Before getting started I wish to offer my condolences and sympathies to the victims of the Las Vegas shooting as well as their family members, friends and co-workers. I also wish to express my thanks to the first responders and to all of those at the concert who assisted the wounded and injured. You all are in my thoughts and prayers.
As with the previous posts this post will cover a lot of ground and the same still applies.
It did not take long for the usual cast of clowns to surface, as usual. All of a sudden every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert on everything from mass-shootings to ballistics. We unfortunately live a world of instant gratification. Answers to questions are not being answered fast enough to some, so in the absence of fact they interject theory. As usual the media is there shoving their confounded microphones in the face of survivors and the family members of victims, seeking to be first with a story any story. The investigation is ongoing and may take some time. Be patient and wait for the facts and report on that. Give those who lost family members time to grieve and give the wounded and injured time to heal.
Emotions are running high after the shooting in Las Vegas, and that is exactly what the usual cast of clowns count on an emotional response. It is always the same after any tragedy or disaster occurs. That which can be politicized will be politicized, but they must strike while the iron is hot. The facts do not matter, what does matter is politicizing the event as soon as possible. That and capitalizing on emotions.
So let me address the anti-gun crowd, the ones that are usually identified as being on the left. They demand more stringent gun control laws, and their supporters cheer them own. They claim that gun violence must end, but guns themselves are not violent, they are an inanimate object. Guns are no more violent than a knife, a car, a hammer, an axe or any other inanimate object. But if a person who is hell-bent on doing harm can get his/her hands on any inanimate object he/she can use that object to bring about destruction and death, if he/she chooses too.
So let us talk about laws for a minute. It seems that the enlightened clowns that write legislation think that they can eventually pass a piece of legislation that a criminal will obey. There is already a law on the books against murder, but that law does not prevent murder. The prisons and jails are full of people who could not bring themselves to obey the laws already on the books. No law passed has yet to have the desired effect on the criminal element. Law-abiding people obey laws, law breakers do not.
I have to ask this. Why must the enlightened clowns further restrict the rights of the law-abiding citizen in a vain attempt to have an effect on criminal activity? Name me just one law that could have been enacted that would/could have prevented the carnage in Las Vegas. You cant can you? But your knee-jerk reaction is to think you can. You pass laws banning high-capacity magazines, the criminals still possess high-capacity magazines. You pass laws saying don’t do this or that and still the criminals do what they want.
God, Himself wrote the First Laws, the Ten Commandments, on tablets of stone and gave them to Moses and the people. God said “don’t murder” and still people murder. Those laws were set in stone. Does congress think they have more sway than God?
For arguments sake, let’s say that by some stroke of luck you are able to repeal the Second Amendment. What would that do for you? Nothing. Now let us say that you pass and enact legislation to ban all firearms, privately owned firearms that is. What does that do for you? Little to nothing. Now let us say you pass legislation that all privately owned firearms must be surrendered within so many days. What does that do for you? Again little to nothing. Sure some will surrender their firearms but most will/would not. Now you have created an even bigger problem for yourselves, sort of another unintended consequence. You really have no idea how many firearms are in this country. Do you? How will/would you know if all of them were surrendered? You would not would you? Not only do you not know for sure just how many firearms there are you also have no idea how much ammunition for those firearms there is. What you would have done in this instance would be to force the people to make a choice. A choice to remain law-abiding citizens or to become law-breaking citizens.
Let us now say that you did repeal the Second Amendment and pass the required legislation. How would you enforce that legislation? Even if the tidy sum of one million firearms were surrendered, you would have to assume that there were many more. What would you do about them? You only have two possible courses of action. Forget about the possibility that many more firearms were still in the hands of private owners. Or go to every home in America and kick-in the front door and search the residence for banned firearms. Some people are not going to take kindly to option two. You created yet another problem.
I might point out one other little item for you. There is the distinct possibility that some States will refuse to comply with a Federal action of this nature. They will simply say that that Federal Law does not apply in that particular State, simply ignoring federal law. Effectively Nullifying federal law within the boundaries of that State and there may be more than one. You will have no choice but to send in federal agents and forces to enforce your federal law. Now you have a really big problem.
No wait, you can not send in federal agents and forces to enforce federal law. You already have several states ignoring, Nullifying, federal law. You have several states that have passed laws allowing the recreational use of marijuana, which also allows for the possession of marijuana. You did not send in federal forces to force the states back into compliance with federal drug laws. Oh, and don’t forget about the states, counties and cities that are ignoring federal immigration laws by providing sanctuary to person illegally in this country. If the federal government took no action when several states ignored federal law and did what they wanted, how could the federal government justify going into a state to enforce one law while ignoring the nullification of others?
No, you will not repeal the Second Amendment, or pass/enact legislation to prohibit the private ownership of firearms, unless you want a repeat of 1860/1861. If you had any intention of doing so you would have done it when the democrats had the House, Senate and the White House, 2008-2010. Quit lying to the people. You only seek campaign donations. Pandering to your base, pretty much the same as the republicans.
What you will do is to pass more meaningless laws, and some of those laws have/had unintended consequences as well. You will likely propose legislation that bans the manufacture, sale and possibly the possession of stocks that reset the trigger of a semi-automatic rifle that allows for rapid fire. You may also ban the manufacture, sale and possession of certain other items that enhance the performance of semi-automatic weapons. You may also propose legislation that requires the registration of certain types of firearms or possibly all firearms. You will only have an effect on the law-abiding population. The criminal element will obey your new laws the same way they did the past gun control legislation.
Now let us address the above possibilities. You could, I suppose introduce legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of certain performance enhancement parts for firearms. But when it comes to possession of them you find yourselves in the same predicament you did about firearms and ammunition just don’t know how many there are and exactly who has possession of them. You once again find yourselves having to kick-in every front door in America, and again some people will not take to kindly to that. Now let us talk registration, just like when I addressed surrendering them some will comply most wont. You would have again made law-breakers out of those that are normally law-abiding. Then again you could/would be faced with the possibility that some States will not enforce your federal law. Again 1860/1861.
Now let us talk about the absurdity of the left. You seek to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens when it comes to private ownership of firearms, but nothing you do effects in the least the criminal element. You do this in the name of ending gun violence, not in the name of crime control or prevention. There are facts that prove that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime. More guns equals less crime, well that goes against your agenda. Doesn’t it? You do this in the noble cause of protecting the public, which sounds fine to some, they actually believe you care. But at the same time you block attempts to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn. When a State attempts to restrict abortion, you throw a tantrum saying that the rights of the woman are being trampled. You seek to place controls and restrictions on legal and lawful citizens and the private ownership of firearms, while at the same time you seek to remove controls and restrictions on abortions. A person is no less dead from a gunshot as an abortion. Murder is murder. You get campaign donations from both groups, anti-gun and pro-abortion. Freaking hypocrites. You protect the rights of the woman, you ignore and deny rights of the unborn. You manufacture/protect non-existent rights of illegal immigrants, while trampling the rights, very much existent rights, of the legal and lawful.
Now let me for just a minute go to some on the right, normally seen as pro-gun. One, a radio talk show host, said something has to be done. Here are the suggestions offered by that individual. Place metal detectors in the lobbies of all motels. TSA screeners in every motel. The host even went so far as to call the shooter a “cracker”. You have got to be kidding me. This character in the name of security is willing to give away liberty, he may well get his wish. He removed his mask. You get groped to fly, you may soon get groped to stay in a motel. There may come a time when you and I will have no liberties at all, everything would have been traded for a little security, and will have neither. He is not the only reacting from emotion instead of logic. If I may I would like to make one more point. The carnage in Las Vegas would have continued on until the shooter ran out of ammunition had not good guys with guns arrived.
We may find out because of this latest tragedy that there is only one political party in America. The radical left and their allies past and present have been long in the process of destroying what remains of this Republic. They have but one plan and that is to turn this Republic into some kind of Socialist/Communist Utopia. They are the new Jacobins, the ends justify the means. They have no concern as to the cost to reach their goal. One of them may/will become the new Robespierre.
I dont have the answer as to why the shooter did what he did. I dont even have an idea of what to do to prevent it from happening again, most likely there is nothing that can be done. But, I do know exactly what not to do. Placing restrictions on the law-abiding citizens is not the answer and will not prevent future occurrences of this type.
When a wolf comes to the door I would like to have some wolf repellant. Calling animal control will not keep a wolf from your door, by the time animal control arrives the wolf would have done what wolves do and most likely be long gone. Animal control will bring with him/her exactly what I should have had.