Political Pistachio

Blog Home of the Writer and AM and FM Radio Host, Douglas V. Gibbs.
- = - = - = - = - = - = -

Monday, December 24, 2012

Banning Scary Stuff. . . like guns

Note: As you read this article, keep in mind that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the final words of that clause in the United States Constitution are very important. The amendment ends with the words, "shall not be infringed." This means that the federal government, from a Constitutional point of view, cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms in any way, shape, or form. This is not to say that means all felons, mentally ill individuals, and children can simply go purchase a fire arm without any kind of background check, et cetera. Gun regulation is a State issue, and it is up to each State to determine what the best regulatory measures are. Montana should not have gun laws like in California, no more than California should have Montana's gun laws. Each State is different, and so their legislation on such issues should be different, as well. We must also remember that Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central system of government that he expected an armed revolution every twenty years. The Second Amendment reminds the federal government of the right to keep and bear arms in order to insure the people have the ability to fight off the federal government, should it become tyrannical.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal left is anything, if not predictable.  For the last four years I have been writing that the democrats, under Obama, were going to eventually make a concerted effort to increase gun control, and ultimately, make a move that may someday lead to a national ban on individually owned firearms.  There have been a number of clues, such as the words of Barack Obama himself, as well as activities, including the "Fast and Furious" Scandal.

In April of 2008, Obama referred to gun owners as "bitter clingers," while speaking in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. "It's not surprising they get bitter," he said. "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

A 1996 document reveals that Obama supported a handgun ban in Illinois, but he later denied it.

In 2000 Obama cosponsored a bill that would limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass).

Operation Fast and Furious was conducted from late 2009 to early 2011, in which ATF agents ensured American guns wound up in the hands of drug cartels in Mexico for the stated purpose of tracking those firearms.  In December of 2010, two of those weapons were found at the site of a shootout in which a Border Patrol agent was killed.  During the investigation, the Republican-led House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for failing to turn over e-mails and memorandums showing its internal deliberations.  President Obama invoked executive privilege to block a subpoena requiring the release of the information.  The Obama administration has indicated it will not prosecute Holder for criminal contempt because the Justice Department does not consider it to be a crime to fail to provide information over which a president has asserted executive privilege.

That is a reminder that Benghazi isn't the only cover-up this administration has orchestrated.

Political opponents of the Obama administration have voiced their belief that the gun-running operation putting guns in the hands of the drug cartels was for the purpose of opening up the opportunity for accusing American-made guns for the murder of innocents in Mexico's drug war, and then use that terrible knowledge to stir up anti-gun sentiment in the United States that they hoped would lead to an excuse to pass gun control legislation.

When Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany among his first actions was the requirement of the national registration of all firearms.  He explained that it was necessary for the safety of society.  Once the registration process was complete, now knowing the location of privately owned guns, the Nazis proceeded to confiscate firearms.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, "Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."


The term "Assault Weapon" is a creation of the liberal left.  In the gun world, there has never been a gun created for the purpose of assault, nor called that.  If you want to get technical about it, if I punched someone in the face, that would be an assault, thus, making my fist an assault weapon. Therefore, in reality, all weapons are potentially "assault weapons."


As for the democrats wanting to pass legislation to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, do they really think that would make some kind of difference?  It may add a little bit of time because of an increase in how often the shooter must reload, but gun owners like me can replace a magazine pretty fast.  Also, we have to remember that such a law simply gives more of an advantage to the criminal.  The criminal will make sure he has either a high capacity clip, or another firearm loaded and ready to go. Meanwhile, the law-abiding citizen trying to defend himself will lose however many seconds it takes for him to reload because the law doesn't allow him to have more bullets at the ready.


None of the uproar we are now hearing, calling for gun control, is no surprise.  In the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the anti-gun folks of the Democrat Party are in full swing.


Key democrats have had no problem voicing their support for gun control legislation.

Senator Diane Feinstein of California said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill.”

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., called the recent rash of shootings “a tipping point where we might actually get something done.

Barack Obama, in response to a petition calling on the Obama administration "to produce legislation that limits access to guns," said, "We hear you."

Obama noted in a recent speech that he has assigned Vice President Biden to develop proposals by the end of January. Obama expressed support for legislation to revive the assault weapons ban, restrict high-capacity ammunition clips, and close loopholes that allow some buyers at gun shows to avoid background checks.  Barack Obama called the issue of firearms a "complex problem," and said a strategy must address school safety, mental illness, and "a culture that too often often glorifies guns and violence."

Once a plan is developed, Obama said, "I will do everything in my power as president to advance these efforts."

The liberal left ideology, we must remember, believes that all things can be done through an overbearing centralized system.  This kind of thinking works to limit freedom in the name of the "common good."  What they don't understand is that the Second Amendment was put into place to protect the populace against a tyrannical government doing exactly what the Obama administration is considering launching into.

An armed society is populated by citizens.  An unarmed one is populated by subjects.

If the federal government is so powerful, and can simply fix problems with more legislation, or government regulation, then why not just issue an Executive Order banning school shootings?

The fact is, violence is reality, and one way to stop the violence is to follow what NRA Executive Vice  President Wayne Lapierre had to say: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

Lapierre has also accurately said, "A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

Notice that the shootings have been in gun-free zones.  Coincidence?  Criminals love unarmed victims, and expanding the number of gun-free zones in this country simply gives shooters more places to conduct their horrific plans.  If gun-free zones make those areas safer, as the democrats claim, then how about they declare gun-free zones around the President, and the members of his family?  Surely, he would feel safer, if he believes the declaration of gun-free zones makes those areas safer, right?  Hey, if gun-free zones are what the liberals say they are, his family would be safer, and the taxpayer wouldn't be ponying up so much money for armed Secret Service agents.

To stop the shootings, the strategy has to involve interfering with the shooter's plans.  Investigators claim that mass shooters plan their act, planning each and every step of the event.  This attention to detail is because the shooters must ensure they are in complete control.  Control is key to their plans.  If their process is knocked off kilter even by the smallest detail, the killer finds it difficult to function.  Being able to lock-down the classrooms, and provide armed resistance against the intruder, can deter the shooter from his plans before he even pulls the trigger.  This is why mass murderers hit gun free zones.  No armed resistance allows for more control on the part of the shooter.  Confrontation interferes with their control.

Banning guns does not stop killers.  Sticking a gun in their face does.

I have a saying around my house.  If anyone is going to break into my house and threaten my family with harm, the only way they are leaving is in a body bag.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Barack Obama on Gun Control - On The Issues

U.S. Judge: Bring Back Federal Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

Gun Control Debate Back in Spotlight - Roll Call

Obama to gun control petitioners: "We hear you" - USA Today

NRA chief: "The only thing that stops a bad guy, is a good guy with a gun" - Hot Air

NRA's LaPierre Says New Gun Laws Would Do No Good - Wall Street Journal

No comments: