Guns don't kill people

I saw this on Facebook, thought I'd share because it makes a good point:

Although I have to wonder if misspell is spelled incorrectly as "miss spell" on purpose or in error.

Good quote from Vince Vaughn

Via Grand View Outdoors:

 “We have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government,” Vaughn told British GQ. “It’s not about duck hunting; it’s about the ability of the individual. It’s the same reason we have freedom of speech. It’s well known that the greatest defense against an intruder is the sound of a gun hammer being pulled back.” 

Two Word Opinions - April 2014

I`m busy and with limited internet connectivity today, so just some quick thoughts on the topics of the day.  Very quick.  Two words.

Lois Lerner is  is facing charges of contempt regarding the IRS targeting of Tea Party Groups.  Meanwhile she's apparently looking to get a job with Democrat PAC Organizing for Action. - Not Over.

The crisis is the Ukraine isn't over, unless you happen to be part of the Obama administration or the mainstream media. - Face palm.

Stabbing spree by a student this morning n Pennsylvania didn't involve guns. - Bearing arms?

Obama is still pushing a gender gap agenda ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. - Pure politics.

The GOP is urging the White House to slow down on transferring control of the internet to countries around the world. - About time.

What would Phil say?

After a string of unfortunate and sickening mass killings, there's been a misguided and ongoing push from the left to make gun ownership by law abiding citizens who may be bitter clingers, much more difficult and limited in scope.

What do you think this guy would have to say about that?

You want to take my guns?

He's probably not "happy, happy, happy".  Maybe this quote would be more appropriate:

"Where I live, I AM 911." -Phil

That about covers it.

Obama statement vs. the Constitution

The president issued a statement yesterday regarding gun control, or as the president put it, gun violence.  Let's for a second disregard the fact that a gun is incapable of violence, it's just a tool that can be used for violence just as it can be used for defense and security.

We've entered the matrix?

Here's the president's statement in full.  I've added the emphasis for discussion purposes.  It is not emphasized in the original.

I thank the Senate for taking another step forward in our common effort to help reduce gun violence by advancing a bill that would reinstate and strengthen a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons and set a 10-round limit for magazines. These weapons of war, when combined with high-capacity magazines, have one purpose: to inflict maximum damage as quickly as possible. They are designed for the battlefield, and they have no place on our streets, in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers.

The Senate has now advanced legislation addressing three of the most important elements of my proposal to help reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country. Now the full Senate and the House need to vote on this bill, as well as the measures advanced in the past week that would impose serious penalties on anyone who buys a gun as part of a scheme to arm criminals, improve school safety, and help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people with a severe mental illness, and others who shouldn’t have them. Each of these proposals deserves a vote.

The highlighted section sounds powerful at first blush, but not as powerful as this, the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The part people tend to focus on is "shall not be infringed".  Infringed: Act so as to limit or undermine. Seems like the president's proposal (notice he takes credit for a liberal plan but won't take the blame for his own liberal failures?), tends to infringe the public's second amendment rights.

But what about "being necessary to the security of a free state"?  It is quite necessary that weapons that are in fact designed for the battlefield be available to the people.  Whether the framers were arguing that the security is to face an external threat or to the face an overbearing domestic government, does not matter.  The intent was to allow people to both keep and bear (carry) arms.  Further, if the purpose is to raise a militia when needed, then should not the arms suitable to a battlefield be not only available but indeed required?

The president seems to view the Constitution, at best, as malleable or unequally applicable.  At worst he sees it as archaic and not up to snuff.  He did  say at one point that the Constitution was a document of negative rights.

“We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”

Disdain for the Constitution is unbecoming for a Commander-In-Chief.  The president is as agenda driven as he is political, and as much as he is eager to take credit and eschew blame.  This simple release, shows once again each of those first three points.  He's attempting to sound-bite himself into convincing the public to support his 'perfectly reasonable' position.  He is eager to take credit for the work being done by Senate Democrats.   And finally his agenda is a pure liberal agenda.  Rolling back gun rights is a progressive liberal wish list item, and Obama is fully on board with it.

As for eschewing blame - he's had over four years of track record showing that.

OMG Rand Paul should be in the news cycle!

OUT: Ron Paul - kooky. (Sorry libertarians, but he is.  Yes, he's right about a lot of stuff, but he's also wrong on some important things and he is indeed, kooky).

IN: Rand Paul - reasoned, intelligent and right.

This clip should not only be in the news cycle, it should BE the news cycle. This is the single most fundamental counterpoint to Obama's unilateral actions on gun control (in this case) and it is succinct, eloquent and hard (if not impossible) to deny or dismiss  as kooky or paranoid.

EXIT Question: Does this make him a front runner for 2016 or is it just a cogent argument that will fall on deaf ears?

Reagan was right as usual

Via The Comical Conservative:

Gun violence solution cart before the discussion horse

On the left side of the page: totalitarian brotherhood.

The United States is unique in it's Constitutional protection of the right to bear arms. It is also the one country  in the world that, despite claims both the left and the right raise when the other side is in charge, is least likely to devolve into a dictatorship.  

The two points are highly correlated - a well-armed, and well-informed populace cannot be cajoled or bullied into submission to a dictatorial power.  While the left has seen to it for decades that the people of the United States have not been well-informed (or indeed, have been deliberately misinformed), the holy grail has remained a non-armed society.  An unarmed society is or can be made, a compliant society.  Take away people's information and take away their arms, and they are easy prey to a dictatorial regime.  If the left realizes this they are deliberately seeking to undermine the primary notion of the nation - liberty.  Just as bad, if they don't realize it, they are paving the path for a future dictator wherein it will be too late for them to realize the folly of their ways.

Aurora Colorado tragedy is just that

Some things are apolitical and should remain so. Things seldom remain apolitical though. It didn't take long for politicians and the media to start chiming in on the shootings today in Aurora, Colorado.

This, from ABC, disguised though it may be, is still a political point made i a story where the emphasis should be entirely on the loss of life and the devastation, pain and suffering that the unfortunate victims and their families have endured and will endure.

But, ultimately violent acts by people intent on doing as much damage as they can and with easy access to firearms is unavoidable.

(emphasis added)

That is indeed a political statement. The implicit message is that maybe easy access to firearms is the problem. It ignores the fact that millions of Americans with 2nd Amendment protection and access to firearms behave entirely responsibly and are both crime-free and accident-free. This is not an issue of easy access to firearms, it is an issue of a deranged individual, not the only one in the country, who would have even with restricted access to firearms, still have committed a heinous crime.

These types of tragedies are unavoidable, but thankfully, rare. This tragedy is just that, a tragedy. It is not a political fallout, and it is certainly not time to make something political out of this. Save that debate for later, if you must try to turn this into a political issue, but now is not the time.

UPDATE: Apparently there's another, more glaring instance of politicization that I was not aware happened. Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air notes that on air personalities at ABC erroneously linked the shooter to the Tea Party. I`m sure they ghoulishly hoped the link was credible, or they would have have reported that as unverified.