HYSTERIA RIDES AGAIN
Motivated by hysteria, their own and sections of the public, generated by one-sided reporting in the national media, elected officials in New York have "protected" the 2nd Amendment in their state by going just one step short of confiscation (that's their "protection" of the 2nd Amendment), outlawing guns and gun components based on cosmetic appearances.
It is insane. They've ridden that pony before and it always loses the race. Law-abiding citizens are beat down for crimes they didn't commit and the criminals are rewarded by having larger areas of public opened up to their armed exploitation by making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. In every case when such laws are passed the net effect is an increase in violence involving crime. In the nearly two decades before the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban was passed there were 17 "mass" shootngs, according to the Brady Center data. That data also shows that in the 10 years following the passage of that law there were 26 mass shootings, and since the law expired in 2004 there have been 27 mass shootings.
Something else is driving the mass shootings, and they are not dependent on how easy or difficult it is to obtain and use semi-automatic weapons or high capacity magazines, or if the weapon has a pistol grip on it. Those features do NOTHING to enhance the power of a weapon. The "look" of an AR-15 is a simple result of more efficient mass production techniques. In that configuration there are fewer parts and they are easier to make.. Looking "evil" doesn't make a gun more dangerous. What's driving the mass shootings? I think it is the way the national media is reporting them. No, I am not shooting the messenger. He is not a messenger who brings a lie instead of the truth.
For decades most of the national news media has been clamoring for more gun control laws, even encouraging those groups who are trying to surround the 2nd Amendment with laws so onerous that they would make it virtual impossible to exercise the Rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, if not repeal it altogether.
So, in the interest of reducing mass shootings I propose that we infringe the 1st Amendment by passing laws, even 20,000 of them, which prohibit any media from mentioning the use of firearms in reporting any event involving mass killings. It will deprive the mentally ill from their most cherished dream -- nationwide glorification and 15 minutes of fame. In fact, we should go for the nuclear option and outlaw the reporting of the use of guns in any event.
Why not? The national media is half-way there already. They have been doing highly selective reporting on crimes involving guns for decades, choosing to report only 0.0001% of all shootings, but endlessly repeating those stories for months from every possible angle, effectively glorifying the shooter. In the process they vilify law abiding citizens who have never advocated, encouraged or even shot anyone, except in self defense, and they vilify groups and organizations which have had a proud history of the defense of freedom in this country.
Every year hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of events occur where guns were used defensively to protect property and lives from criminals and crazies. YouTube is filled with videos showing actual footage of such events, and most have never been reported in the national media, or mentioned only once on some inside page, unless the event can be reported in such a way as to aid their anti-gun agenda. If it were not for local news organizations reporting locally on such events they'd never be reported at all. What never gets reported at all, nationally or locally, are those events where a law-abiding citizen stops a would-be thug from committing a crime by merely brandishing his legal, concealed carry weapon. The thug runs off and the citizen goes on about his business, never bothering to report what is actually a trivial event. IF the national media, the legislature of New York, and many members of Congress had their way the law abiding citizen would be required to be a victim. Perhaps even giving up his life. Meanwhile, many of those legislators and of the majority media have armed body guards and send their kids to schools that are guarded by people with assault rifles.
But, you protest, "the 1st Amendment is sacred. Free speech is a pillar of our Republic!" True, but it does not have a modifying clause like the 2nd Amendment has, which states that it "shall not be infringed". So, if the 2nd Amendment can be infringed then the 1st can be trampled flat or totally ignored. IF our elected officials can pass laws which infringe the 2nd Amendment, effectively repealing it in violation of the Constitution, and in violation of their own sworn oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution in the process, there is even less reason not to infringe on the 1st Amendment in the interest of saving lives. Isn't that the reason for the media hysteria? Saving lives? Especially the lives of children? Besides, you and I both know that most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights have been nullified to some degree or other, all in the name of safety and security. So what is so sacred about the 1st Amendment? Or any of them at all?
Our own Revolution of Independence taught our Forefathers that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun. Mao, Castro, Hitler, Stalin and a host of other Marxist and Fascist tyrants also taught us that oppression comes out of the barrel of a gun as well.
It's the Golden Rule ... he who owns the guns makes the rules.
You don't want to be a gun owner but choose instead to risk being a victim because it makes you feel safer? Fine As crazy as that is, that's your right. But, until we as a nation decide to repeal the 2nd Amendment by one of the ONLY two methods allowed by the Constitution itself, then I have a Constitutional Right to arm myself for my own protection whether you like it or not. Your hysteria is not my concern.
About 25 years ago, while teaching at a nearby college I answered a call from a county attorney asking me to help find a motive in a murder case, which I did pro bono. My investigation revealed that the murderer had molested the victim, a 12 year old girl, after he shot and killed her because she refused his advances. Ten years later, I appeared as a witness in his trial. During that trial two psychiatrists stated that the individual was so mentally unbalanced that he is incurable and should never be released into the general public, even if he is very intelligent and has a Ted Bundy persona. The jury agreed and found him guilty of first degree murder with no chance for parole. Now, 24 years after the crime, several humanitarian groups have decided that his sentence was too harsh, and so did the SCOTUS in a decision last summer. They have petitioned that he, and 26 other lifers, should have their sentences commuted. The governor and state AG tried to commute the sentence to 60 years, but a Federal judge struck that down. So, in all likelihood, an individual who passed his time defacing pictures of women he pasted on his cell wall (one of my students was a guard in his cell block) will be let out soon. He won't have to report to a parole officer, he won't have to report his address to any law enforcment, and those officials cannot track his movements or report them to putative victims. His parents are terrified. They have sold their home and gone into hiding because he once remarked that he wished he had thrown his mother into a bathtub along with an electric appliance. His sister is also terrified but she can't go into hiding because she and her husband have to support themselves and their children, and jobs in other places are hard to find.
He's had nearly 25 years of training in street smarts in prison and will leave a much more dangerous person than when he entered. Regardless of any kind of law prohibiting the use of any kinds of guns there is no way the government can keep him from acquiring any kind of gun he wants, and your solution is to for me to hope that the police will come and save me, IF he gives me enough time to dial 911, explain my problem and give my location?
You are free to try that solution. Just tell me one thing: what kind of flowers would you prefer I place on your grave?
