In the wake of the Tucson shootings, liberals we're quick to try and take advantage of others misfortune & jump up on their soapboxes about how we need more gun control and legislation as a solution to such incidents and blaming right wing rhetoric & talking points.It's funny,but I don't remember them saying a whole heck of a lot after the fort hood shooting.The reason for that is that they didn't want to possibly bruise the feelings of anyone who happens to be a Muslim since they are currently a "protected" class whereas this kid is Arizona is a crazy White boy, so no political correctness is therefore warranted.
According to liberals distorted philosophy,the fort hood shooter was understandably driven to violence due to the oppressive colonialism by White America and the United States Imperialistic foreign policies in the Middle East.And in that sense was somewhat justified in their mind.Obama and the Liberals were so quick to come out after fort hood and make a plea for tolerance and preach to don't jump to conclusions,but you heard no such things after Tucson, but only to blame right-wing talk radio and cries for gun control. Now Glock pistols themselves are being blamed as some unholy instrument of death since Jared Loughner used a Glock 19 with a 33 round magazine like the one pictured above.The number of rounds in the magazine(or "clips") is also a big concern of liberals believe limiting round counts is positive step to curb carnage So,you limit him to 10, he'll just bring more magazines or more guns.It makes little difference in most mass executions which is really what I'd label Tucson.
If you want to analyze why this occurred and look for sensible ways to try and prevent it in the future,that's normal and noble, but a knee-jerk response of wanting to ban magazines that hold a certain number of rounds or certain guns or guns altogether is pure folly. If a commercial airliner crashes, do they want to ban airplanes or commercial flights? If someone drives their car into a crowd, do they want to ban cars? The answer is no of course since they see a need for such things, but for some reason can't see the legitimate need for guns.They obviously think Military and Police forces need guns since I'm not aware of any significant number of liberals wishing to disarm our Military or Police and liberals will usually give Sportsman and Hunters the go ahead to have certain types of guns. No, it's those "evil high-capacity black guns" that liberals hate so much and are good for nothing except killing people in their eyes.In at least one sense it could be said they are right in that those guns are designed for social/self-defense & anti-personnel purposes & the exact reason why Military & Police use those "evil black guns". For the purpose of llegitimate self-defense never enters their vocabulary.
But, most liberals think it's ok for the Military & Police to have them, so why not Civilians?You never hear liberals speak about personal civilian self-defense. Why? Is that due to some bury your head in the sand mentality or something more sinister? Sometimes Military and Police personnel go crazy and start firing upon & murdering their fellow human beings. So, in these instances do they say we need to ban guns from Military & Police use? For what reason do they have for wanting to disarm the law-abiding public of the most effective means of defending themselves. Do they possibly fear "The People"? There are countless examples of firearms being used by law-abiding citizens to successfully protect themselves and if they hadn't had the firearm, they would have likely been dead.Renown author & self-defense expert Massad Ayoob has written about countless examples over the years.Guns used by law abiding Civilians can & do save lives.If guns cannot and never have saved lives,then why would we want to go to the expense & issue such worthless devices to our Military & Police forces.
Perhaps it is simply ignorance and they blindly follow some unrealistic blanket liberal ideology of "the less guns" the better and ignore the facts & what's realistic.Such thinking and associated legislation merely disarm the good guys since the bad guys don't care one iota about their laws. And secondly,you can't possibly get rid of all the guns even if the Government went door to door and tried rounding them up like Gestapo stormtroopers. People will hide them and criminals will always find a way to get them or would even resort to making them on their own and You'll have underground firearm manufacturing networks very similar to the kind of nonsense that went on during prohibition with good citizens at the mercy of the criminal population.You simply can't rewind time to a point where there were no guns or uninvent them. Bad things happen and will always happen, it's a undeniable fact of life & the there simply no way to prevent tragedies from occurring 100% of the time.It's like saying Your going to stop all car crash fatalities.It simply is not realistic.
