Guns: Liberals Continue to Defy Logic

January 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM

A number of things come to mind with respect to gun-control measures that are being touted by the Left and they deserve our attention, if for no other reason than to (hopefully) show their callousness and lack of logic.  Recently, a number of Congress people on the Left have stated that they want to keep inviting victims of gun violence to Capitol Hill because the world needs to see them and hear from them.  Their goal is to “keep up pressure for new gun restrictions by inviting people affected by gun violence to President Obama’s State of the Union address, on Feb. 12.” [1]

That’s fine.  I have no problem with that and they are certainly entitled to do what they can to make their voices heard.  But this is where it becomes disingenuous.  The specific Congress people involved – Reps. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) – all want to bring an average person who has suffered due to gun violence to the upcoming inauguration.  This plan to bring victims of gun violence to Washington is the latest reaction to last month’s mass shooting at an elementary school in Newton, Conn.

What about victims of violence who successfully used a gun in self-defense against the criminal element?  The problem – at least to my way of thinking – is that those on the Left seem unable or unwilling to even acknowledge that guns can and have been used to actually save lives of innocent people.  I’m wondering, will any of the individuals mentioned above invite the woman in north Georgia who endured a situation in which an uninvited criminal forced his way into her home and opened the door to the very place where she was hiding with her children?  In that case, she was forced to use lethal force to prevent his potential attack.

Had the perpetrator noted above simply wanted to take a few things to sell later on, he could have easily done that and then left the premises.  Instead, it appears as though he decided to search for the woman.  What he might have done to her had she not had a gun is anyone’s guess.  Fortunately, the woman made the right and legal choice to use lethal force to take the guy down.  Though she shot him five times, he did not die.  It did allow her to take herself and her children to her next door neighbor until the police arrived.

Will this woman be invited to Capitol Hill to testify to the fact that as harrowing as it was to have to shoot someone, it probably saved her and/or her children from coming to some type of harm?  I cannot imagine it, because the five individuals noted above have no interest in this type of testimony when it comes to guns.

They would probably say that if guns were less available in society, people would not need them to defend themselves.  Again though, in this particular situation noted above, the man who broke into the woman’s house did not have a gun.  He allegedly had a tire iron.  Could he have used the tire iron to inflict pain and suffering and possibly even death on the woman?  Of course.

The argument presented by the five “liberals” above falls apart.  Will they invite someone to Capitol Hill who has (unfortunately) been forced to use a gun to defend themselves or another?  No, that won’t happen.  We can count on that.

But of course, we have the passage of legislation that instantly makes most gun owners in New York state criminals.  Why?  Because the state legislature arbitrarily reduced the number of bullets that a gun can hold to seven total.  This means that the magazine can hold no more than six with one in the chamber ready to go.

Most handguns hold more than seven total.  This means that once this legislation goes into effect this March, anyone with a gun that has a magazine holding more than seven becomes a criminal.  If that gun is used in self-defense, they will be charged.

Interestingly enough, the bill that was recently voted into law has a bit of a problem.  It makes no exemption for law enforcement officials.  Guess you had to read it to know what was in it, but there was no time.  Sound familiar?

Most guns carried by cops in New York carry 15-rounds, more than double the number allowed by this new bill.  No worries though.  A spokesperson from the New York Governor’s office has stated, “We are still working out some details of the law and the exemption will be included, currently no police officer is in violation.” [2]

But what I really like best is what one retired cop has stated and I’m sure he wishes he hadn’t said it, but it’s too late.  Check this out and I bet you see the irony of this statement:

“State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he’s going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, ‘You can’t give more ammo to the criminals.” [3]

Absolutely ironic, isn’t it?  You can’t give more ammo to the criminals.  Right, but this is exactly what this law does for the law-abiding citizen.  It reduces the amount of bullets their guns can hold so when they are faced with a threat by a criminal who just happens to have a gun with a hi-capacity magazine (which he won’t turn in or refuse to use due to some legislation), the law-abiding citizen is outgunned.  In essence then, New York state is creating a situation where the criminals are armed much better than the average citizen and it doesn’t bother them because they either stupidly believe that their new law will somehow impact the criminal, or they’re not even worried about the criminal at all!

This new legislation in New York will only affect law-abiding citizens.  It will have virtually no impact on criminals, but that does not matter at all to the legislators on the Left who wear blinders, naively believing that their restrictive legislation will somehow apply to criminals as well.  How?  How?

