Saturday, April 29, 2006

Seattle's Anti Gun Liberals still do not get it.

Cathy Sorbo writes a guest editorial in the Seattle PI called It's time to infringe on the Second Amendment. I will not reproduce the whole thing because so much of it makes no sense and it is really not worth reading.

What would happen if all personal firearms were banned? It'll never happen, but I enjoy mulling it over almost as much as I like to think about a night without car alarms, or becoming the nanny to Jude Law's children.

Last weekend there was some deadly gun action in the neighborhood of Pioneer Square. It was difficult for me to comprehend such violence, especially now with all those crime-promoting London Plane trees gone from Occidental Park. The Seattle Parks and Recreation Department had better hurry up with that proposed coffee stand and the bocce ball courts before something else goes down.

Oh, and then there was the armed man, shot and killed by Seattle police when he allegedly took aim at them after being confronted. And the cab driver in Tacoma, shot by a passenger.

Gun violence and gun control issues can quickly divide communities. Gun advocates everywhere will tout their right to bear arms while others would prefer the right to live in a society without people packing weapons down the backs of their pants.

Gun advocates have the National Rifle Association behind them. The NRA holds firmly to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "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."

Sorry, but it's been 215 years and it's time to infringe.

The recent spate of foiled schoolyard massacres is more than alarming: North Pole, Alaska, on April 22; Riverton, Kan., on April 20; Platte City, Mo., on April 17; Pierce County on April 7; Atco, N.J., on April 5; Foley, Ala., on March 24; Rochester Hills, Mich., on March 20; Greenwood, Ind., on March 2; Muscatine, Iowa, on March 1; and, most recently, Puyallup on April 24, when a 16-year old boy's massacre plan was disrupted.

First let me correct one thing you said "and then there was the armed man, shot and killed by Seattle police when he allegedly took aim at them after being confronted". Allegedly?!? Two officers, approaching from different angles, told the man to put down a handgun, apparently a .38-caliber revolver, but witnesses said he opened fire instead.

Well Cathy, let me explain to you What would happen if all personal firearms were banned? Only the bad guys would have guns. Are you really so stupid to think that criminals would voluntarily give up their guns? If a law was passed to ban guns, would they all just magically disappear? Why is it that liberals are the only ones who can not understand the concept that banning guns will simply take away an effective method of self defense from law abiding citizen? Why is it that liberals think if only we banned guns then robbers and rapists and murderers would realize they should not commit those crimes because they would be breaking a gun law? Why is it that they can not see the correlation between cities and states with the most restrictive gun ownership policies having the highest crime rates and those with the least restriction having the lowest rates? Let me ask you this, if you were a criminal and lived half way between Seattle and Tacoma and Seattle had a total gun ban and Tacoma encouraged its citizens to take advantage of concealed carry laws and taught firearm training and safety in the Tacoma public schools, which city, as a criminal, would you choose to carry out your chosen trade? Would you choose Seattle, where Joe Average law abiding citizen is forbidden from owning a gun or would you choose Tacoma where chances are the house you are breaking into has an owner who is armed and knows how to use the gun?

I have another question, lets say one day you just snap just like Kyle Huff. You decide you have had enough and are going to go out with a bang, literally, and take as many innocent people with you as possible. Where do you think you could cause more death, a gun show, a shooting range or a gun free zone such as any Seattle public school where you are 100% guaranteed there will not be anyone on the grounds armed and capable of stopping the rampage? When is the last time you heard of anyone planning on shooting up a gun show? What about a shooting range? Why is it they always target those places where they know nobody will have a gun?

And one last question Cathy, do you have a sign in your window stating that your place of residence is free of guns? If not why not? Make a stand, be proud of your convictions, encourage criminals to target you instead of me. Mull that over for a while.

Reader THBarb has an idea,
Instead of banning guns, let’s ban criminals!
While it's a great thought, Lt. Bryan Suits, already beat you to the punch. Why don't they pass a law against crime? In case you are not currently listening to Lt. Suits, you really need to start.


Instructor said...

