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)


Opposing Holder

January 15, 2009

Stephen Halbrook, author of The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, testified against the confirmation of President-elect Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder. There are a lot of good reasons to reject Mr. Holder; among them is his opposition to an individual’s right to bear arms, contrary to the Founders’ intent when writing the Second Amendment and to the recent Heller decision — which his soon-to-be boss supports. Halbrook stated:

“Eric Holder has taken a constricted view of Second Amendment rights. Millions of law-abiding Americans exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Mr. Holder’s opinion is that the people have no such right unless they are commanded to exercise it in a formal militia, which renders the right meaningless. . . . Many Americans have reason to be uneasy about Mr. Holder’s nomination for Attorney General. They deserve to have a person in this role who is committed to upholding all parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, Mr. Holder has proven himself not to be that person.”

In my opinion, Holder is the worst so far of the several questionable nominations Mr. Obama has made, and that says a lot when looking at Messrs. Geithner or Panetta. The Republicans should draw a line in the sand and oppose Eric Holder, filibustering him if need be. Not talking

(hat tip: Instapundit)

UPDATE: Power Line thinks Holder will be confirmed, but offers defensible reasons for voting against him.


Why we have a 2nd amendment

November 25, 2008



This is from 2003, and Gratia-Hupp is a former Texas State Representative. Too bad she’s not still in politics; we could use someone like her in Washington.

It’s stories like these that gradually converted me from an advocate of gun-control to a defender of the individual right to bear arms. It’s as SteveTN at Pax Parabellum likes to say, when you have only seconds to spare, help via 911 is minutes away.

Oh, and it’s always a pleasure to see Chuck Schumer squirm. The weasel.

(via reader Lance)


Friday link fiesta!

November 21, 2008

Another busy day here at the ranch, folks, but here are a few links to keep you entertained:

Own a gun? Then forget getting a job in the Obama Administration, it seems. Ed Morrissey blogs on the now-infamous Question 59. Since when did exercising one’s constitutional rights become a red line for getting a job?

Speaking of our rights and liberties, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is lobbying the UN to push member states to make criticism of Islam (including any honest discussion of jihad or the Islamic supremacist ideology) a criminal offense. What was that nonsense about free speech? And what does our likely next Attorney General think of this?

Here are two articles by Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, the first saying "been there, done that" to a presidency of experimentation, the other looking askance at the efforts to cast Barack Obama as a latter-day FDR or Lincoln. What is it about liberals that they’re always looking for some sort of larger than life savior? of course, the same thing could be said for conservatives who are desperately seeking Ronnie.

Gerard Baker thinks it’s insane to think any Obama Administration that includes Hillary Clinton in the Cabinet would be drama-free.

Finally, the great Victor Davis Hanson meditates ruefully on a society in which failure is not allowed.

I’ll be back later. Happy


Hammer blow

October 23, 2008

I’ll say this: The National Rifle Association does not pull punches in its ads:


Ouch. That’s gotta hurt. Feeling beat up

We’ve all heard horror stories about people held criminally liable for using force to defend themselves in their homes. (Ed Morrissey covers one such ludicrous case involving the Prophet Barack.) In England, people have been arrested for shooting burglars on their own property.

Here’s clear evidence that Barack Obama has taken some of the most extreme anti-Second Amendment positions possible, denying the right to self-defense.

I don’t own a gun, but I do care about "the rules" as laid down in the Constitution. Barack Obama, it seems, does not.

It seems to me that’s a very good reason to vote for this team:

mccain   palin



(via Hot Air)

LINKS: Pax Parabellum has the relevant text from the bill in question.


Rock on

October 23, 2008

Via Pax Parabellum, call this the Battle Hymn of the Last Ten Days:


Hey, it’s got a catchy beat! Dancing


The battle of Pennsylvania

October 22, 2008

McCain-Palin is battling to flip Pennsylvania to the "red" column, and a 527 called Let Freedom Ring has a series of commercials out, making the points McCain himself has been reluctant to make. Here are two for the Keystone State. Roll’em, Tito!


I think they’re pretty effective and, Heaven knows, there’s fertile ground there given the contempt Obama, Biden, and their own congressman have show for western Pennsylvanians. Don’t forget, Hillary clobbered Obama here late in the primaries. I don’t think two many of those Democratic voters have changed their opinion of The One since then.

But, will it be enough? Nailbiting

(via Pax Parabellum)


Too thin-skinned to be president?

September 28, 2008

I’ve noted for a while now Barack Obama’s sensitivity to criticism. He doesn’t like it; his acolytes don’t like it either. Nothing too unusual in that. All politicians and their fans think they’re being misrepresented.

But not all of them ask local law enforcement to persecute their critics.

Here’s the ad that has Harbinger of Hope and Change all riled up:


I don’t know whether it’s wholly accurate or not, but it doesn’t seem out of line for a political ad on a hot-button issue. In fact, it’s accuracy is not the issue at all, but the Obama campaign’s attempt to deny the free speech rights of its critics. And this isn’t the first time the Obama campaign has tried to shout-down opponents.

The Obama campaign’s attempt to suborn law enforcement for its own benefit is so outrageous that the Governor of Missouri has denounced it, telling the Prophet Barack to grow up.

If Candidate Obama is so thin-skinned that he and his people feel compelled to resort to political thuggery against critics, do we really want a President Obama running the Justice Department?

(hat tip: Fausta)

LINKS: Dan Riehl; Instapundit has lots of links; Sister Toldjah; Little Green Footballs; Power Line smells the stench of police-state tactics; Michael Ledeen compares it to Saudi-style libel tourism. Apt, indeed.


Why we have a 2nd amendment

June 8, 2008

An atrocity like this is almost impossible to predict and prevent, once someone is determined to act out:

A man who police said “was tired of life” drove into a crowd of pedestrians Sunday and then went on a stabbing rampage in Tokyo’s top electronics and video game district, killing seven people and wounding 10, authorities said.

The deadly lunchtime assault paralyzed the Akihabara neighborhood, which is wildly popular among the country’s youth. The killings were the latest in a series of grisly knife attacks that have stoked fears of rising crime in Japan.

A 25-year-old man, Tomohiro Kato, was apprehended in the attack, authorities said.

“The suspect told police that he came to Akihabara to kill people,” said Jiro Akaogi, a spokesman for the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department. “He said he was tired of life. He said he was sick of everything.”

News reports said the man crashed a rented, two-ton truck into pedestrians, then jumped out of the truck and began stabbing the people he’d knocked down before turning on horrified onlookers.

The attacker grunted and roared as he slashed and stabbed at his victims on a street crowded with Sunday shoppers, reports said.

“He was screaming as he was stabbing people at random,” a witness told NHK.

Japan has the most stringent gun-control in the democratic world. As Diplomad points out, one armed citizen could have saved a lot of lives.

Maybe the founders knew what they were talking about.


Effective ad

May 17, 2008

I’m going to be out all-day today at a symposium, so this is it for blogging. But I wanted to share this: I think it’s a very effective ad attacking Obama for his position on second amendment rights:


If the RNC keeps coming up with ads like these, the McCain campaign will owe them a big "thank you." I think it will play very well outside the liberal enclaves, and maybe even in them, among moderate Democrats.

My own position on guns? I don’t want one and wouldn’t have one in the house. I’m just as likely to blow my own foot off as take down a burglar. However, I think it’s pretty clear that the plain text of the amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms, while allowing for reasonable regulation. The Founders considered it so important that they placed it second in the Bill of Rights, just after the right to free speech.  The decision (PDF) by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in the Parker case agrees. Hence I think gun control is another area where Barack Obama is dead wrong.

I realize he’s the Prophet of New Politics and the Prince of Hope and Change, but his opinions are so far to the Left that I just can’t see how he’ll capture the moderate voters he needs to win the election.

Have a great day! rose

When feeling safe is unsafe

April 30, 2007

Michael Barone takes a look at two disparate trends in gun-control -calls for increased regulation at the federal level, while more and more states are allowing residents to carry concealed weapons- and comes to the conclusion that the safe feeling one gets when guns are banned is just illusory. He observes:

Virginia has a concealed-weapons law. But Virginia Tech was, by the decree of its administrators, a "gun-free zone." Those with concealed-weapons permits were not allowed to take their guns on campus and were disciplined when they did. A bill was introduced in the state House of Delegates to allow permit-holders to carry guns on campus. When it was sidetracked, a Virginia Tech administrator hailed the action and said that students, professors and visitors would now "feel safe" on campus.

Tragically, they weren’t safe. Virginia Tech’s "gun-free zone" was not gun-free. In contrast, killers on other campuses were stopped by faculty or bystanders who had concealed-weapons permits and brandished their guns to stop the killing.

We may hear more about gun control at the national level. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment’s right "to keep and bear arms."

Judge Laurence Silberman’s strong opinion argues that this is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a 1939 case upholding a federal law banning sawed-off shotguns. Limited regulation is allowed, Silberman wrote, but not a total ban. Somewhere on the road between a law banning possession of nuclear weapons and banning all guns, the Second Amendment stands in the way. This is the view as well of the liberal constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe. The Supreme Court may take the case, which is in conflict with other circuits’ rulings.

If it upholds the D.C. decision, there is still room for reasonable gun regulation. The mental health ruling on the Virginia Tech killer surely should have been entered into the instant check database to prevent him from buying guns. The National Rifle Association is working with gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., to improve that database.

But even as we fine-tune laws to make sure guns don’t get into the wrong hands, maybe the opinion elites will realize that in places where gun ownership is widespread, we’re safer than in a "gun-free zone."

I was an advocate of strict gun-control years ago, but I’ve since come around to the position that the 2nd Amendment is clear: there is both an individual right to bear arms and an allowance for reasonable regulation. And the experience of 40 states seems to bear out that law-abiding people allowed to carry concealed weapons will remain law-abiding.

Trusting the people. Hmm… What a concept!

(Side note: Sorry for the extended silence — I got so wrapped up in other things that I had no time to follow the news! Oooppss….)