Now that the shooting has been largely sorted out, and all the relevant facts known, I can say that most of what is going on is depressingly predictable.
Already some of the best-known whack jobs in the house have rolled out gun control legislation almost as though it had been moldering in their desks for the last 4 years, a tacit admission that unless you represent a very safe district, supporting gun control is an invitation to disaster. Current offerings would revive the "assault-weapon ban" and ban sales to people adjudged to be mentally unstable, neither of which would have affected the outcome of the shooting.
Expanding on this, one other offering would ban criticism of elected officials, lest the "dear leaders" be offended or something, and another would bring back the "fairness doctrine", AKA the "Hush Rush" bill, again the primary objective being to silence dissent in any form.
What kind of government wants to disarm its citizens, and prosecute dissent?
One more thing: In my lifetime I've seen a few politically motivated assassinations. Since 1960, how many of the assassins have been right-wingers? I don't remember any.
Aside: How long will it be before someone on the left accuses Rush Limbaugh of being the spotter for Sarah Palin over on the grassy knoll?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It is a truism that nothing can stop a committed assassin that doesn't *need* to escape.
What I missed in the news coverage was the question - why was the shooter the only citizen with a gun, and possibly able to end the spree with fewer injuries and deaths?
I mean, as a nation we depend on people agreeing to serve on police forces, in the military, and in other roles to protect the nation and our fellow citizens. Gun control, any rhetoric that discourages or limits gun ownership, diminishes the ability of the citizen to defend self, family, and community.
Is it possible someone might have been able to recognize the danger and stop the shooter before the first shot? Likely not - usually there are local peace forces at such events, and none of them made the news by stopping the guy.
In this case, gun control was present, and completely effective. Everyone that obeyed the law was disarmed. Only the shooter, choosing to disobey the law, had the gun, and isn't that the expected result? Having the gun in a Disarmed Victim Zone made the shooter a criminal, just so no one is confused by the results of the criminal actually pulling the trigger.
Those present at the shooting, those injured, and the families of those killed all suffered first from gun control that created the Disarmed Victim Zone, then from the nearly-endless shooting spree that was drawn to the DVZ.
Myself, I am angry about the gun control as well as the shooter.
As it happens, there was indeed an armed citizen present. He arrived on scene as the onlookers were pulling Loughner, and assisted them in restraining him. He said that when Loughner was relieved of his pistol, he went for a knife, but was completely overpowered.
Post a Comment