Saturday, July 28, 2012
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has offered a gun control amendment to a cybersecurity bill in the Senate reportedly to limit magazine capacities on most guns. Can he have lived so long and yet be so ignorant that he fails to understand that so-called gun control laws don’t work because criminals ignore laws?
Perhaps Sen. Schumer and his liberty-hating colleagues should be aware of the facts Neil Cavuto dug out on July 23: “Norway has among the toughest gun laws on the planet, not to mention, a reputation for having among the most peaceful citizens on the planet. But that didn't stop Anders Breivik from going on a rampage that left 77 dead, that's right 77 in 2011.
The same year Nordine Amrani murdered 7 in Belgium.
Or 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer walked into a German elementary school and killed 15 people in 2009.
Or a 52-year-old British taxi driver named Derrick Bird butchered 12 and injured 11 others in a four-hour violent spree back in 2010.
Barely a year after Ibrahim Shkupolli stabbed and killed his ex-girlfriend, then went on to a shopping mall in Finland to kill 4 others.
...the same otherwise "peaceful" Finland, where only about a year earlier, a 22-year old culinary arts student walked into a school and killed 10 people.
...the Birmingham, England man who killed 3 back in 2000.
...the Swiss kid who slaughtered 14 at the parliament in Zug in 2001.
...the 29-year-old who killed 11 and injured 6 in South Africa.
...the Slovakian man who killed 7 in a Netherlands shopping mall in 2011.
...or the 23-year-old Australian surfer named Martin Bryant, who shot dead 35 people at a popular tourist attraction there "just because he felt like it" that day.
My point is not to spread the blame but remind all, this kind of stuff isn't unique to us. It happens everywhere. Among peoples who are peaceful, and those who are not. In countries with tough gun laws, and those without tough gun laws.
And it's been happening for a long time.”
Senator Schumer is reported to have said, “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some [sic] together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
There IS an idea that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties, but Senator Schumer’s probably not interested in it. That would be a law to eliminate the so-called “gun-free zones” that have the commonality of being in force at Columbine, Virginia Tech, West Roads, and most recently, Aurora, in addition to all those countries listed by Mr. Cavuto. Those are the places where people who don’t obey laws go to kill the greatest number of victims for maximum effect -- unopposed.
Or, maybe, maybe, maybe we should propose a law that people who demand more gun control, even in the face of example after example that it only produces more victims, be charged with accessory to murder. After all, they’re enablers of mass murderers.
He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves. Quite frankly, with decades of experience of safely handling guns for my own purposes, I’m a far better judge of what I “need” than Senator Schumer – especially since he repeatedly exposes his gross ignorance of what an “assault” weapon is.
Senator Schumer and his gun-control cronies view the Second Amendment as something the government gives permission to the governed to exercise. They don’t see it as a fundamental Constitutional Right borne of a revolution to throw off the shackles of a tyrant, and to ensure that no tyrant could ever again suppress our liberties. Seen correctly, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people keep government in check.
This administration is either the most inept or most lawless in my lifetime. It lost track of more than 2,000 guns which resulted in the deaths of 2 federal agents, at least 5 other American citizens and more than 300 Mexicans, while requiring lawful gun dealers to look the other way when gun laws were being violated. It shoveled state-of-the-art military-grade weaponry and equipment out the door to state and local para-military constabularies so fast that it couldn’t keep track of it – leaving them wide open to corruption and another potential “Fast and Furious” debacle which will likely result in more “unnecessary casualties.” With a record like that, why should citizens allow the federal government to disarm them or limit their choices? Their failures have left the American public more exposed to mortal danger, not safer.
Yet it libeled patriotic Americans as potential terrorists for wishing to exercise their Constitutional Rights. It reserved unto itself the right to kill American citizens without due process or even trial in absentia. For the first time, it armed the IRS, EPA, HHS, and other agencies that have no clear need of being armed, but do have clear records of abuse of authority.
They claim that they need all this firepower so they won’t be outgunned by the drug cartels, violent street gangs, or other heavily-armed criminals. If they shouldn’t be outgunned, then why should law-abiding citizens?
When the police are demonstrably unable to respond quickly enough to minimize deaths, and the courts have held they have no duty to respond, law-abiding citizens should never, never, never be limited in their ability to provide for their own self-defense, should they choose to undertake that responsibility.
