When I first heard the NRA was refusing to meet with President Obama after his request for meetings to discuss the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, I was concerned that we were making a mistake. Now that I read the NRA response, I get it.
… to focus a national dialogue on guns — and not criminals or mental health issues — misses the point entirely.
We agree with your assertion that “Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing” in light of the shooting in Tucson. In truth, the professional, corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lighting speed to exploit the tragedy.
Yes … indeed they did. There were many posts and news releases right after the incident in which anti-gun groups reveled in the loss of life and what they perceived as a means of passing new gun control.
But while I agree with all the talking points of the NRA, what this response really shows is that the NRA has done an analysis and concluded that any anti-gun laws decided upon in this conference are going nowhere, so there’s no reason to be there. Sitting in a room with anti-gun groups in meetings moderated by . . . → Read More: The NRA refuses to be drawn into an anti-gun media fest
When you listen to self proclaimed MSNBC socialist Lawrence O’Donnell’s apoplectic rant to Arizona Congressman Trent Franks from 1/18/11, it’s hard not to feel like a 12 year old called in to the principal’s office. Assuming the principal is Ed Rooney (of Ferris Buehler’s Day off) at the end of a 3 day cocaine binge, you’re Albert Einstein suffering from laryngitis, and the subject is Unified Field Theory: O’Donnell is loud, he’s ignorant, he’s condescending … and he’s wrong . And you know it, but how can you make yourself clear?
(as a note — Jeffrey Jones as principal Ed Rooney from Ferris Buehler’s Day off bears a striking resemblance to Lawrence O’Donnell – at least if Mr. O’Donnell were capable of a facial expression beyond a sneer)
O’Donnell puts Franks on the hot seat with this loaded, no-win question, especially given that it was preceded by a bit about an associated anti-gun bill: Don’t you wish Jared Loughner had a smaller ammuntion clip when he went to Gabby Gifford’s even in Tucson?
It always makes a politician look bad to answer a yes/no question with a lengthy statement, but having watched a lot of interviews between opposing sides it . . . → Read More: MSNBC socialist Lawrence O’Donnell shows off his self righteous ignorance on guns
Plenty of others have commented on Joe Zamudio, who ran TOWARDS the gunfire with weapon ready when Jared Loughner opened fire on Rep. Giffords’ meeting. We on the pro-gun side honor his courage for running toward the violence. Those on the anti-gun side consider him one of the dangers of the day, being he didn’t kill the bad guy (anti-gun people care only about body count) and as he surveyed the situation he initially targeted an innocent man helping to disarm Loughner. Did Zamudio’s legally carried firearm save the day? No. Did it empower another civilian to run to the aid of those fighting Loughner instead of fleeing the gunfire as other unarmed civilians did? Hell yeah! If Loughner had succeeded in his reload and eluded those that tackled him, was his shooting rampage over once Zamudio appeared? Probably. The bottom line … the gun Zamudio carried was nothing but good. And if you’re ever in such a situation where gunfire breaks out and no police are around … you’d better hope there is a Zamudio in the area.
The facts of what happened in Tucson challenge two constantly repeated tenets of the opposing sides of the gun debate; the . . . → Read More: Joe Zamudio, the legal CCWer who intervened in the Tucson massacre
There’s no American who cares about their country that doesn’t feel pain when one of our representatives is gunned down. And political stance and political party don’t matter; when someone attacks an elected leader, they attack us all. And because of this I agree that an attack on a leader can require more action than another citizen. i.e. when President Clinton bombed Iraq after the alleged assassination plot against ex-president Bush in Kuwait, it was probably not an action he would take if an average citizen were targeted — and was not something we would expect of him.
According to Brady Campaign Vice President Dennis Henigan on Countdown with Keith Olberman Friday night (actually moderated by Chris Hayes) … apparently pro-gun congress people may be ready to change their positions on gun control and decide the laws they’ve rejected in the past, because they haven’t work anywhere else, are suddenly worthwhile after lunatic Jared Loughner’s Tucson murder spree. But the sad fact is …
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was hit by the FIRST round, not the last. So the brutal and tragic bottom line is … to whatever extent lower capacity mags might have helped in this assault (and I think . . . → Read More: A quick note to legislators …
When I look at the proposed law to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (story at SFIH), I just have to shake my head in amazement at what passes for common sense in the anti-gun world. I accept that it is legitimate to debate a limit on civilian owned magazines to 10 rounds after Jared Loughner used a 30 round magazine in his mass murder/assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, even though I think it’s clear the anti-gun side LOSES that debate (but I’m only right 99% of the time) so bring it. But take a look at a few aspects of the bill, at least as it’s being reported now (again, from Sebastian at SFIH):
Transfer completely prohibited Manufacture completely prohibited Grandfathering for current owners only. Exception for law enforcement because they need “to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” apparently. Ten year prison sentence for violation.
Huh? TEN YEAR prison sentence for violation? Seriously? Just for having something in your possession that others (those of us grandfathered in) can own legally?