I considered writing a piece on this but decided the arguments have all been made... And re-aruging them is, well, stupid... Sorry, dad...

Anti-gun liberals will catch on to this about the same time that anti-abortion conservatives figure out the exact same arguments apply to abortion...

No, there is no recognized "constitutional" right to abortion - except the one the Court created, based on several of the Constitution's amendments. Personally, I suspect that had medical technology as we know it existed in 1790 there would have been an explicit amendment protecting "freedom to treat & medicate." The writers of the Constitution were pro-freedom LIBERALS - at least for their day. It wasn't until the evangelistic jihad began years later that these freedoms were infringed at the urging of the (un)christian zealots...

But there is no "right" to carry guns per se either. There is a right to organize and participate in a militia; an "ad hoc force formed to meet a need." Sans need the militia should keep its weapons under lock & key... Not in the backs of their pants, which is where most of us keep them. Us... that's me too...

And I'm not giving them up, nor would I comply with a law so ordering. Any government that would so infringe needs the guns used on them... Which is, by the way, the need referred to, in so many words, in the 2nd amendment: ..."being necessary to the security of a free State"... The amendment isn't about shooting a robber. It's about shooting a tyrant and overthrowing a government. Or at least that's what the writers of the amendment meant...

And even though abortion isn't personally important to me, I won't give that "right" up either, and I'll be happy to help anyone break an abortion law... Because no law should so infringe on the privacy of an individual.

In both cases it comes down to the individual and his/her space. It comes down to over-reaching, tyrannical governance. And in both cases it comes down to practicality, too. Ban guns? Collect 100 million of them? 150 million? Idiotic... Likewise, ban one of the most common surgical procedures performed? Idiotic...

But when it comes to topics such as this, liberals and conservatives are united in their idiocy...

Anonymous said...

Point 1: Liberals routinely violate laws that they disagree with. They call this civil disobedience. Since obediance to laws means nothing to liberals, why do liberals expect people to obey gun control laws.

Point 2: A disterbing string of rapes took place in a southern city (the place escapes me). The police could not find the rapist. Their solution was to provide low cost, high quality guns to the women in town and to train them to use the guns on the police range.
Result: The rapes ended.

Point 3: In the early 80's, when the Night Stalker was killing people in LA, gun sales exploded and burglary plumeted. The word on the street was: No burglar wanted to be mistaken for the Night Stalker, so they quit their trade until the Night Stalker was caught.

Guns are weapons of peace.

Anonymous said...

{layin' Possum, we can talk all day long about interpretations of the Second Amendment, but why bother.

What we're talking about is Seattle, and Washington. And Washington's constitutional protection of the right to bear arms is explicit and not subject to misonterpretation...

Article 1 (the Declaration of Rights), Section 24 says, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of hemself, or the state, shall not be impaired..." It then goes on to deny constitutional justification for private militias.

Just a point lest people get warpped around the Second Amendment axle.

Anonymous said...

I guess that "preview" function has some benefits for ham-fingered typists like me! Or is it "typoists?"

RBW said...

Playin Possum:

The first amendment guarantees a right to keep and BEAR arms. That means carry. The ad hoc militia as understood by the founders may need to be called together at any time. The passengers of Flight 93 were acting as a militia in the finest tradition of that term. Unfortunately they were unarmed.

Anonymous said...

Liberals like the idea of getting rid of guns, because they are pro-victimization. Victims overwhemingly vote liberal... they need to be taken care of, not taught how to take care of themselves. Think of all the wonderful liberal programs that are used when a victim is created. Whereas there only a few programs that are used when a robber/rapist/murderer is shot and killed.

Unknown said...

I have a brilliant idea. Instead of banning guns, let’s ban criminals! This would make the happy gun crowd happier and the depressed anti-gun crowd…no wait. Criminals are already illegal. That’s how they got that way; they did something that was banned. I guess that worked real well didn’t it?

Anonymous said...

How about banning all objects that might cause pain? Or just banning people, to avoid causing them problems?

Anonymous said...


very nice post... enjoyed it very much.

Thank you

good site