It has been two days since Rep. Giffords was shot in the head [1], and six others were tragically killed outside a Safeway in Tucson, Arizona, by a deranged Right-wing Tea Party Sarah Palin worshipping Glenn Beck loving Republican (Communist?) nutbag, who was apparently concerned about governmental “mind control” of grammar. (…huh?)
As I have previously written [2], I had no intention of wading into the political aspects of this crime. The only issue of real concern is that a member of Congress was shot, and six others were killed. There is no excuse for this dirtbag – after a fair jury trial, should Jared Loughner be found guilty, he should be promptly executed for his crimes.
However, Progressives in Congress have already started churning up two legislative “fixes” to the problem of shootings of Congressional members (and we can surely trust government to effectively “fix” these types of problems – their track record is nearly spotless…) The two solutions being readied to appear before the Congress are, in essence:
1. Restrict free speech [3] to prevent language directed towards Congressional members that is perceived as “violent.”
and
2. More gun control [4], of course!
Rep. Cindy McCarthy has been salivating at the opportunity to re-introduce strict gun control legislation, particularly an extension (permanent?) of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban [5], ever since its expiration in 2004. She has attempted to introduce the bill on several occasions [6] [7] [8], but the mood of Congress was not right to risk a strong backlash from gun owners, who legally possess some 250 million firearms [9].
That has changed today, however, as the tragedy of Rep. Giffords shooting has lead to hot emotional thinking trumping cooler logic – the perfect opportunity for Progressivism to seize upon and restrict the liberties of law abiding Americans even further. In the infamous words of Rahm Emmanuel, “never let a good crisis go to waste [10].”
This comes on the heels of yet another abuse of governmental authority, as the BATFE has also passed a brand new regulation which will require licensed gun dealers to report the names of any person who purchases two or more rifles which have detachable magazines and are 22 caliber or greater within any five day period [11]. This seems to be a clear violation of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act [12] which prevents to creation of a federal gun registry, although the BATFE has already far exceeded this boundary and maintains several databases in spite of the law.
Is this even necessary? How many crimes are committed with AR-15 style rifles?
This story was first reported by Politico [13], which I would suggest be read on its own.
To illustrate just how logical the politicians proposing this legislation are, I would like to comment on a few points made in the Politico article:
- “My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.
Well thank God. If only Congress had “fixed” this problem BEFORE the shooting. Oh well, at least it’s fixed now.
- “no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.”
What stockpiles of ammunition were used? If the media reports are correct, the 9mm Glock Loughner used in the shooting had a 31-round magazine. If two magazines were used (apparently he tried to change magazines and was stopped by a bystander), he might have had 62 rounds available to him. This is only 12 rounds more than a standard 50-round box of commercial ammunition. Hardly a “stockpile.”
If the purpose of this comment is to suggest that nobody should be able to purchase large amounts of the specific type of ammunition used by Loughner, which suggests some sort of jacketed hollow point, this is even stupider. Defensive JHP ammunition is typically sold in boxes of 20 or 25 and is very expensive – usually costing about $1 per round. To make matters even more confusing, can I ask how preventing “stockpiling” would have prevented this shooting? How would it have prevented anything had the shooter had 1000 rounds of JHP in an ammo box at his house? He certainly couldn't drag his "stockpile" along with him anywhere.
- “McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.”
Of course they didn’t offer any further details – they have none to offer, because restricting the capacity of commercial magazines makes no sense, either. In a more subtle note, either Politico or McCarthy’s office have revealed themselves as novices when it comes to understanding firearms, as they used the word “clips” to describe what any firearms enthusiast would correctly call “magazines.” Saying “clips” in this context falls under the same category as inserting language into the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that prohibits “barrel shrouds,” an item that Rep. McCarthy couldn’t even describe when asked [14]. In the same way, a novice may use the word “handgun” where the enthusiast would use the term “pistol.” These are minor details, but they offer an insight into just how little McCarthy knows about firearms – yet she’s writing laws to restrict them. Wonderful.
As if this weren't enough, Rep. McCarthy also chimed in when New York state was considering banning 50 caliber rifles. As you can see, McCarthy explains that the gun cannot be used for hunting (why the hell not? Just because you wouldn't be able to pick up the pieces doesn't mean it can't be used!), so it must therefore be banned [15]. Nevermind that the 50 caliber rifle has a long history as an extremely long range weapon used extensively in competitive shooting [16]. Nevermind also that the principle purpose of the Second Amendment was as a check against governmental tyranny. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said,
As if this weren't enough, Rep. McCarthy also chimed in when New York state was considering banning 50 caliber rifles. As you can see, McCarthy explains that the gun cannot be used for hunting (why the hell not? Just because you wouldn't be able to pick up the pieces doesn't mean it can't be used!), so it must therefore be banned [15]. Nevermind that the 50 caliber rifle has a long history as an extremely long range weapon used extensively in competitive shooting [16]. Nevermind also that the principle purpose of the Second Amendment was as a check against governmental tyranny. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said,
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government [17].To make the second video clip even a little more savory, a New York state legislator felt the need to one-up Rep. McCarthy's brave display of ignorance, stating that incendiary cartridges are "heat seeking devices [15]." I kid you not - these are the people writing the laws we all must live under. This explains a lot of why we find ourselves in the position we are in this country.
Now, according to McCarthy’s most recent statement in Politico, the solution to the shooting of Rep. Giffords would have simply been to “fix” the magazine size to limit the shooter to only 10 rounds (presumably), rather than 31. So, only two people would have been shot, assuming approximately one third of the ammunition would have been available in a 10 round magazine. Under this scenario, Rep. Giffords would have still been shot, as she was apparently the first target. (But don’t even think about that – Progressives have thought this through for you already. Magazine capacity restrictions will “fix” these problems. It couldn’t possibly be that this shooter was a deranged psychopath – it was definitely the gun’s fault.)
As if this display of utter stupidity wasn’t enough, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) offered his well thought out statement on the magazine capacity restriction legislation:
- “The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,” said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”
Well, then I guess I had better reconsider the firearm I have been looking at purchasing, because it comes with two 17-round magazines standard. How dare Beretta sell me magazines that are solely used to hunt people! My God! This gun could just run off by itself and hunt people down while I’m sleeping! (This man is representing you in Congress, Illinois.)
Not to mention that a semi-automatic weapon could fire “hundreds of bullets in less than a minute.” Now THAT is an important point to make. A total of 30 bullets were fired, presumably, six of which killed someone, and several of which injured someone. The fact that a deranged psychopath was shooting people isn’t the problem – the problem is that the gun he had could potentially fire “hundreds of bullets in less than a minute.” Genius. For the record, the Glock that was used in the shooting was a semi-automatic, meaning that it was self-loading. The rate of fire is limited by how fast the shooter can pull the trigger and change magazines. This is not the same as the “automatic” weapons that Rep. Quigley is trying to scare you into thinking of.
Clearly, the solution here is to not only limit the magazine capacity to 10 rounds, but also to prevent rapid firing. Therefore, only single-shot firearms with 10 round magazines should be allowed… huh? Trust Reps. Quigley and McCarthy – THAT would solve the problem.
All of this, of course, is nonsense, because gun legislation almost universally affects lawful gun owners rather than criminals. Do you seriously think that if Loughner had only a 10-round magazine that he wouldn’t have committed this crime? What if he had a single shot firearm? What if he couldn’t buy jacketed hollow points and only full metal jacketed round-nosed bullets? What if he didn’t have a gun? Would he have just driven his car into the crowd and accomplished the same task?
The real question here is whether or not it is worth sacrificing the liberties exercised by 80 million Americans (only a fraction of a percent of whom have used their firearms to commit a crime) to potentially prevent one horrifying incident?
Unfortunately, travesties such as this are a very regrettable consequence of a free society. But, they exist everywhere else, too. The solution is not to attempt to restrict gun rights further, but to afford protections to those of us who lawfully own firearms to keep them with us wherever we go. Have you read anything else about the person in the crowd who shot back at Loughner? Why not?
In addition to all of this nonsense, the Fairness Doctrine is being brought back to life [18] as a possible solution to the problem of "right-wing violent rhetoric" in today's society (despite the complete lack of such rhetoric as an influence to Loughner, which I have discussed elsewhere [19]).
I find it funny, in a sick sort of way, how no matter what the problem is, Progressive policies that have been in the back pocket for years, are suddenly the perfect solution to the problem. A Congresswoman is shot? Ban high capacity magazines. A federal judge is killed? Ban scary-looking rifles with "barrel shrouds" and "heat seeking" bullets. A nine year old little girl is killed by a maniac? Revive the Fairness Doctrine to clamp down on "hate speech." Amazing. Progressive policies which destroy individual liberties in the name of a false sense of security are always the right solution! If only we had known!
In addition to all of this nonsense, the Fairness Doctrine is being brought back to life [18] as a possible solution to the problem of "right-wing violent rhetoric" in today's society (despite the complete lack of such rhetoric as an influence to Loughner, which I have discussed elsewhere [19]).
I find it funny, in a sick sort of way, how no matter what the problem is, Progressive policies that have been in the back pocket for years, are suddenly the perfect solution to the problem. A Congresswoman is shot? Ban high capacity magazines. A federal judge is killed? Ban scary-looking rifles with "barrel shrouds" and "heat seeking" bullets. A nine year old little girl is killed by a maniac? Revive the Fairness Doctrine to clamp down on "hate speech." Amazing. Progressive policies which destroy individual liberties in the name of a false sense of security are always the right solution! If only we had known!
In love of liberty,
The Bulletproof Patriot
