The problem with their thinking is that they do not continue to ponder the question, and accept their own emotional response to gun violence: Get Rid Of The Guns!
But what I absolutely do not understand is why their gleeful embrace of prohibition carefully ignores America’s rather unimpressive attempts at controlling or prohibiting the possession of other things, namely illicit drugs and alcohol. In fact, the Venn Diagram of those who support draconian gun control measures and those who support relaxation or outright legalization of marijuana would be interesting indeed. The same people who believe that just one more law will fix gun violence are throwing up their hands and declaring the end of the drug wars, because clearly we cannot prevent people from using marijuana. And our national experiment with alcohol prohibition was not a resounding success.
And neither drugs nor alcohol are protected by that pesky little thing called the Bill Of Rights, not to mention Natural Law. Perhaps the Liberal conceit of the perfectibility of Man — that with sufficient control our base impulses, including war and other violences we perpetrate on each other would be a thing of the past. And hunger would disappear, and all would live in beautiful homes, and all of our kids would be above average!
Sounds great, but I will be betting on the evil that we have demonstrated throughout our history to win for a few more years. That’s why gun-free zones and unarmed guards and pie-in-the-sky laws that do nothing other than prevent good people from exercising their right to self defense are ignorant and simplistic and embarrassing.
Had some of those students in Roseburg Oregon been armed, I have no doubt that the death toll would have been lower. Would some have been injured or killed? Probably, but fighting rather than cowering is an American tradition, and one that we should return to the forefront of our national consciousness.
CBD, I cannot fathom their incredibly short sided thinking. As you say it is short sided. We “get rid of guns”. Then what? We get rid of knives. Then what? We get rid of baseball bats? Then what? We get rid of glass bottles. Then what? We get rid of what? Rope? Rocks? Water? The problem is a mental problem not a gun problem.
I think the issue is more basic than that.
Evil exists. Until we defeat evil — which is an impossibility — good men will need the means to protect themselves and their families from that evil. And democracies are simply families writ large.
The Liberal/Progressive cant always stops short of unilateral disarmament of countr….oh, wait. They advocate for that too!
Remember this: the cry from High-Profile Liberals to ban all firearms is at heart selective. They want us to exist in gun-free zones, of course, but they would howl like banshees if their own security guards were disarmed. Who would — or could — protect them from the rabble without guns?
And of course the zealots like Choom Boy want to extend the planet-wide ban to all Western European peoples. The uncivilized hordes of Muzzie marauders and other third-world detritus, not so much.
As is the case with virtually every draconian wish-for-control expressed by the lunatic left, the only possible answer to the desired weapons-grab is: “you first.”
The hero veteran charged him unarmed, I believe. #LikeABoss
He got shot five times but is expected to recover. People, even unarmed people, need to fight back. Hope his example inspires others.
And it is brave men like him who will save this country.
“And neither drugs nor alcohol are protected by that pesky little thing called the Bill Of Rights, not to mention Natural Law.”
Those would be the Ninth Amendment and the right to Liberty, thank you very much.
The 9th Amendment has nothing to do with drugs and alcohol. States regulate them and are not controlled by the 9th.
Your right to liberty ends when I have to pay for the damage.
I would dispute your first statement. They are rights retained by the people. That the states have routinely violated those rights, aided and abetted by the legal, journalistic, and academic professions, simply encouraged the federal government to follow suit.
Nothing I said in the comment contradicts your second statement. I’m curious, though, how much of others’ liberty your dime may purchase. All of it?
I have no inalienable right to drink or get stoned. Society has some privileges, including restricting behavior that has deleterious effects on the rest of us!
My dime has nothing to do with your liberty. If the exercise of your liberty costs me money, then it infringes upon my liberties, and then that behavior can be restricted by government action.
John Wayne killed Liberty Valance, Jimmy Stewart went on to be a Senator still believing that it was not right to kill a man to protect yourself and that he held the higher moral ground. I have often wished John Wayne had not intervened. I know he had to because he really had the higher morals of the two. DC vs flyover country.