STUPID…Over and over again!

    It’s not guns, it’s MENTAL ILLNESS, STUPID

    It’s not guns, it’s MENTAL ILLNESS, STUPID

    It’s not guns, it’s MENTAL ILLNESS, STUPID

    It’s not guns, it’s MENTAL ILLNESS, STUPID

    It’s not guns, it’s MENTAL ILLNESS, STUPID

    If you stoop to parsing words, you’re ceding the argument Mitch, and you’re gonna lose ’cause no one twists words better than barking moonbats. The list of words they’ve perverted are long enough to make a separate Websters from….and you’re proposing we add to it?

    C’mon buddy…steady there.

    Every one of these blood baths have one thing in common: Mental Illness.

    You with me on this?

  2. MITCH INTERRUPTS THIS COMMENT:

    DG:

    You owe me some homework.

    How was the Cornish “Stand your Ground” bill “crap legislation?”

    I am among the most patient people in blogging. Among higher-traffic Minnesota blogs, I intervene less in comments than most. I moderate less aggressively than, say, “Bluestem Prairie”, and give commenters a lot more leeway.

    But DG, given your own disdain for commenters who drop rhetorical dogturds at your blog and run away without accreting your pearls of wisdom unto themselves, your habit of leaving long condescending screeds marinaded in – with all due respect – complete bullshit, and then scampering away like a scared bunny, is a little vexing.

    Please see to this.

    And now back to the comment.

    ———-

    You couldn’t be more right wing and more wrong.

    Here is the reality – the victims are not the gun owners, the victims are the ones who get shot and threatened by people with guns, often legal guns. The mentally ill are not the problem, the mentally ill are far more often the victims of guns than the perpetrators of gun crimes.
    http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/06/hlaw1-1206.html
    “Research, in fact, confirms the error in associating dangerousness with mental illness, showing that “the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses [8]. The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is still very small and…only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill” [4]. Violence is not a diagnosis nor is it a disease [9]. Potential to do harm is not a symptom or a sign of mental illness, rather it must be the central consideration when assessing future dangerousness. from the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics June 2012

    “Here are some actual facts, rather than speculation, about mental illness and violence. An estimated one in four people in the United States requires treatment for mental health issues in any given year, and about one in 17 people lives with what is known as a a “serious mental illness,” such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. 25% of the people in this country living with mental illness can expect to be victims of violent crime, in contrast with 3% of the general population. A study conducted in Britain noted that approximately 10% of murders were committed by “people known to have had mental health problems at the time of the offense.” In other words, mentally ill people have more to fear from society than society does from them.

    Alcohol and drugs are much more significant contributors to violent crime than mental health status; and if you want a more colorful illustration of how low the risk of violence from mentally ill people is, how about this: you are three times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a schizophrenic person. Did I mention that half of police shootings involve mentally ill people, many of whom are killed after their families called for help because of lack of mental health services, or as a result of not understanding orders from police? (quoting multiple studies)
    http://www.care2.com/causes/actually-mentally-ill-people-are-more-likely-to-be-victims-of-violence.html#ixzz2GhyIiZRB

    Most of the people who commit violence, especially mass shootings, are not mentally ill, according to studies by criminologists who specialize in tracking these events – they are crimes for the most part committed by sane people who are angry and vengeful who are quite sane. http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/

    But the worst of all this is that the right supports a medical delivery system where insurance is denied people with pre-existing conditions and where it is often least available to those who need it most.

    And then there are the hypocrites at the NRA who try to shift the blame away from the gun owners to the mentally ill – AFTER they NRA was behind legislation that actually makes it EASIER for those found to be seriously mentally ill to get firearms legally, without any kind of mental health professional review or consultation. These are the few mentally ill people who really ARE dangerous that the NRA is helping to arm. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

    Despite the reality that alcohol and drug use increase the probability of someone committing gun violence, the NRA is behind the push to drop all records of drug convictions from the NICS data base, regardless of kind or number of convictions after one year – if they get into the NICS data base at all (most don’t).

    AND it was the NRA who made it easier for convicted felons, including those who had used guns in their crimes, to get their gun rights back despite the high incidence of repeat gun violence from them. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all

    Just last week we had another instance of a concealed carry permittee who did not store guns safely resulting in the death of a child from guns in the home, and the sentencing of another concealed carry permittee for the same thing earlier this year. Which is consistent with multiple studies showing this:
    Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

    So, with all due respect, it is the people we currently allow to have guns that are the problem, not hordes of criminals breaking into your houses attacking people. Yes, that does happen occasionally, but the bigger problem is the wrong people are legally buying guns — and most guns used in mass shootings ARE legally purchased. And most mass shootings involve either assault style/military style firearms and/or expanded capacity magazines. We need to be requiring all firearms transactions – buy, give, inherit, lease/rent or loan – to go through a background check with a NICS data base where states HAVE to submit the names of prohibited people – or do a better background check like we do here in Minnesota (where we are one of the states not submitting all required names to NICS).

