Detailed report of Newtown massacre will not change gun control agenda

Let’s accept reality here. Gun-control-supporting politicians don’t care about the details from Newtown, they just want to get rid of as many guns as possible since they hate guns and hate gun owners. They do this because that is how they are programmed … they must do something, even when the something they do does not solve the problem. Of course, they can feel good about themselves since they “tried” and that’s what counts in their mind.

Of course, solving the problem is hard and liberals and gun-control activists don’t like to do hard things, so instead, they take the easy route by demonizing gun owners and the firearms they own. At the same time, they claim to support the 2nd Amendment with “reasonable” limitations. Earlier today, Jim mentioned he too wants the kids to be “safe.” I put that word safe in quotes for a specific reason. Safe is an absolute term, and by claiming you want the kids to be safe, you are saying two things…

  1. Our kids are not very safe now. This is absolutely not the case at all. In almost every measurable way, the children in our society are extremely safe.
  2. You somehow think you can make our children 100 percent safe – the absolute – which is not possible.

Of course there are outliers, but in general, the kids in our part of the world live in a very safe society. Can things be safer? Maybe, but there is the law of diminishing returns involved here. As an example, kids are extremely safe in a school bus – much safer than their family car – yet liberals freak out after a school bus accident that kills one child and demand something is done. It’s devastating to lose a child … I can’t imagine … but about six children die per year in school bus accidents, and accidents happen. Yet still – most liberal/statist politicians feel they must do something to solve this outlier problem.

Back to my point.

Even if a detailed report from the State Police indicated the shooter only used 10 rounds of each 30 round magazine – quickly reloading the gun to ensure he had a “full mag” – the gun-control activists would not drop their demand for a high capacity magazine ban, quite the contrary. Eventually they would just demand the 10 round magazines are banned too.

I was having a discussion with a local law enforcement supervisor who is totally against any additional restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. During the conversation, I brought up the VT shooting where that murderer killed 32 people using a handgun with standard capacity magazines. He told me – and I’m paraphrasing – it didn’t matter and my example was not helpful since the gun-control activists would just use my example to demand restrictions on handguns with standard capacity magazines.

He had an excellent point. Our argument is for freedom. Freedom to choose what gun or guns we want to use to target shoot, compete, hunt or defend ourselves with. It has nothing to do with need. It’s about pushing back limitations to our freedom. It’s about government tyranny. Yes, it’s about the 2nd Amendment and the people’s right to bare arms.

Section 15 of Connecticut’s Constitution specifically reads … Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. The 2nd Amendment reads … A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don’t bother asking me the nuclear weapon/rocket launcher/F-16/grenades or even machine gun argument. None of those weapons are in use – common use – throughout the United States and therefore it is a red-herring. Handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles are all in common use by law-abiding citizens throughout the United States. That includes semi-automatic sport rifles with 30 round magazines; there are millions of semi-automatic rifles out there and tens of millions of magazines. That’s common use folks, and firearms in common use by the people are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and confirmed through the Miller and Heller Supreme Court cases as noted before.

We should not have to bring this to the courts, but keep in mind politicians just want to do something so they can claim some sort of “victory” even if the courts abolish the law. If the courts toss out legislation, they have a scapegoat. Is that really how politicians should lead or govern? If you’re a liberal/statist … it’s right out of the playbook, and it’s working.

17 replies
  1. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    The aim seems to be keeping the incident alive in our minds- to cultivate support for gun control on the premise that gun violence has somehow become an epidemic.? Detailed reports are simply part of the manipulation- to also create the illusion that decisions are being made contingent on this “new data” when in fact a prescribed agenda is being followed.

  2. Ryley
    Ryley says:

    I used to read Dear Abby and she would post “If this saves just one life it’s worth it”and at the time I thought she was right. I now know as an adult that you can’t save everyone and feel good legislation is just that. feels good but does not do any real good?

  3. gdb99
    gdb99 says:

    I was on the phone this morning with the govenors office of policy, and I was told that a detailed report on Sandy Hook will not be released until late June. How convenient.?
    I was also told that the study that the govenor was quoting from the other morning about 40% of gun sales go on with no background checks was from a book “Guns and America” from 1997! I was told there has not been a study on gun sales since then because of laws passed, brought on by the NRA, for the proabition of ?such studies.?
    Really?

    • Steven
      Steven says:

      The only thing that was stopped by NRA was the CDC being used by govt to study gun violence as a medical condition.? NEJM also published a similar report.?? Guns and America was published by the Department of Justice which can publish any kind of report it would like to any time it would like to using FBI DOJ data.?? So all this the NRA stopped studies is more propaganda.

