Lessons From Gun Goofiness

Since the Sandy Hook massacre, there have been hordes of discussions revolving around how we prevent a recurrence of the tragedy.  This post will attempt to list and/or highlight some of what the debate has exposed.  I want to begin with this link to a blog by a guy named Larry Correia, who is likely one of the best sources for informed opinion on the subject.  His background with firearms, training with them, the laws surrounding them and the facts regarding the use and possession is pretty extensive, particularly from an experiential perspective.  The piece addresses the most common arguments of the knee -jerk gun-control advocates and is such that the time to read it should be taken before daring to dismiss him.

There will be no particular order in presenting the arguments, except that the pro-2nd Amendment proponents are the most sensible and fact-based.  By this I mean that nothing presented by the gun-control people have diminished the need for the 2nd, provide a legitimate argument for its repeal or show an understanding of what it is all about.  To that end, I had listed several quotes from founders and others that show the intention of the 2nd and of those, the following is especially illustrative of what is at the heart of the gun-control side:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Before proceeding, it is unfortunately necessary to head off the very likely complaint by gun-controllers that this does not imply anything "trifling" about a mass shooting of the scope of Sandy Hook.  Laws that seek to inconvenience the law-abiding in an effort to prevent abuses of a freedom or right is the point of the quote.  This is what the anti-gun folk seek to do and is the major flaw of their proposals.  Such proposals do not work as only the law-abiding abide laws.  While doing so, they are made to be victims to those who will never abide the law for whatever reason.  So, the above quote expresses the futility of gun laws due to that which provoked them...tragedies perpetrated by those who abuse the right to own guns...and compares them to the outlawing of fire or water for the dangers they present to careless or thoughtless individuals.

The gun-control people have demonstrated their desperation in their arguments.  They have misstated the intentions of the defenders of the 2nd Amendment through a host of ridiculous and unAmerican/unChristian accusations and judgements.  Among the worst are those who proclaim that 2nd Amendment defenders (henceforth to be known as "our side" or "the good guys") do not care about dead children.  To them (henceforth to be known as "them", "the bad guys" or "idiots"), there is no way to both protect a right recognized by the US Constitution and protect the lives of innocent children and/or citizens.  One person in particular, whose initials are "Geoffrey Kruse-Safford", insists this is the case despite citing numerous stories where armed civilians prevented high body counts where such was intended.  What's more, rather than display a blood lust Geoffrey is certain exists in the good guys, at least a couple of these stories included citizens who never fired their weapon for the sake of bystanders.  The perpetrator either surrendered or offed himself simply because he was confronted by someone willing to shoot back.

Geoffrey believes that our side is willing to allow the murder of more children rather than sacrifice "reasonable" restrictions.  But this is dishonesty and not the least bit representative of our position.  Our position is that what is termed "reasonable" by them is not reasonable at all, nor proven so by any stat or study presented by them.  Indeed, the quality of the stat or study is of no concern to them if it can be used in any way to demonize our side.  What's important is to exploit tragedies in order to characterize our side in the worst possible light.  Geoffrey claims we used Sandy Hook to scream about rights being denied when the truth is that they are using the situation to scream that they should be.

And of course, Geoffrey wouldn't be Geoffrey without some low class assumption that one's desire to own weapons is to compensate for the size of one's sexual organ.  That somehow the driving force of gun-ownership is to "feel like a man".  While no doubt there exist people like that, it too is no reason to deny those who desire weapons for legitimate reasons.

Geoffrey and others have tried to dismiss the argument that the 2nd was created to defend the right to life, liberty and property, and that it was meant as a deterrent to the tyrannical intentions of a corrupted government.  It seems that since no apparent moves to that goal have thus far manifested in modern times, that the threat is no longer possible.  The shortsightedness of this position is alarming while typical and such mindless people are willing victims of despots.  There need not be the imminent threat of oppression for the argument to be legitimate still.  But as we have still fresh in our memory the attack of 9/11/01, only idiots would dare say, "It can't happen here."  The more like Geoffrey who live amongst us, the more likely it will someday.

Another aspect of that argument that the bad guys try to foist is that it would be impossible to resist the might of the US military should such a sorry state of affairs come to pass.  "Let's see you shoot down drones and attack helicopters with pistols and shotguns..." they say.  But there are two things wrong with this:  First, your idiotic gun-control laws have left us with only pistols and shotguns, and secondly, the Afghans have been rather successful fending off a far better equipped force for a long time.

