Wednesday, January 16, 2013

From My Cold, Dead Hands

Today, Barack Obama will outline his plans for further gun control, in addition to announcing Executive Orders he plans to sign to enact some form of gun control without Congress.

I'm not going to discuss the merits of gun control legislation for two reasons.  First, there are none.  Second, the people who now want to deprive me of my 2nd Amendment Rights don't care about the merits, or lack thereof, of the legislation they wish enacted, they only want more power over me.

See, Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't matter to them.  Neither did the Aurora, CO theater shooting.  Neither did any previous mass shooting.  If those events actually mattered, they would have put together this series of events:

  1. Bad guy selects location where victims have no ability to resist
  2. Bad guy goes on rampage
  3. When people with ability to resist show up, Bad guy surrenders or (just as likely) takes his own life.
That's always the way.  In fact, I only know of three instances, and only two in my lifetime, where people being better armed would not have stopped the violence much sooner.  The UT Clock Tower Sniper, the Hollywood Bank Robbers, and the Gabriel Giffords's event (remember, a Federal Judge was killed that day.  I guess he doesn't matter since he was a Republican).

Here's the thing.  In none of those events would more gun control laws made anyone more safe, either.  In the case of the Clock Tower sniper, there was no way to get to him until police stormed the tower.  In the case of the bank robbers, they were heavily armored enough that even the police could not hurt them until they appropriated shotguns and those same "semi-automatic assault rifles" (an oxymoron) from a civilian gun dealer.  Some guy with a Glock in an inside-the-pants concealed holster wasn't going to do much.  In the case of the Gabriel Giffords, there were too many people in the way for a responsible gun owner to fire back at the assailant.

Let's examine that one a little more, because it's important.  See, there were people at that event who were armed.  But they were responsible, law abiding gun owners.  At least one of them openly stated that he did not draw his weapon because he knew there was too great a chance of hitting an innocent. 

When we talk about "gun control" what we really mean is restricting people like that very responsible and law abiding gun owner from being able to protect themselves.  The bad guys aren't going to care about any gun laws; they've already decided to commit mass murder.

Democrats know this.  Maybe some are truly earnest about wanting to "do something," but this kind of gun violence has existed since at least the 1920s.  It isn't like the majority of them have not had time to figure it out.  So their purpose cannot be to keep guns out of bad people's hands, they know they're not going to do that.

So why would they want to enact these laws?  As I said above: Power.  A disarmed populace is a compliant populace.  If the citizenry have no means to resist tyranny, they are less likely to resist tyranny.  The only purpose any politician can ever serve, whatever he has deluded himself into believing, by restricting gun ownership in any form is to empower tyrants.

I will not ever knowingly empower a tyrant.  Not even passively.


  1. Best advice I have is decide how much you're willing to lose and take a calculated risk.

    I find it galling that people are willing to let Barack Obama skate on IPAB by saying "well no one is directly targeted and actuarial data works" and Mik'al'Moore say "you are more likely to die bathing" on the murder of 3000 people in one sitting but we cannot point out that the kids are more likely to die by HDTV than guns.

    There is no answer I suppose rather than if it is not "immoral" for people to ignore drug laws they don't like, perhaps it is not immoral to ignore gun laws they don't like so long as they are restrained in broadcasting it.

    You do not get prosecuted in a mass shooting for owning a gun, you murdered people.

    Perhaps if more people feared the price for murder there'd be more restraint?

  2. Oh, no, it's far more cynical than that. Obama and the Leftist Dems have had most of this in the works for months, if not years, just waiting for the crisis to give them a justification to use it on.

    There's no way he has nineteen EOs, a press conference with several children, and all this preening and posturing, without having had at least some of this in the works.

    There's no shame, at least, not in Presiden't Thin-Skin. He's complained openly and defied the Constitution already, and the more times he crosses the line and doesn't get (figuratively) smacked down, the more emboldened he gets.

    This has nothing to do with safety, or with children, or even respect for life -- if it did, he would have been speaking out over the shootings all last year in his old Chicago stomping grounds.

    As you so eloquently state, it's all about Power. He wants desperately to be Barack The First, and we have a useless Press that wants nothing more than to lick his hand and (figuratively) gratify him orally.

    I wish I had better answers for you.

    Thank you for posting, here and at Ace of Spades.