Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying.Really? "At least those countries are trying?" So to "try" is a sufficient excuse to infringe a God given right that every human being has to defend himself and his loved ones? Because we know that the police will not, in the gravest extreme, be there. And this is not to knock the police. It is simply a recognition that the police are not going to be there when someone decides to kill or threaten people. Oh, and the editors of the NY Times will not guarantee your safety either. Bloomberg is willing to spend millions to take away your guns, but not one dime to guarantee your safety. And to those who say, "Well, it won't happen here," those people in San Bernadino didn't think it would happen there either. Indeed. restaurants and businesses that post "no gun" signs will not guarantee your safety, but they sure are willing to strip you of your rights.
Normally, I do not post something that simply reflects what I am feeling, but I read Derek Hunter's piece over at Townhall.com today entitled The Democratice Party is a Death Cult I had to post a few thoughts on it.
(Now, I do not entirely agree with the notion that a McCain would have been substantially better that Obama, though at least we wouldn't be having thousands of Syrian refugees coming into the country. And to be sure, I am not convinced that Trump will indeed be better than Hillary, but any of the other Republican candidates would be infinitely better.)
What I want to make clear though is that none, not one, of the "sensible" gun restrictions currently making the rounds would do anything to stem gun violence. Not one. Looking at the larger picture, did you ever notice that they talk endlessly about a very narrow subset of violence called "gun violence?" What about knife violence, or screw driver violence, or hammer violence, or fist violence? I could go on. These kill just as dead. Do victims of violence from these other weapons somehow not count. Are their deaths somehow more acceptable, and if so, why? Are they, perhaps, sainted automatically when arriving at the Pearly Gates, while the victims of gun violence are immediately sent the other way?
What about the police? Is asking them to risk their lives to defend yours somehow more moral than you defending yourself? If so, why?
Before guns were invented, people used edged weapons, that required great strength and extensive training to use effectively. Old people and the infirm need not bother. Why, when we now have guns that can be used with less training and in spite of infirmity, do the lives of the old or infirm not matter?
Of course, none of these questions will be considered, nor will the fact that criminals will still be able to get guns, we are only talking about banning them for the innocent victims, who, one supposes must suffer in silence the indignity of being butchered like so much meat. And note that the other forms of violence and death are far more numerous that "gun violence," but nobody is talking about cuffing everyone's hands lest they use them to kill another.
I have an idea, radical as it is, why don't we do something about those that murder people, no matter how they accomplish it: Put them in prison for a very long time? We used to do that, and it worked. Instead, what we do now is to set the criminal free to murder more people, while trying to ban guns from everyone who isn't murdering people. I don't know about you, but if I didn't know better, I would think the "progressives" were trying to get us all killed.
No comments:
Post a Comment