    We need to change who can legally own guns and what kind of guns, because it is the gun owners buying legal guns who are the larger problem, not the mentally ill, not people playing violent video games (although the NRA has partnered with them, and they are used by the gun manufacturers for product placement as a marketing tool).

    Most gun free zones – like schools – are safer than zones that allow guns. Israel has repudiated the NRA call for armed guards in schools, and Israel has far stricter gun control laws for civilians. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57560761/israel-rejects-nras-guns-in-schools-claim/

    Gun owners are not ‘victims’ of gun regulation; they – and all of us – are safer if we tighten up who can have guns, what kind of guns, and who can carry. The answer is not more guns, the answer is fewer guns. The NRA is not a responsible organization representing the wishes of their members, and is not in favor of responsible gun ownership. They exist only to sell more guns. Propaganda promoters like you help them to do that by not being fact based, by instead being emotional in your thinking.

    Shame on you.

  3. Dog, isn’t it great to be a low information, useful idiot of the Democrat party? You are so pathetic when you support your totally incorrect arguments with equally erroneous crap from left wing communist sources!

    Shame on you for being so stupid!

  4. Dog Gone,

    Lately, I usually regret answering your screeds.

    I do it, mainly, because I can.

    You couldn’t be more right wing and more wrong.

    As always – no.

    Here is the reality – the victims are not the gun owners, the victims are the ones who get shot and threatened by people with guns, often legal guns.

    Yeah, that’s really profound.

    What is it you think you’ve done to earn the right to be so condescending?

  5. DG

    The mentally ill are not the problem, the mentally ill are far more often the victims of guns than the perpetrators of gun crimes.

    And that’s a straw man.

    Never said the mentally ill were THE problem.

    But mental illness, SSRI medication and mass murder have a link.

    “Research, in fact, confirms the error in associating dangerousness with mental illness, showing that “the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses [8].

    Irrelevant.

  6. The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is still very small and…only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill” [4].

    Another strawman.

    I never said all violence was attributed to the MI.

    Do you ever get tired of wasting peoples’ time?

  7. Violence is not a diagnosis nor is it a disease [9]. Potential to do harm is not a symptom or a sign of mental illness, rather it must be the central consideration when assessing future dangerousness. from the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics June 2012

    Irrelevant, and slathered in pointless and unearned condescension.

    Did you ever take a logic class?

    I say that without meaning to condescend myself, but because your reasoning seems to struggle with it. As we’ll see in a few of the clips I examine below from your comment.

  8. “Here are some actual facts, rather than speculation, about mental illness and violence. An estimated one in four people in the United States requires treatment for mental health issues in any given year,

    I’m going to skip by your little lecture about mental illness.

  9. Alcohol and drugs are much more significant contributors to violent crime than mental health status;

    Good god, DG – stipulated loooooong ago. As in throughout my entire history of writing about the issue.

    Do try to keep up here.

    and if you want a more colorful illustration of how low the risk of violence from mentally ill people is, how about this: you are three times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a schizophrenic person.

    Which is lower than the odds of being shot by a legal, legally-carried “assault rifle”.

  10. Did I mention that half of police shootings involve mentally ill people,

    No, and if you did, it would have also been completely irrelevant.

    Most of the people who commit violence, especially mass shootings, are not mentally ill, according to studies by criminologists who specialize in tracking these events – they are crimes for the most part committed by sane people who are angry and vengeful who are quite sane. http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/

    The link you provided was to a blog’s home page. I checked through every story on the blog since Newtown. There was no reference to any such “fact”.

    Please provide the actual cite, since the link I provided above on SSRIs seems to contradict your (as far as I can tell) unsupported statement pretty completely.

  11. But the worst of all this is that the right supports a medical delivery system where insurance is denied people with pre-existing conditions and where it is often least available to those who need it most.

    The “right” HAS NO POSITION on mental health. Commentators on the right correctly point out that deinstitutionalization was a fad that swept the social sciences (hardly a conservative haven) starting around 40 years ago, and there’s a case to be made that the mentally-ill received better care (at least cost) before that fad.

    There is no evidence that “the left” will do any better if they do get universal mental health care.