Of course, Sen. Adams’ comment above was referring to cops vs. criminals, not law-abiding citizens vs. criminals.  Apparently, even though law-abiding citizens routinely come in contact with criminals (and are often shot to death by them), the belief is that these same law-abiding citizens (who become statistics) don’t need to protect ourselves like cops do.  And by the way, I fully believe law enforcement people need to have guns that have ample ammo in order to stand up against criminals.  But so does the law-abiding citizen.

I read this morning that a home invasion occurred south of where I live in Georgia.  The perpetrators broke into the home at about 4:30am, tied up the 26-year-old man and then shot the 28-year-old woman and fled.  In another situation, another incident took place in which several men went to a residence, got into an argument with the man from that residence, shot him and then fled.

In neither case were there police at the scene, or arrived in time to stop the crimes.  They were not called until after the tragedies took place.  Police cannot be everywhere at once.  The Supreme Court has stated that it is not law enforcement’s job to keep the public safe (and it doesn’t matter what it says on their cars).  It is the job of law enforcement to uphold the law.  If they wind up keeping some people safe because of that, great, but keeping us safe is not their primary concern, this again, is according to the Supreme Court.  So where does that leave us?  Defending ourselves or being victimized by criminals.

Those on the Left want to remove the average person’s ability to defend him/herself in spite of the fact that there is nothing the Left can do that will reduce the amount of guns in society that criminals routinely use in their criminals lifestyle.  These elected officials know they cannot reduce the number of guns and gun-related violence in society where criminals are concerned.  But they do know they can enact more laws that will make it tougher for the law-abiding citizen to live safely with the amount of gun-wielding criminals in society.  So this is what they do, dutifully ignoring the fact that their laws have no effect on the criminal element.

This morning, we took our son to have outpatient surgery at a local hospital.  Assign we approached the front door, we were met with this sign shown here in the photo (click to enlarge).  Technically, if a person has a concealed weapons permit, this sign does not have the force of law.  A person with a concealed weapons permit can still go into the hospital with their concealed weapon.  If – for some reason – someone at the hospital learns that the person has a concealed weapon on them and is asked to leave, that person must leave.  If they do not leave, at that point they can be charged with criminal trespassing.  However, if the person carrying concealed never lets on that he/she is carrying (why would they?) and no one knows, they can come and go with their weapon concealed and no actual law has been broken.

But in my case, I decided to respect the decision of those who own and run the hospital and left my weapon in my car, as stupid as their request may be.  What really annoys me though is that they posted the sign in the first place, which does two things:

  1. Tells every criminal that there are no guns anywhere in the facility, and
  2. Implies that even people with thorough background checks who have legal concealed weapons permits are potentially criminals

Look, the truth of the matter is that those on the Left enjoy vilifying people who carry guns.  To them, we’re “hotheads” or worse and we cannot be trusted.  If we carry a gun, that must mean we’ll use it the first chance we get.

Never mind that the idea of possibly taking someone’s life in an attempt to defend myself or loved ones is the last thing I want to do.  I pray I never have to use it.  This doesn’t matter to the Left though.  They believe that guns are trouble and therefore should be outlawed.  They have absolutely no workable solution for getting and keeping guns out of the hands of existing criminals though and until they do, there is no point in me setting my weapon down.

The sign that is posted on the hospital door is no different from the sign posted at the entrance to a school campus or the door of a movie theater.  You are aware that James Holmes passed a number of movie theaters before settling on the Cinemark theater in Aurora, CO, right?  He most likely did this because the Cinemark theater specifically has a posted policy that does not allow weapons, including people who have a legal permit to carry.  Once again, if this is true, it simply proves what we already know: criminals are cowards and go where there is the least amount of potential resistance.

I don’t mind that the hospital we went to this morning has the policy they have.  It is simply bothersome that they post it with a huge, bright red “NOTICE” right there, for the world to see.  You might say, “Gee Fred, isn’t that the point?”  Yes, it is the point, but for those who carry concealed, it is our obligation to know who does and who does not allow guns even when we have a legal permit allowing us to do so.  The criminal does not care and neither will he pay any attention to any sign that forbids him from entering if he is carrying.  It’s a no-brainer…unless you happen to be on the Left.  Then, it becomes very complex and nuanced apparently.  I will respect a sign that says “no guns.”  The criminal won’t.  It’s that cut and dry.

