I think. I couldn’t make much sense of her latest column.
Let’s see now. If those gun-control nuts out there manage to overcome their latest setback and get guns outlawed in the USA, how would they enforce it? Well, they could take their lead from the anti-drug crowd and launch a Gun War. But they probably won’t call it that because it sounds too much like what they want to prevent (and some blogger might compare it to the Drug War).
No matter what it’s called though the government will be faced with the same kind of problems it faces in the Drug War, the principal one being that they can’t win. People like Estrich can debate gun-control all they want but there is one fact they can’t argue away: This country will never be free of guns, like it is not free of drugs despite the decades-long war on drugs. Guns, like drugs, are too easy to make or acquire. Estrich probably doesn’t realize that anyone with a few tools and an instruction manual can make a gun and its ammunition. It’s not that difficult. Outlaw guns and these little shops will pop up all over the country — just like methamphetamine labs.
Think about all the controls that will have to be implemented to prevent illegal gun making. All this added to all the controls implemented to combat illegal drug making. More and more government intrusion into our lives.
You want to talk about gun accidents today, Susan? Okay, but let’s also talk about the potential accidents from the use of guns and ammunition built by amateurs. Life is risky. If we use safety as a principal criterion almost everything we have or do will need to be outlawed.
You want a war on guns? You’ll get a war with guns. Criminal elements, domestic and foreign, will run rampant in a national gun-free zone. You think the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois massacres were bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet!
October 19, 2007 – 10:36 am
Why do liberals want to give a free pass to everyone who has had bad things happen to them? The families of 9/11 victims can do no wrong. New Orleans residents affected by Hurricane Katrina are not held accountable for their actions post-Katrina. If you’re poor your bad behavior can be excused. Ann Coulter calls this the "doctrine of infallibility." This means that if you’ve been screwed by life we can’t complain if you screw up our lives.
_______________
A middle school in the Northeast wants to pass out birth-control pills to eleven year-old girls. Another middle school had some boys arrested and jailed for slapping girls on their butts. If they’re not even going to allow a little flirtation why do they think the girls need birth-control?
_______________
Some pediatricians are now interrogating their patients about the ownership and handling of guns by their parents. The pediatricians’ professional organizations encourage it. Some even report what they find to local law enforcement agencies. To me this is an egregious invasion of privacy. And it is clearly politically motivated.
I never hear about pediatricians being concerned about the ownership and handling of five-gallon plastic buckets. About the same number of children are killed each year by drowning in the buckets as are killed by guns. Should someone start a bucket-control advocacy?
_______________
From a CBS News report that some democrats are hoping that Al Gore being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize will cause him to decide to enter the race for president:
"A lot of people are sacrificing a lot," said Draft Gore founder Friedlander. "People are donating to this cause who can’t afford to donate. But we believe very strongly he is very, very desperately needed. This is not a campaign of people who think he’s a great guy. This is not about him. It’s about the country."
That doesn’t say much for Hillary, Barack and the rest of the lineup of Democrat candidates. But if I were a Democrat I’d probably be desperate too — just not for Gore.
In following the Alabama Free Militia thing I noticed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is apparently now called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. How long will it take for it to become the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Crossbows, Bows, Arrows, Knives, Clubs and Sharp Sticks?
Some ex-diplomat dude at the Toledo Blade has written an op-ed piece that offers a plan for disarming America. Essentially he recommends that we search the whole country to confiscate all the weapons and store them in museums and armories. I couldn’t decide if it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek or not. Either way, I have a suggestion for him: Since they have been so effective in disarming Iraq and eliminating violence there, he could enlist all the military brass involved in that operation to help him cleanse America of firearms and violence.
April 18, 2007 – 12:59 pm
As expected, the Virginia Tech massacre has resulted in a hue and cry for more restrictions on the ownership and possession of guns. There should be debate about why such horrendous attacks occur and how to prevent them, but the primary focus should be on the attackers and what motivates them to commit such heinous acts. Take away guns and evil people will find other means to wreak havoc. Timothy McVeigh proved that possibility in Oklahoma City more than ten years ago.