  12. And then there are the hypocrites at the NRA who try to shift the blame away from the gun owners to the mentally ill – AFTER they NRA was behind legislation that actually makes it EASIER for those found to be seriously mentally ill to get firearms legally, without any kind of mental health professional review or consultation. These are the few mentally ill people who really ARE dangerous that the NRA is helping to arm. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

    And now you’re just lying

    The NRA supported laws allowing the mentally ill to get their firearms rights restored, after it was shown they were no danger to society. The NYTimes’ only substantive complaint, other than the innuendo (that you are trafficking) is that of the 20 states that have such laws, standards vary.

    Clearly, DG, you are googling to find articles that look like they confirm your prejudices, and pasting them in here believing that nobody reads them. And truth to tell, I usually don’t – because you (and, sorry to say, your blog) have devolved into a fever swamp outpost.

    But sorry, DG. You’re busted.

  13. Despite the reality that alcohol and drug use increase the probability of someone committing gun violence, the NRA is behind the push to drop all records of drug convictions from the NICS data base, regardless of kind or number of convictions after one year – if they get into the NICS data base at all (most don’t).

    You provided no cite for this “Fact”. A google shows…mostly articles on “Penigma”.

    The closest I could find was an NRA effort to remove NICS hits for people who were arrested but not convicted of petty drug crimes.

    That’s in keeping with the NRA’s push to keep the NICS database for things that actually relate to crime, to prevent it being abused by anti-gun jurisdictions.

  14. AND it was the NRA who made it easier for convicted felons, including those who had used guns in their crimes, to get their gun rights back despite the high incidence of repeat gun violence from them. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all

    And again, you’re googling.

    The NRA effort applies to people who’ve served their time, and their paroles, and their probations, and kept their records clean for a decade.

    The recidivism rate among people who’ve remained clean for a decade is pretty low.

    In other words, you presented the NRA’s effort in a misleading context

    It’s funny – you and the rest of the left think felons should vote while they’re in jail, but that they should never get any of the rights of citizenship back? Why is that?

  15. Just last week we had another instance of a concealed carry permittee who did not store guns safely resulting in the death of a child from guns in the home, and the sentencing of another concealed carry permittee for the same thing earlier this year. Which is consistent with multiple studies showing this:
    Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

    But the study shows no correlation between this and people with carry permits. Whom I’ve never claimed were perfect. Merely shown with actual statistics that they are a couple of orders of magnitude better than the general public. .

    Do you ever get tired of lying?

    Does anyone in your little fever swamp audience ever call you on it?

    Do you ever let their comments publish?

  16. So, with all due respect, it is the people we currently allow to have guns that are the problem, not hordes of criminals breaking into your houses attacking people. Yes, that does happen occasionally,

    DG – words fail me.

    How many of the five hundred people “occasionally” murdered in Barack Obama’s city this past year were murdered by law-abiding citizens with legally-owned guns?

    None! Because there’s no such thing as a legal civilian gun in Chicago!

    Bad example for you?

    Of the roughly 10,000 firearm-related murders in the US every year (a number that’s down 40% in the past 20 year, by the way), a majority are related to criminal activity, mostly drugs. Most are committed by people with criminal records, whatever the source of their firearms.

  17. but the bigger problem is the wrong people are legally buying guns — and most guns used in mass shootings ARE legally purchased. And most mass shootings involve either assault style/military style firearms and/or expanded capacity magazines. We need to be requiring all firearms transactions – buy, give, inherit, lease/rent or loan – to go through a background check with a NICS data base where states HAVE to submit the names of prohibited people – or do a better background check like we do here in Minnesota (where we are one of the states not submitting all required names to NICS).

    You don’t even read my responses to your screeds, do you?

    What did I point out the last time you brought up NICS?

    Governor Dayton vetoed the Cornish Bill, which would have provided all of the BCA’s data to NICS.

    But wait – you said it was ‘crap legislation”.

    This might tend to make people think you haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about, but you enjoy doing it, so you skip away before the inevitable flood of actual fact makes you actually consider that you might have your “facts” completely wrong.

    It’s just an observation.

  18. We need to change who can legally own guns and what kind of guns, because it is the gun owners buying legal guns who are the larger problem

    …which we have to apparently take at your word, since you provided absolutely no data that would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion. Against which I have spent years providing actual facts that prove the opposite.

    As the NICS database – imperfect as it may or may not be – has come into use, and as the number of civilian firearms has multiplied, gun crime has dropped. Steadily and constantly.

    As I’ve shown repeatedly, citizens with carry permits – who have to prove that they are law-abiding and competent – are two orders of magnitude less likely, per capita, than the general public to commit any sort of crime.

