For the last year, ever since we elected a half-black man, the National Rifle Association and their ilk have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Oh, Lordy, Lordy, Obama gonna take our guns. It’s the end of civilization. We want our country back. Fear! Fear! Fear! He’s gonna take our guns from our cold, dead hands. Massa Cheney, Massa Cheney, please save us. Please come back. Just don’t shoot us in the face.
So, what has happened in the last year? How has President Obama acted to trample on our supposed second amendment rights to bear arms? He signed into law the Credit Card Issuers law that does absolutely nothing to protect the consumers…BUT…it allows any yahoo with a gun to go packing heat in our national parks. Smokey, Bambi, you better keep out of sight. Not only that, but, for some reason, the Secret Service “protecting” the president allows these same yahoos to march around at presidential appearances armed. If this happened during the Bush Administration, these same numbskulls would be trading passages of the Koran with their fellow terrorists in Guantanamo. WTF is going on here?
Fear breeds stupidity. There have been runs on ammunitions similar to the panic sprees on toilet paper and other items in the past. Only you can’t wipe your ass with ammunition. You are more likely to wipe out someone else’s ass instead. And it’s happening.
We have our usual caring dads wiping out their families with increasing regularity. We have our usual disgruntled employees exacting their vengeance on perceived injustices with increasing regularity. Shooting sprees are becoming the norm. Fratricides, matricides, drive-by’s, whatever; it’s the wild, wild west.
One professional group, however, should be taking notice. Their comrades-in-arms are being increasingly targeted in this violence. The police. From coast to coast police are being killed. You would think that there would be more call from law enforcement to get this madness under control. And yet, there isn’t.
The NRA has been successful in selling this second amendment crap down the maw of the American public and their leadership. We are afraid to think otherwise. We fear. We fear fear itself. Fear breeds stupidity. How stupid will we get before this ends?
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
” He signed into law the Credit Card Issuers law that does absolutely nothing to protect the consumers…BUT…it allows any yahoo with a gun to go packing heat in our national parks.”
This assertion is false. The only amendment relating to firearms within the recently past Credit Card Issuers bill served to remove the ability for federal law enforcement officers to arrest individuals in possession of concealed deadly weapons on National Park territory should those individuals not be in violation of the state laws in which they are located. This means that an individual may possess a firearm on a National Park territory only if they are in compliance with the laws of the state in which the park territory is located. An individual may possess a concealed deadly weapon on National Park territory only if it is legal for them to do so within the state; thus, if it is a crime for an individual to be in possession of a concealed deadly weapon in public locales within a given state, it will also be a crime for them to posses a concealed deadly weapon when in a National Park in that state. This is identical to extant policy regarding the possession of firearms within National Forests; in spite of predictions that this alteration in federal law will result in undesirable outcomes, no opponent of the change has yet provided any demonstration that such consequences are already demonstrable within National Forests.
“Not only that, but, for some reason, the Secret Service “protecting” the president allows these same yahoos to march around at presidential appearances armed.”
This is entirely false; no civilian present at a “presidential appearance” has been armed. The United States Secret Service always constructs a security perimeter during Presidential appearances, and no citizen within that perimeter may posses any weapons.
“We have our usual caring dads wiping out their families with increasing regularity. We have our usual disgruntled employees exacting their vengeance on perceived injustices with increasing regularity. Shooting sprees are becoming the norm. Fratricides, matricides, drive-by’s, whatever; it’s the wild, wild west.”
In fact, this is not the case. The total homicide rate has not significantly increased since stabilizing in the mid 1990s, and in fact prior to that stabilization it had decreased from a significantly higher rate that had peaked in the 1980s. I believe that you are appealing to the “spotlight” fallacy; that certain crimes are more commonly reported does not demonstrate that those crimes are occurring with greater frequency.
“One professional group, however, should be taking notice. Their comrades-in-arms are being increasingly targeted in this violence. The police.”
This is also not correct. As is reported at http://www.odmp.org/year.php there exists no evidence that homicides committed with firearms against police officers has increased significantly recently. in fact, the total number of police killed by homicide committed with a firearm to date in 2009, 42, is lower than the average number of such homicides for the previous ten years, 52.4; it seems unlikely that this number will increase to exceed the ten-year average within the final month of the year. In addition, rates of homicide by firearm death for police officers since 2000 have been generally significantly lower than such rates in the 1990s.
“You would think that there would be more call from law enforcement to get this madness under control. And yet, there isn’t.”
The lack of such a “call” is unsurprising, given that your stated premise for such a “call” is demonstrably incorrect. Moreover, you have yet to even identify a specific solution for this problem that you have claimed — but failed to actually demonstrate — to be extant.
You have made statements that are demonstrably incongruent with reality. For what reason have you done this?
Your technical details regarding National Parks and Secret Service ‘perimeters’, are, of course, accurate. Statistics for 2009, as well as trends, will take some time to be complete. But statistics are often mutable, and, may, ultimately, prove to be irrelevant.
Demonstrability is akin to waiting for the horse to run away while the barn door is left open. Only in this case, people die. “Spotlight” fallacy or reality. In this age of media hype, which is which? And does it matter? When people are walking around with guns, even if unloaded, even if OUTSIDE the perimeter, there’s a problem. Recently we have had unauthorized people at a White House dinner; a breach of the Secret Service “Perimeter”. This week four cops were killed in Washington, adding to your 2009 count. For you to imply the the status quo is OK may also be incongruent with reality.