I could go on and on about the extremely poor level of thought that is behind the gun-control positions.  Like most leftist arguments, they are emotion based and not fact based.  Sure, they use facts, or that which they perceive as facts, but actual facts do not support their desires to limit the access of law-abiding people to the defensive weapon of their choice.  That's because their position is not focused on the actual problem.  The problem is not guns or their availability.  The problem is those who use them for evil purposes.  Guns are but one tool of such people to perpetrate their acts of evil.  One doesn't need a gun to commit mass murder.  Ask Mohamed Atta. Ask Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Ask Andrew Kehoe.  Those that intend to commit atrocities will find a way.

A rational attempt to curb criminal activity, including mass murder, must not infringe upon the ability of the law-abiding to protect themselves as they see fit.  Nor should it infringe upon their ability to do anything that does not manifest in the abuse of their liberty and freedoms.  This is especially true if those attempts to curb criminal activity are impotent and unenforceable.  Thus far, as in the so-called "assault weapons" ban, this has been the case.

I will finish with a brief description of how I feel gun laws should be handled.

Deny criminals and the mentally deranged only.  Period.

We have the means whereby convicted felons can be listed on the world wide web for all to see.  We could add those certified as deranged and dangerous.  It shouldn't be hard to do as one can already find who the sex offenders in one's area are.   But if a law-abiding citizen seeks to purchase a weapon, and his name does not show up in the database, there is no reason they should be denied ANY firearm, even automatic weapons.  What reason does anyone need for an fully automatic weapon?  None of your business if that person gives no reason to suspect he is incapable of possessing it responsibly.  If a person is responsible with one type weapon, why not another?   If he is a law-abiding person of good character, why should anyone be concerned?  If the idiots cannot handle possessing such a weapon without turning on their neighbors and spraying the area with bullets, they shouldn't seek to own one.

The above is very basic, not accounting for any variables whatsoever.  This does not mean I am unwilling to consider alterations.  It is merely the starting point of rational gun law.  It does not assume the worst about the law-abiding, while denying the criminal and sociopath.  The other side assumes the worst of everybody and by doing so, leaves everyone vulnerable to those who are the worst.


       

Gun Goofiness

Since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook, there have been the predictable idiotic knee-jerk responses from those politicians and Hollywood notables who continue to show they don't know jack.  To not "know jack", of course, is an abbreviated version of the actual phrase I'd normally use, but I'm trying to eliminate profanity from my speech, both vocalized and printed.  Wish me luck on that.  But the term means that one's understanding of an issue is so devoid of fact and knowledge that one is rendered unworthy of the privilege of offering an opinion.  One who does not know jack is so ignorant of even the basics of the issue at hand that it provokes in those who do know jack great wonder that one would dare broach the subject.  I myself have been accused on occasion of not knowing jack by certain visitors to this blog.  But these visitors do not demonstrate a better knowledge of jack in their inability to show where my description of jack is in error.  To them it is just something they say when their own limited understanding of jack, if they possess any at all, does not prove compelling or even accurate.

But I digress.  This is about particular people who don't know jack and their insignificant proposals for dealing with gun violence in our culture.  Before I get to the main point I wanted to relate here, I have to mention something I heard today on the radio whilst working another unnecessarily long day (another digression).  Michael Medved did a quick spot on the subject of dishonest leftist stats (are there any other kind?) regarding gun deaths.  In it, and I grant that I've taken no time to research this particular bit, he states that in their relentless pursuit of a defenseless population, the left likes to speak of gun deaths which include suicides.  His point is that suicides from self-inflicted gunshot distorts the picture of gun violence, or more accurately, crimes committed with guns.  If such suicides are removed from the equation, and added to gun suicides all other forms of suicide, the total would overwhelm the amount of murders by gunshot.  Again, I did not research this stat myself.  I doubt that Medved made it up, and he is known for being pretty good with stats.  In any case, it does represent another case of the left doing anything they can to push their agenda.

Getting back to those with the jerking knees, I want to touch on the issue of large capacity magazines.  They come up in the discussion because the gun-grabbers ask, "Why would anyone need large capacity clips?"  It so happens that a good article explaining why was found at the incredibly biased, poorly written and therefor obviously unworthy of serious consideration by progressives AmericanThinker.com.  In fact, the article is co-incidentally entitled,  "Why Does Anybody Need A 30-round Magazine?" Check it out.

