Wednesday, June 29, 2011

A Belated Response

Gun rights advocates did not immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment. [More]
Well, you didn't ask me. I don't think you'd like my answer though.

Posted by David Codrea at 6/29/2011 03:31:00 PM

7 comments:

Chas said...

"Gascon said he is optimistic it will advance because such clips were used in recent mass shootings, such as the January attack in Tucson, Ariz., . . ."

Anti-gun rights, Democrat Sheriff Dupnik lets an obviously deranged man run loose until he kills people, and anti-gun rights Democrat, District Attorney Gascon is "optimistic" as a result. That is not coincidence.

6/29/2011 4:51 PM
djmoore said...

I did try to respond, but leaving a comment requires a Facebook account.

Don't want one, so...no.

Here's what I wrote:

"Gun rights advocates did not immediately respond ..."

I'd like to know who you checked with.

I'm a "gun rights advocate", aka "American citizen who's actually read the Constitution". Please allow me to respond for myself.

Whenever the people have rights, some will abuse those rights, and some will merely exercise them carelessly. The correct response is to narrowly define misuses and abuses, and punish those who commit them. For instance, the First Amendment is limited in regards to libel, the malicious printing of untruths in the press to damage someone's reputation. No one suggests that because some newspapers have committed libel, that we should license printing presses.

Likewise, some papers carelessly misrepresent crucial issues facing Americans, presenting one-sided stories that advocate a policy based on what feels right to the editors and reporters involved, without actually presenting any evidence to support their case, or doing real research into opposing views. Still, there are no laws punishing such irresponsible advocacy. Nor does anyone suggest that a Government News Board should review articles by such journals for accuracy. (Or, worse, that the Government Printing Office should publish the sole news journal.)

In the same way, the right to arms should be limited by banning specific actions, such as murder, rather than attempting to keep weapons out of the hands of the law abiding. Of course, murder is already illegal. Problem solved, as well as it can be.

One possible tweak: if more law abiding California citizens were armed, perhaps they would be able to defended themselves against criminals like the Tower shooter.

I encourage anyone who thinks that a high-capacity magazine ban will prevent mass shootings to explain how, exactly, this ban will be any more effective than a ban on, say, web presses would be effective in preventing libel or journalistic incompetence.

6/29/2011 5:07 PM
Crotalus (Dont Tread on Me) said...

Chas, I wanted to ask Gascon, "Danse Macabre much?", but I ran into the same Facebook account request.

That whole article is full of fail. And somehow, I don't believe they ever did call gun rights supporters.

6/29/2011 7:22 PM
hazmat said...

I too have to wonder if they even tried to contact anyone for a 'statement'. So I left one.

No.

I think that pretty well sums it up, don't you?

6/29/2011 10:33 PM
Ed said...

Senator Feinstein wrote "Weapons of war have no place in our communities." Obviously she is extremely uneducated. This country exists because of civilian owned and wielded "weapons of war". The armed citizen preexisted "the state". Tools used for hunting were adapted to "weapons of war". Farm implements such as shovels, herders' staves, grain threshers and axes preexisted gunpowder technology weapons. If Senator Feinstein was physically assaulted, then a pen or a comb in her pocket or purse used to facilitate her own physical defense would become a "weapon of war", as the usefulness of diplomacy would be questionable.

Another way to look at it is that the individual prepared to defend oneself is the weapon, and all else are tools. Have the tools become more efficient? Yes, but the tool wielder has also evolved. Banning any particular tool only results in the substitution of other tools.

When pressed into service, a simple rock can be used to great effect. Knapping the rock creates a sharp edge, useful for cutting. Mounting the rock on a sturdy shaft to make an axe or hammer results in a more efficient tool. Banning the rock does not remove the problem that created the need for the rock.

6/29/2011 11:17 PM
Chas said...

"Senator Feinstein wrote 'Weapons of war have no place in our communities.'"

She makes that grand, sweeping statement while knowing full well that our cops are running around "our communities" with Glocks and ARs. The woman is a communist fraud trying to con private citizens out of their guns, so that she can do as she pleases with us. That's unacceptable.

6/30/2011 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...

Who is foolish enough to trust or obey any government or any person that seeks to deprive you of the G-d given right of self-preservation. They are your mortal enemies. Treat them as such.

7/01/2011 8:17 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)