It was inevitable: gun rights in the crosshairs, again

January 11, 2011

In the 72 hours after the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of several others in Tucson, our moral betters on the liberal left were shouting in (coordinated?) outrage that it had to be due to the angry, overheated rhetoric from the Right, and most particularly from Sarah Palin. Even the Sheriff of Pima County couldn’t resist getting in on the act.

Though the Left is still pushing the “dangerous rhetoric” idea, even to the point of introducing a bill to criminalize free speech*, their campaign to smear their conservative opponents is crumbling like a wet cookie as it becomes increasingly clear that the shooter suffered from a serious mental illness and had no coherent political beliefs. So,with that tactic failing, what’s a good statist to do? How else can we exploit human tragedy to further our political agenda? Hmmm…

I’ve got it! Let’s blame it on Arizona’s loose gun laws! Then we can get gun-control legislation passed!

Trouble is, like the “inflamed rhetoric” argument, the idea that weak gun laws in Arizona allowed a mentally ill man to legally conceal-carry a firearm does not stand up to the light of truth, as Big Journalism’s Dana Loesch shows:

More on the role of conceal carry in a bit. I’ve seen many are making the case that just “anyone” with mental illness can buy a gun and that Arizona’s “relaxed” gun laws contributed to the Arizona tragedy because a mentally ill individual was allowed to legally purchase a firearm and we can’t just have mentally ill people buying guns. No, we can’t, which is why Arizona has a law about this. AZ law expressly states that due to their prohibited possessor stipulation, anyone proving a danger to themselves or others pursuant to court order is not allowed to purchase a firearm.

Under Arizona law, prohibited possessor are defined in ARS 13-3101 which states:

  • 7. “Prohibited possessor” means any person:
  • (a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

Had campus security and his parents followed up with proper treatment and reported his actions, he, from what it sounds, would have been an easy PP and unable to buy a weapon. Had the Sheriff’s office acted upon what is suggested as their advanced knowledge of Loughner’s troubled history, they may have obtained a warrant and confiscated his firearm – or apprehended him before he bought it. Of course, this simply assumes that Loughner was only motivated to cause harm because he was in possession of a firearm and presupposes that the firearm was an accessory motivator and rules out for certain that Loughner would never have attacked anyone with, say, a knife, bat, or any other weapon.

The problem isn’t the fallacy that Arizona’s law failed – Arizona’s law, like every law, can only work if followed. Prohibited possession can only work if if troubled individuals are reported to authorities so that the existing laws can be applied to them and, in this case, prevent them from purchasing firearms.

In other words, the problem was that existing law was not applied when it should have been. (And the Sheriff’s office there is in serious need of investigation for its failures in this case.)

Loesch then goes on to address the faulty argument that permissive concealed-carry laws enabled this crime and increase the risks we face, citing numerous studies — including data from the FBI — to show that states that permit concealed-carry experience a sharp drop in violent crime. (For example)  Inconvenient truths, of course, rarely matter to the Statists in the media and government, who are quick to seize any reason, however fallacious, to try to advance their agenda of paternalistic control, including taking away our ability to defend ourselves.

For our own good, of course.

*Maybe they need another public reading of the Bill of Rights?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


What We Believe: gun rights and the 2nd amendment

November 8, 2010

In part five of his series on what American conservatives believe, Bill Whittle looks at the right of a free people to bear arms, how that is an essential part of our democratic republic, and pokes holes in the arguments of the gun-control lobby:

He’s missing some historical context for the Second Amendment, how it arose from a provision of the English Bill of Rights that itself was a reaction to the attempts by the Stuarts to ban firearms (for a good discussion, see Levy, Origin of the Bill of Rights, chapter six), but he’s spot on about the right to own guns being a sign of trust between citizens and their government. Suppress that right, and the bonds of trust are severely weakened as only agents of the State may bear arms while the people must rely on them for protection – and on their goodwill.  The citizen, in other words, is a citizen no more, but a servant.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Tough like Chuck

September 2, 2010

This has been a great year for bizarre-but-funny political ads. This one from the NRA, though, has got to be a finalist in the “get out the vote” category:

You wouldn’t want to disappoint Chuck Norris and Blougar, would you?

(via Jim Geraghty)


Busy, busy…

January 11, 2010

Sorry for the lack of posts this last weekend, but it was hectic … and today looks no different. Hopefully, normal service can resume later today. Meanwhile, here are a couple of items to hold you over:

Power Line wonders if Great Britain is doomed. After all, in what sane country can a mother alone with her toddler be threatened with criminal charges for defending herself and her child against burglars and thieves? Oh, and then there’s that bit about home-grown jihadis plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier. Not directly related, of course, but indicative of serious problems nonetheless.

Meanwhile, as global-warming alarmists assure us we’re all going to bake and broil, Fausta declares that the Ice Age is back.

See ya later!


“I’m Against Guns and Violence, Unfortunately Reality Has Intruded on My Delusional Paradise.”

April 7, 2009

A great article at Big Hollywood that tells the story of why the right to self-defense is necessary. Here’s an excerpt:

“Thing is, he’s going to kill me.”

“Have you gone to the police?”

“Yes, of course I have.”

“And what happened?”

She shakes her head from side to side, wraps her arms protectively around her chest.

“I got a restraining order against Ned, that’s my ex-boyfriend. But you know what good that is, don’t you?”

“Tell me.”

She inscribes a big zero in the air.

Read the whole thing. I can see why the author is afraid to watch the TV news, now. As my friend Steve in Tennessee likes to say, "When seconds count, help via 9-1-1 is minutes away." I’ll voice my thoughts on guns and the Second Amendment at some other time, but let’s just say I came around a while ago to the belief that a woman should be armed and have firearms training. There are just too many predators out there.

By the way, if you’re turned off by the dominant liberal and progressive culture of Hollywood, let me recommend the Big Hollywood site, started by Andrew Breitbart. It’s a place where moderates and conservatives in the industry (Yes, there are some of us left. The Witch Hunters haven’t found us all) can get together and exercise their right to be … Right. It’s one of my regular stops on the Web.

(Cross-posted at Sister Toldjah, where I’m guest-posting this week.)

 


Guns, guns, guns

March 6, 2009

I don’t own a gun nor do I want to, but, as a Center-Rightie and student of American History, I know they’re a part of our culture and that responsible citizens have the right to own them. Gun rights in America have been the source of controversy for decades, now, but they can also be the source of humor, as Canadian-American Steven Crowder shows. Roll’em, Tito!

 

 


The British people would like their guns back, please

January 28, 2009

It’s not just about guns, but about individual liberty vs. dependence on the state.

(hat tip: Instapundit)

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,925 other followers