    I do this with actual facts. Example: The murder rate in MN is 3.2 per 100,000 people per year. Carry permittees – 110,000 of us – have committed precisely one unjustified homicide in Minnesota in ten years (and it was in the woman’s home; she killed her boyfriend in a domestic squabble, so it didn’t actually pertain to her permit, although we’ll count her). One murder in ten years in a state of five million breaks down to .002/100,000/year.

    That is pretty damn safe – if facts are what you care about.

    But we know better than that!

    So the people who buy the guns and show they’re good citizens are not the problem. Indeed – despite all your ad-hominem – we are the solution.

  19. Most gun free zones – like schools – are safer than zones that allow guns.

    Got a cite on that?

    Because at best it’s a misleading fact. Gun free zones account for a tiny share of overall crime, because they’re a tiny part of society. Few of Chicago’s 500 murders this past year occurred at a school, for example. So by definition, they’re safer! Right? Few drug dealers execute people who rip them off at the post office. Few gang fights happen on federal property. It’s a big country, and gun free zones are a tiny amount of land.

    So yeah – relatively few of America’s 10,000 annual happen in “gun free zones”.

    But a majority of mass-shootings do. And that’s the real point.

    It’d be easier to run down a list of mass shootings that didn’t occur in “gun free zones” than the ones that did. (Of recent mass shootings, I can think of New Life Church, the Clackamas Mall and…well, that’s about it. And by the way, the Clackamas Mall shooting was ended by a carry permittee!

  20. Israel has repudiated the NRA call for armed guards in schools,

    “Israel” did no such thing. The article you cite referred to “experts”. The Jewish State has made no statement on American gun laws.

    Yet again, you went by the first line on Google, didn’t you?

    And the article you cite is a marvel of either ignorance or disingenuity. The “experts” only remember “two school shootings in four decades” (there were three, counting the school bus massacre at Avivim). No big deal, right?

    But the shootings tore Israel at the seams. Can you imagine 50 dead children in a population roughly the size of Minnesota’s, in four years? In response to Avivim, Kiryat Sh’mona and Ma’alot, the Israelis for years allowed teachers in dangrous border areas to carry their legal concealed firearms in school, and required armed teachers while on field trips.

    They switched to armed guards in the nineties, as part of a general tightening of gun laws. Which may have been the solitary correct statement you made in your comment:

    and Israel has far stricter gun control laws for civilians.

    And the number of illegal guns has doubled in the time since they got that way.

    There is simply no factual case that allows you to win any portion of this debate.

    By the way, the Israelis knew forty years ago what the US police didn’t figure out until after Columbine – the best way to deal mass shootings is to shoot at them, immediately. As soon as possible. It’s why cops charge into the building now, rather than waiting for SWAT – because the best way to stop a mass shooter is to interrupt their fantasy. Once a mass shooter’s fantasy ends, they usually give up, or kill themselves. And if you can interrupt the fantasy before they run out of easy targets, then the situation ends faster.

    And it doesn’t matter if the person ending the fantasy is an Israeli commando, a cop or a citizen with a carry permit; it requires no special training to show a dissociative killer that his plan is off the rails.

    This is exactly what happened in the shootings at the New Life Church, at the Clackamas Mall, at Appalachian School of Law, and at an incident last night in a movie theater where a carry permittee interrupted a mass shooting.

    It’s what the police – real police, not you and Pen’s magic neighbors – teach these days. Feel free to take it up with them.

  21. Gun owners are not ‘victims’ of gun regulation; they – and all of us – are safer if we tighten up who can have guns, what kind of guns, and who can carry.

    And all of the ideas leading to meaningful, effective tightening have come from the NRA. Every single one, including the NICS database. 0

    The answer is not more guns, the answer is fewer guns.

    That’s a chanting point. And yet as our society gets more guns, the crime rate drops. And the likelihood of any given gun being involved in a crime drops.

    Those are statistical facts, not chanting points.

  22. The NRA is not a responsible organization representing the wishes of their members, and is not in favor of responsible gun ownership. They exist only to sell more guns.

    Yet another chanting point. And the fact that it has ties – all of them open and transparent – with the gun industry merely connotes common purpose,

    But the NRA is run by elections of its paid membership. Unlike EVERY SINGLE ANTI-GUN GROUP.

    Propaganda promoters like you help them to do that by not being fact based, by instead being emotional in your thinking.

    That’s a particularly dim-witted ad-hominem. I support the Second Amendment. If that makes me a “propaganda promoter”, that’s your problem, not mine.

    And for all of your yammering about “facts”, I showed every single substantive ‘Fact” you introduced to be in error, out of context, or irrelevant.

    As usual.