Before reading this article, I had already pondered the question and came up with the obvious answer, "Because there might be lots of bad guys."  And the article addresses that.  But it also speaks of how many rounds it might take to stop a single attacker as well.  The stories related in the article are compelling examples of how the anti-gun goofs spend little time truly thinking about an issue before they spew their nonsensical solutions.  One must wonder why that is as it happens with incredible regularity.  It lends credence to my opinion that those who vote for leftist candidates don't know jack, since they routinely vote for candidates that don't know jack, either.

The same, of course, can be said about the notion of "assault weapons".  I could assault you with a can of cling peaches in heavy syrup and that would make that can of peaches an assault weapon.  The term is purposely vague and requires stupid people to react primarily on an emotional level upon hearing it that they respond affirmatively to the leftist politician's impotent legislative proposal to ban them.  It's been tried and there was not discernible effect.  Now, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who doesn't know jack any better than any other leftist politician or celebrity, what's to bring the ban back.

Then, as if that wasn't enough, some will alter the term to "military style weapons".  And no doubt, we can't have people owning automatic weapons, now can we?  They're only for killing, by golly!  Such calls completely ignore the fact that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep the federal government on notice.

Some are worried about the thought that people are walking around with guns or in possession of certain types of guns in their homes.  We should be far more worried about politicians who want to restrict our right to protect ourselves by arming ourselves.  I know I am definitely worried about people continuing to elect people who would exploit tragedies and play on the emotions those tragedies inflame.  It's not about guns.  It's never been about guns, or knives or bows and arrows or weapons of any kind. 

A Very Merry Christmas To All!!!

It's about 12:45 AM and Santa hasn't arrived yet.  I need to talk to him about those reindeer droppings on my roof last year.

We went to an afternoon service Christmas Eve before traveling into the city for dinner at the home of my brother-in-law.  The pastor's sermon was based on 1 Timothy 1:15

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance:  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners---of whom I am the worst."

It is, of course, that section I emboldened, the point of His coming.  It was the purpose of His having been born 2000-some years ago that we celebrate His birth every December 25th.  There's no Easter without Christmas.

Anyway, the pastor suggested greeting people with the emboldened part during these holy-days rather than "Merry Christmas".  The associate pastor looked forward to employing that verse in response to those who say "Happy Holidays".

To all who visit here, may God richly bless you.  Merry Christmas.

Bulls 93 Bucks 86

Always good to see the Bucks fall to the Bulls.  I believe this makes nine in a row.  Bulls also have all time series lead.

Not really happy with the overall situation despite the late defensive surge, which is pretty much a staple.  Turnovers still too high.  Shooting percentage still too low, though Hamilton kept it from being too bad.   Heinrich's scoring average is crap, which isn't helped by the few shots he takes.  But those he does take are usually wide open misses.  Luol Deng also seems to have lost that mid-range jumper that was pretty much automatic last year.  They clearly, as a team, haven't yet found their identity and chemistry, though they seem to be showing flashes of what they could be.  I'd like to see the rookie, Teague, out on the floor a bit more, but it seems that will take a blowout game, either losing by a ton OR winning by a ton.

The Bucks have some great guard play, and Brandon Jennings was killing us.  For a while he seemed unable to miss and worse, able to always get separation for a clean look at the hoop.  The high pick and roll was a winner for them until the Bulls finally realized the pick wasn't rolling.  Too bad Jennings suffered that ankle injury in the last minute of the game, as I would have loved to see how they adjust for the Monday game at the UC.  Of course, he might not be badly hurt, but they did carry him off the court.  It would be a major tough break for the Bucks to lose this kid for even one game, even though it would mean a tenth straight win for the Bulls over this team.  But I prefer to see the Bulls beat a team with the opponent's best on the floor.  Far more satisfying as a fan. 

What Can I Say? I'm Shocked!!!

Yeah, shocked.  Shocked that stupidity reigns supreme in this nation.  I mean, really...the first time around, one could understand the emotion attached to the notion of electing our first black president (I could have sworn they said that was Bill Clinton).  It was too much to ask to let that slip by without any sense of when another chance might come along.  It might have been then or never, as if it was all that important to risk the following four years over it.