If the answer to preventing violent crimes and shootings was to simply ban guns or citizens from buying or owning them, then I guess Chicago,Washington and other big Metropolitan Cities should be crime free since that is exactly what they have done in those places.How's those strict gun laws working out in Chicago to reduce crime and homicides and in preventing guns from falling into criminal hands? Once again, If you pass gun bans,you'll merely disarm the law-abiding public and embolden the criminals who see the disarmed public as easy prey.The Police? They simply can't be everywhere all the time and it takes several minutes for them to arrive to the scene of a crime after 911 is dialed if the victim is even able & has access to call. So for at least about the first 5-10 minutes depending on where you live,you're on your own.
Another big discussion about the Tucson shooter is that he is "mentally-ill" and should never have had been able to buy the gun in the first place.I feel and think most people would agree that the violently mentally-ill & criminally insane should be prohibited from legally getting a firearm and there is already regulations in place to keep this from occurring. I see possible proposed legislation in response to Tucson if passed becoming a slippery slope of who they decide is or consider "mentally-ill".Public & Professional definitions vary greatly on this topic on exactly who has a mental illness.Currently to purchase a firearm in terms of your mental health,you can't have been adjudicated mentally defective/mentally-ill and you can never have been hospitalized/in-patient in a mentally health facility. To me that's perfectly adequate and reasonable.There will always be people that have no history of mental illness or violent behavior and are seemingly fine up until a point and then severe mental illness or psychosis comes on rather abruptly without much warning and these people may fall through the cracks & there simply isn't much that can done until they have been hospitalized or have interaction with law enforcement etc.Also keep in mind that most psychotics and/or the mentally-ill are actually non-violent.
What if they say anybody that takes any type of psychotropic drugs is "mentally-ill" and therefore should not be able to buy a firearm as I've heard many propose? Your talking about a third of the population and an extremely very high percentage of the elderly who are especially vulnerable to violent crime. Should the elderly widow who is taking an anti-depressant to deal with the grief of the recent lose of her husband be denied the right to buy a handgun for self-protection since she is "mentally-ill". I guess Grandma should simply be easy prey.What about the 10 year old kid who gets counseling and is given a pill to ease the sadness after his parents get divorced? Should he forever be branded "mentally-ill"? How about the kids who took Ritalin when they grow up? To do so would be like treating someone who gets arrested and charged with a disorderly conduct misdemeanor for a bar scuffle when they're 21 just the same as a hardcore convicted felon and forever branding them a criminal. I don't want the Government and far-left liberals going around determining who is and who isn't "mentally-ill".To them even racism is a mental illness.They label Glenn Beck,Sarah Palin and John Boehner as mentally-ill. We actually did used to do such things in this country back when the guys in the little white coats would show up to haul you off to the loony-bin for merely raising your voice in a public place.I guess that most members of Congress on both sides as well as just about everyone on talk radio and cable news would be considered "mentally-ill" by those standards and would be rounded up.
A 50 year old Man listening to the profane & vulgar rants & raps of Nas, lil Wayne or Jay-Z is rather bizarre in my opinion and I thought the only people listening to such "music" we're teenagers rebelling against their parents and for it's shock value.It especially strange if that 50 year old man Man is President of the United States, but I would not say that person can't own a firearm just merely because of his odd or somewhat eccentric behavior. I only mention this because Barack Obama recently said it is those rappers that were currently what he listens to on his ipod.
Little has also been said about Jared Loughners alleged drug use.I think this is because the left essentially condones or at least overlooks illegal drug use.What about alcohol? How many people are killed by drunk drivers every year? How many cases of domestic abuse & violence are fueled by alcohol? Where is the left's outrage and outcries that we need to ban alcohol? There are happy drunks, mean drunks,violent drunks,drunks who drink and drive & kill people and some who drink responsibly isolating themselves away from others so they don't risk lives.Do we lump them all in together or say we need to ban alcohol or do we wait until there is a violation of law as we currently do?
Tucson was a tragic event no doubt, but let us go forward using reason, logic and acceptance of reality. Misguided over-reactions often tend to make things worse.Pray for the victims and be aware of your own safety and take necessary precautions so that you and your family & friends are not at unnecessary risk and remember that you can't always rely on others to protect you, so take measures and responsibility for yourself & yours since it is you and you alone whom you can always count on to be there.