“But statistics are often mutable, and, may, ultimately, prove to be irrelevant.”
Statistics, based upon demonstrable reality, are more useful in establishing viable policy decisions than are the baseless speculation and factual errors that you have employed.
“Demonstrability is akin to waiting for the horse to run away while the barn door is left open. Only in this case, people die. “Spotlight” fallacy or reality. In this age of media hype, which is which? And does it matter?”
In fact, it does matter whether policy decisions are based upon logical or upon fallacious reasoning. It is both irrational and unreasonable to rely upon faulty reasoning as a justification for the imposition of legislative restrictions upon individuals who have violated no law and who cause no harm to others. Unjustified concerns, predicated upon demonstrably incorrect assertions, are not a valid basis for legislative action.
“When people are walking around with guns, even if unloaded, even if OUTSIDE the perimeter, there’s a problem. ”
Please identify the specific nature of the “problem” to which you refer. Identify the specific, demonstrable harm resulting from individuals possessing firearms outside of a security perimeter.
” Recently we have had unauthorized people at a White House dinner; a breach of the Secret Service “Perimeter”.”
Were the individuals to whom you refer in possession of firearms?
” This week four cops were killed in Washington, adding to your 2009 count.”
In fact, the four officers to whom you refer are included in the total that I had referenced; their deaths, while reprehensible, do not increase the total number of homicides of police officers for the year 2009 above the average for the current decade and their deaths do not alter the fact that your claim that police officers “are being increasingly targeted in this violence” is demonstrably incorrect.
” For you to imply the the status quo is OK may also be incongruent with reality.”
I have made no statement regarding the acceptability of the current “status quo”. I have merely noted that a number of claims that you have made are not correct.
I note also that you did not address my inquiry regarding a proposed “solution” to the “problem” that you claim to be extant. Why is this?
It is interesting that you have such time on your hands so as to attack, point by point, me and my humble blog. You are clearly a staunch, educated, and articulate defender of the NRA’s interpretation of the second amendment to the Constitution. You clearly have resources far exceeding my meager capabilities. I would recommend that the NRA hire you as one of their staunch advocates…unless they already have. They should pay you well.
“It is interesting that you have such time on your hands so as to attack, point by point, me and my humble blog.”
Identifying the specific factual errors within your editorial was not difficult; the specific implications of Senator Coburn’s successful amendment to the recently passed credit reform act and the statistics regarding police officers killed by acts of homicide committed with firearms were readily accessible. I am, however, curious as to why you did not avail yourself of such easily accessed information prior to using incorrect information regarding the amendment and the homicide data as premises in your argument.
” You are clearly a staunch, educated, and articulate defender of the NRA’s interpretation of the second amendment to the Constitution.”
The interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution that is advocated by the National Rifle Association is shared by many independent legal scholars and is the established law of the United States of America.
I notice that you have not actually addressed my objections to your editorial.
” I would recommend that the NRA hire you as one of their staunch advocates…unless they already have. They should pay you well.”
As my area of expertise is computer science and network administration, I do not believe that I am qualified for such a position.
I guess I should be flattered that you have become so obsessed with this blog. It was not meant to be a doctoral thesis on gun control. It was just a simple, if sarcastic, article meant to provoke a little thought. But it apparently has become stuck in your craw. You have made your points, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!! I think, at this point, you are beating a dead horse, perhaps that one that demonstrably left through that open barn door. Suspecting that you must compulsively have the last word(s), I await your last flame. I’m done.
Post Script: In an AP article published December 13th, it was noted that the number of law enforcement officers killed to date in 2009 was 24% higher than the entire previous year. This is from preliminary statistics compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officer’s Memorial Fund, a national non-profit that tracks officer-related deaths.
“Post Script: In an AP article published December 13th, it was noted that the number of law enforcement officers killed to date in 2009 was 24% higher than the entire previous year.”
Given that the total number of law enforcement officers killed in any of the previous ten years was less than one-hundred, the percentage that you have cited is actually not meaningful. Due to the relatively low number of officers killed, a variation of even one will result in a greater than one percent change from one data point to the next. Moreover, single year alterations are not themselves meaningful; a comprehensive analysis of multiple years should be examined in order to assess a possible trend. In fact, the total number of police officers killed in the line of duty in 2008 was relatively low for the entire previous ten years, and the change in 2009 does not suggest an increasing trend. It would therefore be dishonest to suggest that this alteration constitutes justification for increased firearms restrictions; I also expect that this alteration will be used as such justification by civilian disarmament advocates, as they are frequently dishonest.
Here is the bottom line. Being an ex Vietnam Vet I fought for my country and paid a huge price. Was the Vietnam War correct? Makes no difference I still had to go.
I own firearms. No one gets those firearms. That is the end of the story. People can argue back and forth until the cows come in but it will make no difference in the end. The final blow will come when some one tries to take away my right to own a firearm. Now you may say talk is cheap. But trust me my friend this is not talk. I have been there and I have done that and I can take the heat if need be. Can you?
Now you folks can slap this mess back and forth over the internet but my advice would be, let it lay. If it ever starts trust me you are not going to like it. Just pat it on the head and hope it does not wake up.