Yeah, that was shocking, too.  Here was a guy with no track record, no accomplishments...at least none that anyone ever highlighted...and at least two clear examples of having far less than the brilliance so often attributed to him:  his objection to the Born Alive Infant Protection proposals and his radio interview demonstrating his incredibly nutty views on the US Constitution.  His associations were incredibly suspect and with all that and with all the rest not mentioned, he was a Chicago politician.  So much to suggest that it would be stupid to even nominate such a man, say nothing of voting for him.

Yeah, that was stupid enough.

But now, after establishing just how impotent he is, just how poor a leader, just how bad a president, even after providing in his first campaign and shortly after what would justify a one term proposition and following through to deliver that very justification, he is actually re-elected?  I'm ashamed at how stupid so many of my fellow Americans are.

The stupid came in three different flavors:

1.  Those who bought into the Obama cult of personality, who never took the time to truly examine his actions and the effects of them.  Some of these people are just mindless followers of the first black president and feel he can do no wrong, especially if he gives them stuff and sticks it to the rich guy they don't even know.  These are the people who would vote for him because he's a Democrat and not a Republican and no other really substantive, thoughtful, reality-based reason.

2.  These are the non-voters.  They are those who like to say that voting makes no difference, that it's all rigged but in reality are just too freakin' lazy to really take any time out of their lives to pay attention.  Their non-action is the most heinous action for daring to believe such nonsense and putting it forth as a valid reason for not voting.  I know too many people like this.  They guarantee that they make no difference.

3.  Third party voters.  I don't know what it would take for any third party to be a viable option that has more than an ice cube's chance in hell to win the presidency.  That is, of course it would take at least fifty-one percent of the vote, but what I mean is, what would it take to muster up those kinds of numbers?   As they never have more than a few percentage points at most, they aren't so very little better than non-existent and a vote for one of them makes no statement of any consequence, makes no noise anyone can hear and is completely wasteful.  All it does is hurt the chances of the candidate for which one would have voted if none but the two major parties were allowed and one had to pick one of them.  That is to say, most, if not all third party voters lean left or right.  A lefty voting third party only hurt Obama and helped Romney by not voting for Obama.  That's the only tangible effect of a third party vote.  It is stupid to think that such votes have any other value but to screw candidate of the two major parties closest in ideology to the third party voter.  In the case of this election, it got us Obama for another four years.  The time for voting one's principles is the primaries.  The time to vote to save the country from the worse scenario possible was just lost to that worse scenario.  Thanks.

I know people of each group.  I'm ashamed of and for all them.  This was a no-brainer, but that expression does not mean one removes one's brain and then does something incredibly stupid.  It's supposed to mean that one needn't have to use a brain to see just who the better choice was.

May God forgive everyone of them.  I wonder if He can.

More From The Cornucopia

Gentle readers,

As you know, I have a new series to which I will add new installments as the mood strikes me and time allows.  It is called, in general, "From the Cornucopia" and features observations, critiques and commentaries based on what I have read at "What's Left In The Church" from my blog roll list of left-leaning blogs.

In this case, I encourage any who can stomach the thought, to visit this particular post and peruse it and the ensuing comments.  I'm not sure what I find more fascinating: the wacky points made in the post, or the wacky response to comments I posted.

My comments, of course, are in reference to the post and the general point being made about "nincompoops" attempting to comment on matters of science.  But there follows at least one blatantly goofy point regarding reproductive matters that is put forth as a serious response to pro-life arguments.  It tends to make an incredible nincompoop of the host actually, but he still tries to defend the notion, along with his boy.  Worse, they view my more logical understanding of the matter with no small measure of incredulity.

Now, I know my like-minded readers are not keen on the idea of spending another nano-second at this particular blog.  I understand their reluctance and am saddened they do not derive the same joy I do in exposing the expressions of sophisticated thought so common there for the delusions of grandeur they are.  But it really is a typical attitude of the leftist mind that is so commonly on display.  That is to say, if one truly wishes to understand what a common leftist looks like, there can be few better examples than this particular blog.

At the same time, I have no issue with those visitors not of like mind to check it out and return with their impressions and explain one of two things (assuming agreement with the host of that blog):

1.  Where a scientific point is discussed, what makes their argument correct and mine not?

2.  What demonstrates a closed mind and how could that possibly be mine and not theirs (and specifically, Geoffrey's)?

All honest observations and comments are welcomed and hoped for from virtual friend and foe alike.

More Women Stuff

Just continuing with the previous theme of women and what moves them to vote one way or the other, I offer a couple of links. More will be added as I come across them. Here Here