Suppose that Cho Seung-Hui had encountered difficulty in legally acquiring a gun. Then the obvious alternative would have been to try to get one illegally. But suppose he wasn’t street-wise enough to do that. Would a psychopath, or whatever label properly applies to this pond scum, just give up? Not likely. It might take him longer to pull off an attack but he would most likely just find another way. If he could manage to chain all the doors to a large building without being challenged, he could probably manage to improvise a backpack full of explosives. Instructions on how to build bombs are readily available. The death toll from an alternative approach could have been much higher than 32.
We have to accept that for law-abiding citizens to have guns the criminal elements are also going to have access to guns. And we have to acknowledge that banning guns won’t keep guns out of the hands of the criminal elements. Remember, that’s why they are called ‘criminal elements’; they don’t abide by laws. Virginia Tech, with its ‘gun free zone’, gave Cho an advantage; he knew that he could methodically gun down the students and teachers without any significant resistance. If just one student, teacher or staff member had a gun available to use against Cho the death toll might have been much less.
The liberal media would like us to react emotionally and agree to further inroads against our rights as indidviduals. Instead let’s try to look at the issue logically. Which would give you the most comfort when you hear someone trying to break into your home: knowing that it is against the law for anyone to have a gun or knowing that you legally have one beside your bed? Which do you think gives the criminal contemplating breaking into your home the most discomfort: knowing that it is against the law for anyone to have a gun or knowing that you might legally have one beside your bed?
October 14, 2006 – 2:01 pm
Is there a bigger moron on television than Rosie O’Donnell? I mean bigger in terms of more moronic, not in terms of body weight. I think Rosie is even more moronic than Keith Olbermann. Recently on The View Rosie launches into a rant on gun control and is interrupted by Elisabeth Hasselbeck who tries to make some counterpoints. She listens to Elisabeth for a few seconds then interrupts her saying, “let’s talk instead of yell.” She clearly was not yelling any more than Rosie was yelling.
Rosie apparently believes that no one should be allowed to have a gun of any kind. She clearly believes that all guns should be registered and traceable like motor vehicles. I don’t have strong objections to guns being registered, but I do strongly object to extensive controls on who can or cannot own a gun.
The biggest problem I have with Rosie is her simplistic view that guns are the cause of most of the violence in this country. Guns might be used in much of the violence but that doesn’t mean they caused it. She seems to think that if we take away the guns the violence will disappear. She said the recent shooting and murder of the Amish school children would not have happened if Charles Carl Roberts IV had not had access to a gun. She said that if he had a knife instead of a gun the teacher would not have left the children alone with him. She didn’t bother to explain what the teacher (remember, she is an Amish woman) would have done to prevent a man with a knife from harming the children.
Too many people have Rosie’s simplistic view that most of our problems with violence will disappear if only we could take away the guns. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that people inclined to commit violence will find other means to do so in the absence of guns. Thousands of acts of violence are committed each year with knives and clubs, though guns are readily available.
One of the other women on The View (I think her name is Joy) asked how a milkman in Pennsylvania could have a gun or get a license to carry a gun. (Are milkmen in Pennsylvania considered dangerous? It’s not like they work for the Postal Service or anything.) I don’t know about Pennsylvania but in most states you only need a license to carry a concealed weapon. There is no license needed to own a gun as long as you don’t carry it around with you. Do you suppose she thinks a man intent on killing children would be deterred by the fact that he doesn’t have a license to carry his gun with him to the schoolhouse?
There is more intellect in the simple slogans, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” and “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” than anything Rosie has to offer on gun control.
[I was led to this topic by a great column on OpinionJournal by Peggy Noonan: The Sounds of Silencing - Why do Americans on the left think only they have the right to dissent?]