To give you a final example for now, we know that the Obama administration is pushing for more federal laws and policy that will further restrict gun rights.  While an increased effort in greater background checks and scrutiny is fine, the reality is that this is possibly the only step that Mr. Obama is suggesting that may have some merit.  This is also why the NRA is not opposed to it either.  For it to be effective, people have to be willing to state the truth on these forms.  The questions are ridiculous though – are you a fugitive from the law? – are you an illegal alien into this country?  If you are, of course you will answer those questions truthfully, right?  Sure…

People can still lie on the form they fill out when they purchase a weapon.  But listen to what Joe Biden says about this and the apparent need for more laws (responding to a question posed by the Daily Caller):

And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” [4]

What?  I’m sorry, but say again.  Mr. Biden is effectively saying that the government – currently – does not have enough time or people to double-check everyone who might be lying on a form, or who accidentally or on purpose checks the wrong box.  Yet, Mr. Biden is pushing for more laws even though he is admitting there is not enough time or people now to ensure that existing laws are being followed.  That makes no sense to me at all, but that is our government at work.  I can see why it would make sense to him.  After all, he believes (along with many on the Left) that by making it more difficult for the law-abiding citizen to obtain a weapon or ammo, it becomes more difficult for the criminal as well.

Look, society has spent decades moving away from any semblance of morality because morality itself has been viewed as subjective, with a moving palate of choices and objectives.  Kids have been spoon-fed decades of ultra-violent movies with gore splashed across the screen in consistently greater measure.  Absolutely nothing is left to the imagination at all.  However, no one blames Hollywood though for what it produces and if they do, they are ridiculed.  Instead, blame goes to the tool that is prevalent and glorified in too movies, TV programs and video games: the gun.  That’s the culprit!  Quick, grab it! No, it’s not the gun.  It’s the gun in the wrong hands that does it.

In September of 2010, gun violence in Chicago reached an all-time high.  People had enough and so they began a new approach.  They started looking at violence as a disease that could be treated. [5]  Supposedly, the group by the name Cease Fire (which eventually became Curb Violence) was seen as successfully reducing gun-related violence in and around Chicago because of their actions and work with the inner city areas.

However, it’s difficult to know what the truth is because while Cease Fire/Curb Violence has been touting their facts that they’ve reduced gun-violence by as much as 73% in some cases, statistics show that gun-related shooting and murders has quadrupled in recent years.  In fact, one report shows that more American are killed in Chicago than in Afghanistan. [6]

If our government wants to put a real dent in gun violence and gun-related crime, they need to focus not on gun control, but on crime control.  They can’t and won’t do that because it is too nebulous for them.  Removing guns or at least making them more difficult to obtain is something that can be seen and measured regardless of the actual impact it has on crime and criminals.  China makes a big deal of gathering up all the illegal weapons they confiscate every year and steamrolls them into oblivion.  This is supposed to prove how tough they are on weapons.  All it proves is that no matter how hard weapons are to obtain, the average person still obtains them.

For our government, the interest is not in how many people use guns to successfully defend themselves against the criminal element.  Success for the government is measured in how many guns they can remove from the streets, regardless of how it leaves law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the criminal element.

Something needs to change and that is the focus of our elected officials.  They have to stop being so myopic and hard-headed.  They have to come to realize that the only way to stand against the criminal element is to be able to meet them on their terms.  NRA’s Wayne LaPierre has it correct.  The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  Isn’t that what a police officer – the good guy/gal – does?  So why is the Left laughing him to scorn?

Since police officers cannot be everywhere at once, doesn’t it stand to reason that if I pass a background check and have never broken the law, I just might be a good “risk” to carry a concealed weapon on me for that potential eventuality when I run up against some desperate person who has a gun and could care less about the value of my life or someone I love?  I think so and I resent the fact that my government is doing what it can to eradicate my 2nd Amendment right.

If the day ever comes when the government will be able to successfully remove guns from all criminals, then I’ll talk about laying mine down as well.  Until then, it is very clear that any further restrictions the government places on guns and ammo is really nothing more than a clear restriction of my 2nd Amendment rights.



[3] Ibid (emphasis added)




Entry filed under: Religious - Christian - Prophecy. Tags: , , , .

Senator Feinstein’s Gun Grab Much Worse Armed Guards in Schools Don’t Help?

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,188 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 814,447 hits

%d bloggers like this: