The tragic attack by Jared Loughner in Tucson on January 8, 2011 on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and crowd members was horrifying. Soon after the attack, advocates for gun reform began calling for stricter gun control measures, using the Tucson attack as their prime example for why such reform was needed. Specifically, they cited the fact that the shooter obtained his gun and high-capacity magazine legally as a reason to implement new measures limiting gun ownership.
Some of the gun reform proposals made in Congress are:
1. Representative Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), proposed a bill on that would outlaw having a firearm within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress.
2. Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) proposed a bill to bar the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one used in the shooting.
3. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he will pursue similar legislation to that proposed by Rep. McCarthy in the Senate.
4. Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) is proposing legislation to close the so-called "gun show loophole," (the myth that gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals).
None of these reforms would have prevented Loughner from shooting Rep. Giffords, killing six innocent people and wounding many others. Loughner purchased his gun and high-capacity magazine legally under Arizona laws. He carried the gun in public to a public event and opened fire. I’m certain his actions would have been the same had these laws been in effect on the day of the shooting.
Individuals who are dedicated to committing heinous acts with guns are not going to pay attention to gun reform laws. They will pursue their goals no matter what the laws say they can and can not do. Prime example, murder, attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon are all crimes in the state of Arizona, yet Loughner still opened fire on Rep. Giffords and the crowd on that fateful day.
Furthermore, the Tucson shooting was an isolated incident by a mentally ill young man. We as a country should not restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens because one disturbed man acted alone. All Americans, gun owners and gun reformists alike were horrified on the day of the Tucson shooting. Guns owners did not rejoice at this tragedy – nor are they dismissing it by opposing gun reform.
Here’s my take on why the above referenced gun reform proposals will not prevent another Tucson-esque shooting:
1. Rep. King’s proposal – Unless Congressmen and Congresswomen are going to place metal detectors 1,000 feet from their person at every single public event outside of secure buildings (like the Congress building or their offices in D.C.) it will be impossible to enforce this law. Realistically, a passerby with a concealed carry gun who unknowingly walks within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress would be in violation of this law. Would each Congressperson have a detail of security patting down individuals within the 1,000 foot radius looking for guns? Do you know/recognize everyone by name within 1,000 feet of you at all times?
2. Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Lautenberg’s proposals - Loughner could have still shot, killed or wounded potentially 15+1 individuals with a regular-capacity magazine.* If he had reloaded his gun with a fresh regular-capacity magazine, he still could have fired a similar number of bullets. This proposal is ineffectual and fails to look at the nature of the incident itself – a disturbed young man opened fire on a Congresswoman and a crowd and would have despite any laws on the books.
3. Rep. Ackerman’s proposal – His proposal is to fix a myth. Need I say more?
I hope and pray that the families of those wounded at the Tucson shooting recover swiftly and completely. My deepest sympathies go out to those families that lost loved ones at the hands of mad man. However, I sincerely believe the proposed gun reforms will not prevent similar events in the future. Individuals intent on destroying human life will do so despite any laws on the books. One only has to look at Loughner, suicide bombers, terrorists, drug runners and other criminals who take innocent lives for proof. Americans need to be able to protect themselves from such mayhem and deadly chaos.
*The gun Loughner used was a Glock 19 with a 33 round high-capacity magazine; the standard magazine for a Glock 19 is a 15 round regular-capacity magazine according to the manufacturer’s website. www.glock.com/english/index_magazines.htm
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Gov. Kasich's Cabinet
I just read an article that alluded Governor Kasich was racist and/or sexist and possibly hated gays/lesbians because his cabinet just happens to be made up of all white people, has fewer women than Strickland’s did and has no openly gay members.
“For advocates of diversity in government, the new day that Ohio's new governor promised is looking more like an historical re-enactment.
The members appointed to Republican John Kasich's (KAY'-siks) cabinet so far are all white, a first for the state since the racially tumultuous days of the 1960s.
There are five women on the cabinet. When former Gov. Ted Strickland left office, he had 11 females on his cabinet — including one black woman and Ohio's first openly gay cabinet official.” – Associated Press, Sandusky Register online paper, January 20, 2011: http://www.sanduskyregister.com/columbus/2011/jan/20/kasich-names-first-all-white-cabinet-40-years
I’m not entirely sure why the characteristics of Gov. Kasich’s cabinet member are news worthy. The only thing I can think of is that whoever wrote the article was a Strickland supporter and needs some sort of dirt to throw at Gov. Kasich. Furthermore, what proof does the author have that Gov. Kasich is eager to throw Ohio back into the mid-Twentieth century? None, other than assumptions and innuendo.
Not once did the article list any of the qualifications of Gov. Kasich’s cabinet members, nor did the author offer up potentially more qualified individuals from different races, sexual orientations or genders.
Personally, I’d rather judge Gov. Kasich by his actions as governor, not what the people he appoints to positions look like. I was raised to look beyond a person’s skin color and just see the person. Apparently that’s a lesson that more parents needed to teach their children. Whether a person is black or white has no bearing on how they do their job – that was the basis of affirmative action. Why then, is the make-up of Gov. Kasich’s cabinet such a big deal?
Answer: it’s only a big deal in small minded people’s minds.
“For advocates of diversity in government, the new day that Ohio's new governor promised is looking more like an historical re-enactment.
The members appointed to Republican John Kasich's (KAY'-siks) cabinet so far are all white, a first for the state since the racially tumultuous days of the 1960s.
There are five women on the cabinet. When former Gov. Ted Strickland left office, he had 11 females on his cabinet — including one black woman and Ohio's first openly gay cabinet official.” – Associated Press, Sandusky Register online paper, January 20, 2011: http://www.sanduskyregister.com/columbus/2011/jan/20/kasich-names-first-all-white-cabinet-40-years
I’m not entirely sure why the characteristics of Gov. Kasich’s cabinet member are news worthy. The only thing I can think of is that whoever wrote the article was a Strickland supporter and needs some sort of dirt to throw at Gov. Kasich. Furthermore, what proof does the author have that Gov. Kasich is eager to throw Ohio back into the mid-Twentieth century? None, other than assumptions and innuendo.
Not once did the article list any of the qualifications of Gov. Kasich’s cabinet members, nor did the author offer up potentially more qualified individuals from different races, sexual orientations or genders.
Personally, I’d rather judge Gov. Kasich by his actions as governor, not what the people he appoints to positions look like. I was raised to look beyond a person’s skin color and just see the person. Apparently that’s a lesson that more parents needed to teach their children. Whether a person is black or white has no bearing on how they do their job – that was the basis of affirmative action. Why then, is the make-up of Gov. Kasich’s cabinet such a big deal?
Answer: it’s only a big deal in small minded people’s minds.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Blood Libel and Tragedy in Tucson
When I heard about the fatal shooting in Arizona last weekend, I was shocked and appalled. Shocked that the attack even happened. Appalled at the loss of life. I watched FoxNews, my go to news source on the weekends, and learned that a deeply troubled, mentally ill young man shot Rep. Giffords before firing on the crowd, killing six others and wounding 14 more. For more information on the shooting, please read this article:
Monday morning I perused my usual Internet new sites, FoxNews, CNN, and BBC among others. After I read an article written by a UK paper, I was angry. I learned the leftist media was blaming the horrific incident on vocal conservative public figures like Sarah Palin and some FoxNews contributors/anchors. I went to the MSNBC website (and no, a bolt of lightening didn’t strike me in my office chair) and started to watch clips of the coverage just to make sure the BBC article wasn’t making a mountain out of a mole hill. Sure enough, the BBC article was correct – MSNBC and other left leaning media outlets were blaming Sarah Palin and her PAC website for the shooting. This is a link to a similar article in the Montreal Gazette.
In modern short hand slang, WTF?! At no point during the initial investigation last weekend, or the investigation since then, has any evidence even pointed a finger at Sarah Palin or FoxNews as the shooter’s motivating factors when he pulled out a gun and took lives and injured others. The fact that the leftist media had the audacity to tisk tisk their conservative counterparts and say, “you should really stop all of your political rhetoric because it gets people killed,” speaks a tremendous amount about the depths the leftist media will go to defame conservatives. They used a national tragedy in a thinly veiled attempt to stop conservatives from speaking out against liberal politicians, agendas and the healthcare bill.
Furthermore, it’s not just the left media that’s “demonizing” conservatives – take a look at a BBC interview with former President Bill Clinton.
We should stop OUR political rhetoric? YOU should stop talking (childish, I know, but also satisfying)! These “reporters” and “talking heads” took a tragedy and tried to turn it into a blame game because a mentally ill young man shot a Democrat who happened to support the health care bill. If he had shot a Republican would these “news people” have said the same things? Would they have blamed President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the violence… I highly doubt it.
Just to be clear, based on current reports on the ongoing police investigation into the shooter, he became obsessed with Rep Giffords back in 2007. Furthermore, nothing in the shooter’s rambling YouTube videos, personal notes or behavior suggested he decided to shoot Rep. Giffords and members of the crowd on that fateful Saturday because of politics, much less because of Sarah Palin or FoxNews.
Finally, I applaud conservatives for defending their right to free speech – including denouncing decisions or opinions of fellow lawmakers. Any bill or resolution brought to a vote in either the House or the Senate limiting speech against elected officials should be laughed out of the chamber. This country was not founded on LIMITATIONS of speech – it was founded on FREE SPEECH. If the American people cannot speak out against elected officials for fear of prosecution under the law, we might as well toss the Constitution through the nearest shredder. To read more about Sarah Palin’s response read this article. To watch Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo click on the link.
My heart and prayers go out to Rep. Giffords family, to the families and friends of those who lost a loved one on that fateful day, and to those still recovering from their injuries. For more information on those that lost their lives, please read this article.
To watch or read President Obama’s speech from the January 12, 2011 memorial vigil, please click on the links.
Monday morning I perused my usual Internet new sites, FoxNews, CNN, and BBC among others. After I read an article written by a UK paper, I was angry. I learned the leftist media was blaming the horrific incident on vocal conservative public figures like Sarah Palin and some FoxNews contributors/anchors. I went to the MSNBC website (and no, a bolt of lightening didn’t strike me in my office chair) and started to watch clips of the coverage just to make sure the BBC article wasn’t making a mountain out of a mole hill. Sure enough, the BBC article was correct – MSNBC and other left leaning media outlets were blaming Sarah Palin and her PAC website for the shooting. This is a link to a similar article in the Montreal Gazette.
In modern short hand slang, WTF?! At no point during the initial investigation last weekend, or the investigation since then, has any evidence even pointed a finger at Sarah Palin or FoxNews as the shooter’s motivating factors when he pulled out a gun and took lives and injured others. The fact that the leftist media had the audacity to tisk tisk their conservative counterparts and say, “you should really stop all of your political rhetoric because it gets people killed,” speaks a tremendous amount about the depths the leftist media will go to defame conservatives. They used a national tragedy in a thinly veiled attempt to stop conservatives from speaking out against liberal politicians, agendas and the healthcare bill.
Furthermore, it’s not just the left media that’s “demonizing” conservatives – take a look at a BBC interview with former President Bill Clinton.
We should stop OUR political rhetoric? YOU should stop talking (childish, I know, but also satisfying)! These “reporters” and “talking heads” took a tragedy and tried to turn it into a blame game because a mentally ill young man shot a Democrat who happened to support the health care bill. If he had shot a Republican would these “news people” have said the same things? Would they have blamed President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the violence… I highly doubt it.
Just to be clear, based on current reports on the ongoing police investigation into the shooter, he became obsessed with Rep Giffords back in 2007. Furthermore, nothing in the shooter’s rambling YouTube videos, personal notes or behavior suggested he decided to shoot Rep. Giffords and members of the crowd on that fateful Saturday because of politics, much less because of Sarah Palin or FoxNews.
Finally, I applaud conservatives for defending their right to free speech – including denouncing decisions or opinions of fellow lawmakers. Any bill or resolution brought to a vote in either the House or the Senate limiting speech against elected officials should be laughed out of the chamber. This country was not founded on LIMITATIONS of speech – it was founded on FREE SPEECH. If the American people cannot speak out against elected officials for fear of prosecution under the law, we might as well toss the Constitution through the nearest shredder. To read more about Sarah Palin’s response read this article. To watch Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo click on the link.
My heart and prayers go out to Rep. Giffords family, to the families and friends of those who lost a loved one on that fateful day, and to those still recovering from their injuries. For more information on those that lost their lives, please read this article.
To watch or read President Obama’s speech from the January 12, 2011 memorial vigil, please click on the links.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)