    ———-

    Why did I waste my precious time writing a response I’m sure you don’t have the nerve to read? To show everyone else, including people who might be new to my blog, one of the great truisms of 21st century life:

    If you scratch the surface of every single anti-gun argument, you find lies, mangled context, sloppy analysis, intellectual incuriosity and mindless groupthink. Without exception.

    QED.

    But Happy New Year anyway.

  23. LMAO!

    Aaaand for anyone that needed more proof that putting the truth of mental illness’ prime role in massacres will quickly silence victim manufacturers, there it is.

    Not only effective, forcing leftist anti-constitutionalists to try to argue against the obvious truth is highly entertaining…at least when they are as unintelligent as our own Miss Ann.

    Thank DG; when I need a dimwitted mongrel to add an exclaimation point, you’re my go-to cur. You may go sit by your dish and wait for further instructions.

  24. A child is 26 times more likely to be bitten by a dog in a home where a dog lives. Americans own more dogs as pets than any other nation and more children are mauled here than in any other nation. Nobody needs a dog for home defense or for a hobby. There is no Constitutionally protected right to a dog.

    I favor reasonable restrictions on pets. Ban dogs.
    .

  25. This whole discussion is silly. There will be no additional federal gun control (excepting perhaps a limit on high capacity magazines) because the American people do not want additional restrictions. We’ve already had the argument, and conservatives won: Americans by a large majority support individual gun ownership with rather limited restrictions. Just because a small minority of urban liberals and journalists have the bit in their teeth about this does not mean anything will change.

    I think it’s a mistake to look to the law to eliminate everything we fear. Guns in a slaughter are like internal combustion engines in a bus-crash. Necessary to the disaster but not the whole story or most of it.

  26. The outcome of the gun debate is predictable and predictably ineffective. The short answer is that Americans are prepared to live with higher gun deaths so that they can have guns. Fast cars and drunk drivers kill more people than guns, but we’re not going to lower speed limits to 30 mph and ban alcohol, are we? Enough Americans believe that guns are a fun hobby and/or a bulwark against tyranny that we aren’t going to do anything that would suggest gun control.

    The mental health debate will be an interesting one. In the wake of books like “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” we closed a lot of mental health facilities. People seem to selectively recall that this was because they were expensive. More so it was because the mentally ill didn’t want to be in these padded prisons, and most of them do no harm on the outside. We have yet to find a solution that prevents widespread homelessness, and I hope that this will spur greater efforts and budgets to find better residential solutions to the mentally ill and homelessness, but we’re not about to lock up all the crazy people again. It didn’t work the first time, and it won’t work now. Whether or not we take measures to control gun ownership and better treat the mentally ill, we will continue to have frustrated young men looking for trouble.

    On the other hand, America can take some solace from the fact that, slowly, as a result of better treatment for gunshot victims, the number of murders committed each year is declining.

  27. as a result of better treatment for gunshot victims, the number of murders committed each year is declining.

    Well, yeah, although the drop in gun crimes has more to do with a drop in violent crime.

  28. There will be no additional federal gun control (excepting perhaps a limit on high capacity magazines) because the American people do not want additional restrictions.

    If you think “because the American people do not want *ANYTHING*” is a reason to stop someone with an agenda, you are sadly mistaken. Exhibit 1: Obamacare. For 15 years, gun control was the third rail of politics. It didn’t go away. They just bided their time, and now that they have the White House, the Senate, and several recent tragedies to push, the gun grabbers are feeling their oats again.

    Sure we have a 5-4 conservative majority in SCOTUS that (hopefully) will put a stop to any legislation such as Feinswine might wish and/or manage to ramrod thru. It will only take 1 death of any of the 2 senior citizen constructionist SCOTUS justices (Scalia or Thomas) or Kennedy, and Obama will appoint one of his own. You think he is going to be bipartisan and nominate another Kennedy? After giving us Sotomayor and Kagan? Might I remind you that Ginsburg is on public record saying in 2009 “I hope that future, wiser SCOTUS panels reverse the mistakes we’ve made with regard to the 2nd amendment”. If it goes 5-4 Liberal, you can bet your bottom dollar that one of the first things they do will be to piss on precedent and reverse the previous rulings on Heller and McDonald. Then it’s just a matter of time until attempted confiscation and the resulting bloodshed. The Democrats hold the senate, and I don’t think a SCOTUS nominee needs a supermajority for confirmation. The Republicans took a big enough wallop in November, enough Republicans are still wedded to playing bipartisan (even tho there are but a handful of Dems who hold the same idea), and enough Republicans are now playing chicken little regarding Newtown, that I fully believe ANY Obama SCOTUS nominee will have clear sailing thru both houses.

    Game Over.

Leave a Reply