I didn't feel a compelling need to comment on the Arizona tragedy. The predictable comments from the MSM and usual suspects filled the airwaves and the blogosphere. Probably the most stupid one I encountered this morning was from yet another twit not understanding the simple terminology of "semi-automatic". In short order it was acronymed down to the very ominous sounding "SAW"! We must outlaw the SAW! Because, of course, the SAW shoots just as often per trigger pull as Roy Rogers' Colt SAA.
Here is probably the most rational discussion I encountered on the events:
Liberty Zone Answers Common Questions Sagely
Read that and you'll have a handy reference to respond to the stupidity that surrounds us.
3 comments:
Preparing the battlefield. Whether the shooter was or was not of the political right doesn't matter. What matters is that as long as the press can keep pushing the idea that he was, it becomes entrenched in the mind of the average, uninformed citizen that he was a full fledged member of the tea party. And so when someone from the right actually DOES commit a crime such as this, and they will eventually, because insanity of this type can come from anybody regardless of their political affiliation, there could well be a crackdown on any and all who support the right the likes of which the country has never seen. (But places like China, Cambodia, and North Korea have.) And by that time most of the public that doesn't live in flyover country will have been conditioned to accept it. Hell, I have friends on the left who are calling for it right now. Otherwise rational, intelligent, good people. Makes me sad.
I read the linked page and comments carefully and will pass on down here.
Also I took time out to refute some leftie cant in our NZ Herald though the Editorial was more balanced.
Our thoughts here are with those who suffer now.
Editor's Notebook: Opportunism
by Rich Grassi
For years, I'd wondered about the vitriol of the prohibitionist lobby - this
wing involving firearms prohibitions. Hardly unique to the United States,
it's a plague that stretches around the world. The working hypothesis is
that someone is so struck by the senseless nature of domestic or political
homicide that they cling to the belief (no matter how unreasonable) that
removing the weapon removes the crime.
That it doesn't is so obvious as to stand next to natural law in certainty.
Examining the basis of prohibitionist activism (it lacks the rigor to be a
philosophy), we find that prohibitionists are so concerned that they are
seen as "right," they become volatile when faced with the illogic of their
claims.
Malum in se refers to that which is evil as it stands. It's never or seldom
appropriate. It's wrong because it is. As we get away from the root or
original conduct seen as evil, it becomes variable based on scenario,
situation or culture. For example, murder is evil simply because it is.
Murder is homicide, which may or may not be evil depending on circumstance.
Not all homicides are murder, but all murder is homicide.
Murder is the killing of one human by another with evil intent. This evil
intent can be the manifestation of otherwise unheard "voices" in the actor's
head, something that wouldn't be far from the current tragedy in Tucson. A
less evil murder could be murder arising in the heat of anger. It's still
evil.
And it's universally understood in this society as evil. It's not
controversial. We have to get all the way past various levels of murder past
manslaughter before we determine that killing a human is not evil - and, in
the case of discretionary abortion we simply determine the victim isn't
human. Yet.
As I lack standing in the area of abortion, I'll leave it there. But we
agree that murder - premeditated, committed in commission of another felony,
or due to reckless and wanton disregard of other people - is evil.
How about the prohibition of alcohol? For purposes of this discussion, we'll
treat alcohol as marijuana you can drink. We had a national referendum on
prohibition of manufacture, sale, possession and consumption of alcoholic
beverages. It passed. A new era of mob violence followed and a number of
people became very rich - kind of sounds like the war on drugs, doesn't it?
Shortly thereafter, we had a national referendum on appeal of prohibition.
It passed.
How can that be? The same people, for the most part, voted each time.
It's because, as a people we give less importance to violations that are
malum prohibitum. Loosely translated, "wrong due to prohibition," more
appropriately "wrong because I say so." A hinge pin of the nanny state,
having Daddy tell you what you may possess and what you can't possess is
right handy in controlling the natives - or so they think. You can see how
well Mexico is doing with that against drug cartels.
Laws that govern stuff people naturally see as lacking overall relevance.
It's the behavior that's key. We all want our citizens to behave civilly.
When they don't and the behavior is evil, we act and take from them their
liberty. That's appropriate use of government power. There's freedom to
speak but not freedom to do so evilly - unless it's protected as political
speech.
Eager to create animus against gun owners - who are now more in the
mainstream than any time since the Eisenhower administration - the ghoulish
cads of the left seize upon this tragic episode and recommend their same
old, tired elixir - gun control.
It hasn't worked anywhere in history and it won't work here. We're at a
delicate time in our history. And it's not time to face history without a
rifle.
Post a Comment