So if I get a ride home from the range in a non-grandfathered friend’s car, and . . . → Read More: A draft of the proposed bill to ban magazines that hold 10+ rounds (i.e. the much feared 30 round “clips”)
I’ve used this blog to review mass murders and the standard list of gun controls anti-gun groups trot out as a “response” even though they would have no effect. Such as using the VTI massacre to end guns shows and pass nationwide one-gun-a-month, though the guns were NOT bought at a gun show and Virginia already HAD one-gun-a-month. But this time they seem to be targeting only a restriction on magazines that hold over 10 rounds. And it is NOT illogical to say that if Loughner had had a lower capacity magazine he might have been tackled earlier and shot less people. But since in a free society (which anti-gun people don’t seem to understand anyway) the burden of proof is on a laws’ advocates to prove that it is necessary to restrict anything, much less a constitutionally protected right … I don’t think they can meet that burden. There are two many variables and facts they ignore.
And just a note on the ongoing problems in logic of anti-gun groups … for the VTI massacre they vehemently claim that even though the victims had time to bar doors while the gunman roamed around, help people climb out windows, and . . . → Read More: Did a large capacity magazine (30 round “clip”) empower Jared Loughner to murder more people?
I don’t normally watch all of The O’Reilly Factor though it’s a program I record and sometimes skim through. But I’ve got to say, Mr. O’Reilly gets the situation on how the Left is trying to manipulate the Tucson massacre/attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords perfectly with his talking points. It’s 8 minutes long, but it’s worth it.
You should be angry, very angry, that so many are trying to stifle speech in this country. Thankfully this happened on a weekend and by the time the normal cable punditry shows took to the air enough was known to point out how absolutely reprehensible those people were/are who jumped on the opportunity to use these murders to attack the conservative movement. And hopefully enough people watched to help spread the word.
Sadly … the MSNBC pundits continue to jump on it, trying desperately to say that while Loughner wasn’t directly associated with any particular political figure, they all had some kind of mystical influence on his choice to kill.
But just watch the memo. And if you get a chance, watch Glenn Beck’s show from today on the same subject. He really nailed it as well.
Watch the latest video . . . → Read More: Bill O’Reilly nails it with his commentary on the Left and their shameful attempt to use a mass murder to shut up their opposition.
Those who would blame TV news pundits for violent acts have demanded that all violent verbiage be removed from political discourse. I’m sure this list will grow, but I propose the following:
Election Campaign: “Campaign” is a military term and may provoke murders. Replace with “Polite request for your vote.” Campaign Headquarters: We’ve already eliminated “campaign,” and “headquarters” can also be construed as a military term. Replace with “centralized office for dispensing of pro-candidate propaganda.” Attack Ads: This term may provoke real attacks. Replace with “polite notification that the other candidate is a less-than-perfect human being.” Targeted districts: This could provoke people to actually target candidates in those districts with guns or WMD’s. Replace with “selected districts.” Bullet points: This common phrase could provoke people to commit mass murders with real bullets or impale people with real “points” on sticks. Replace with “selected items.” Mud Slinging: This could provoke people to sling real mud, maybe with rocks in it, then follow up with bullets. Replace with “blaming everything on the other guy/gal/person-of-unproclaimed-gender-identity.” Election Victory: “Victory” is another military term, and may inspire murderers to seek a military style victory through mass murder. Replace with “Successful Job Application.” In the Political . . . → Read More: A Quick PC primer for future political/election speak …
Brady Board member Joan Peterson, blogging as Japete, makes her second post within a day and a half of the murderous assault by probable psychopath Jared Loughner. The anti-gun groups jumped on this incident of political violence with exuberance, undoubtedly hoping for the kind of success they attained after other political assassinations (from Kennedy to Reagan, though none of those laws affected this assault). And honestly … I don’t blame them. At their core are people who truly believe that all violence is due to guns and that without them violent people would be harmless (which is not actually supported by history, recent or otherwise) and so it’s natural that they assume that every violent incident will suddenly “open the eyes” of Americans to agree with their version of “common sense” (though it may be anything but).
But a reading of Japete’s post and opinion gives a window to the reasoning the anti-gun groups are using to try and take away a constitutionally protected right, personal empowerment, and cultural tradition … but contrary to what they say their views are not logical, not in our best interests as a nation, and not really common sense at all.
I do realize . . . → Read More: Anti-gunner’s view of the Tucson mass murder and assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
A lot of the stuff I read from the Left about Jared Loughner’s mass murder and assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson is intent on using this horrible event as a political opportunity to attack conservatives (the TEA party) and the pundits they follow. Where is the logic of attacking the new conservative movement in America based on the murderous actions of an anarchist who likes Karl Marx? (as well as about any other whacky idea — he was a headcase for sure).
As I said in my earlier post … we could not make a bigger mistake; to let the actions of this insane murderer affect our freedom or even our political views would be like allowing our country to be frightened into becoming a police state after 9-11. To live in a free society takes courage, and let’s hope this is still the land of the free and the home of the brave (the former requires the latter, and the latter will always obtain the former). Even if we have to share it with a few psychotic mass murderers.
But what is the logic of the left on this? Even if we assume Loughner in some . . . → Read More: The assault on our liberties that began in Tucson with one targeted Congresswoman … now targets us all