  4. M1Garand
    M1Garand says:

    First off, let’s take the word “universal” out of the background check issue, since the criminals will not comply, rendering them not universal. I would rather it be called “The Firearms Sellers Protection Act” and it must work in the following manner:
    1) Name and address (pistol permit # if available) of seller
    2)Name and address (pistol permit # if available) of purchaser
    3) Date of sale (or a range of dates sale would be valid)
    4) Buyer and seller retain all receipts of transaction.
    That’s it! NO information on the firearm or quantity of firearms, just eligibility of seller and purchaser?by passing a criminal background check. Any info about the firearm is registration.

    • Steven
      Steven says:

      By the way quite a few legitimate gun owners get flagged on these background checks when the abbreviated version is done on just the person’s name.? That should be corrected to allow for DOB also.

      • M1Garand
        M1Garand says:

        @Steven: OK, you’re probably right.?What I was getting at is strictly determining eligibility of the buyer and seller, based only on the criminal background check. I don’t know what info would actually be required, but nothing about the firearm(s). All the state would be able to have a record of was a check took place for a potential firearms sale.

  5. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    How many laws did that coward at Sandy Hook break? ?It’s insanity to heap on more laws because if cowards don’t respect life- they’ll never respect laws. ?I hear no outrage- except restrained complaining. You gun-huggers better get pissed off, turn this into a civil rights issue, and start some civil disobedience- or it’s over!

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      Almost as insane as the grass roots support for heaping on more laws.? Restraint is the best chance to be heard without being characterized in a manner that impugns our dissent.

  6. cherwin
    cherwin says:

    Of course they don’t want the details. They would have to admit how mentally ill this kid was and how his mother enabled him.? Every night in every city in this country more than 26 people are killed and it’s been happening for years and years. When the victims are from an affluent community and mostly white, suddenly they want to use it for their “gun ban” agenda. It couldn’t be talked about before that because they couldn’t figure out how to bring it up without looking racist and non-pc. It is pathetic that this country is destroying itself by avoiding the truth and fear of addressing a problem for what it really is.

  7. Eric
    Eric says:

    If these anti-gun, anti-Constitution stooges in Hartford do what they’ve been threatening to do all along, regardless of how brainless their idea’s are, our retirement years will be spent elsewhere. ?I retired several years ago at age 51, and my wife no longer works. ?We’ve lived here all our lives but our present governor and his yes-men have made such a mess out of our state. ?South Carolina has been calling us for a while now. ?I think it will now have to happen!

  8. JBS
    JBS says:

    Legitimate gun owners are screwed in Connecticut. We have been offered up as a blood sacrifice by the Democrats to the liberal MSM for the entertainment and consumption of the low information voter. Anyone who thinks the statist, liberal Democrats are doing anything honest regarding more gun laws is delusional.
    The gun grabbers are using a sad situation to ram through their agenda. Their stated agenda is simply to ban and confiscate guns by any means possible. Period.
    Any law that is pushed through the legislature and signed by this scheming governor was already written. The hearings were a charade. The gun banners only awaited their opportunity. Facts be damned by them. The truth does not matter to them.
    ?
    The only thing that matters to the politicians is their careers.
    ?

  9. joe_m
    joe_m says:

    The issue with background checks is they then have a list of gun owners. The progressive will settle for background checks for all gun transfers. Getting a full list of gun owners and guns is the least they will settle for.

  10. TerriWilsonBurke
    TerriWilsonBurke says:

    Adam Lanza was a problem ALL HIS LIFE. ?Anyone associated with him has stated as such. ?He should have been committed BEFORE he reached an age where he could legally refuse to do so. ?His mother knew this, and was remiss in protecting him and the public in general. ?She was clearly an irresponsible parent; ?he should not have given him any access to guns, much less should she have promoted guns to him which she obviously did. ? ?His track record of issues should have been enough to ensure he should have been committed so that things like this do not happen again. ?

  11. yeah
    yeah says:

    I’m still pissed that an AR-15 was crafted out of thin fkn air in order to move along the anti gun theme in the country!!!? Lt Vance is an utter and complete disgrace as is the others complicit in the CT state police crew, most of them were probably in the dark about what goes on in the upper echelons of power in the CT structure – they purposefully left details of the shotgun in the trunk vague and let the state owned media mouthpieces ask about ARs enough that everyone ran with it.? It is COMPLETE BS.
    A political line is more important than the truth to these Statist freaks, if it can be bent to serve, bend away, who’s going to question you when the media chortles in chorus at every little bit they might use to convince the uninformed that OUR guns are for our protection.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Beat Chaser says:

    […] /* */ /* */ This is the BEAT SIDE – Heimat des freien GedankensAnimeBLOGZDomainPulse.com – The Beat on the Domain Name IndustryShooting UpRadio Vice Online – Blog home of The Jim Vicevich Show […]

Comments are closed.