Arms and the citizen 21

We are strongly in favor of second-amendment rights. We believe that a citizenry is safer for being armed.

Tom Hinkson, a member of the National Rifle Association, has this to say about the anti-gun reaction of left-wing pundits to the shooting yesterday of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, by a psychopath named Jared Lee Loughner.

Within hours of the horrific attack in Tuscan, Arizona yesterday, liberal pundits are attacking our civil liberties. As has been the norm for the last 30 years, the leftists are blaming the violence on rhetoric, guns, and of course, racism. It seems that they will take every opportunity to attack our first and second Amendment rights in the name of “stopping the violence”.

No doubt, by the time this article reaches your eyes, there will be several more examples of what I am talking about, but they all follow the same formula. Here are some examples from this most recent tragedy.

The most egregious so far is this statement by the Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik: “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government -. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” What a way to take advantage of a situation! There was no racial component whatsoever to this shooting. Dupnik further states that “free speech… is not without consequences”, as if we should re-think our First Amendment protections or take the chance of getting shot and killed in a random act of violence.

Further attacks on our Constitutional rights stemming from this incident come from people like Gary Hart and Josh Sugarmann, who both wrote articles published by the Huffington Post.

Hart states that, “So long as we all tolerate this kind of irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric or, in the case of some commentators, treat it with delight, reward it, and consider it cute, so long will we place all those in public life, whom the provocateurs dislike, in the crosshairs of danger.” So, because some commentator didn’t like a political position, this shooting was destined to happen?

Sugarmann, a gun-control activist, writes that, “Congress should act immediately to reinstate an effective ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines and move quickly to pass an effective assault weapons ban.” Ah, the “guns create violence” argument never gets old does it? But Sugarmann also goes one step further by taking a quote from the NRA’s Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre out of context. LaPierre stated, years ago that, “The guys with the guns make the rules… if the only guys with guns are the bad guys, we’re screwed!”. Sugarmann threw the “guys with the guns make the rules” part back at LaPierre without context, by stating that “one more guy with a gun made the rules”. Sugarmann’s solution of course is to take away everyone’s guns.

The shooting at the Safeway in Tuscan, AZ was a horrific act, perpetrated by a mentally deranged lone gunman. In the aftermath of this tragedy, as with any other, the enemies of liberty and freedom claim that we must make a choice between our rights and freedoms and our safety. This is no choice because if we give up our freedoms, we will be at the mercy of people in power, whether they be politicians, terrorists, the lone gunman, the thief in the dark alley, or foreign governments. Benjamin Franklin wisely stated, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I am on the side of Benjamin Franklin. I believe that tragedies like this most recent one in Tuscan illustrate the need for more people to exercise their freedoms as Americans. The claim that one political pundit or another is somehow responsible for this shooting is false and irresponsible. We should put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the head of the perpetrator of the violence. To the gun-banners, I say that there are no gun-free zones, only good-guy-gun-free zones – as in Tucson, where apparently only the bad guy had a gun. If someone has malicious intent, a simple law adding one more crime to murder, armed robbery, or any other violent act is not going to be a deterrent. I say criminalize the acts of violence, not the preparation for self-defense or the defense of others.

So far, 6 people have died, and 13 people are reported injured from this shooting in Arizona. The gunman was subdued as he was reloading his only gun, by two people who tackled him. Ask yourself how different this could have been had there been legally armed citizens in attendance. I do not claim that there would have been no death or violence, but I firmly believe that fewer innocent people would have been killed or injured. I commend the two heroes who subdued the assailant, but had they been armed, wouldn’t this situation have been ended more quickly and much more safely?

Aside from the appalling cost of life on 1/8/11, the cost to the taxpayers for the legal process that is going to begin will be enormous. Incarceration costs alone, which vary from prison to prison, average about $50,000 per year. Justice would have been served much more quickly and a whole lot more cheaply if an armed citizen had simply shot back. Do not be fooled into giving up your freedoms. Instead, exercise your freedoms, and if the opportunity presents itself, make a positive difference.

We invite more readers to let us know their opinions on this subject.

  • C. Gee

    Politicians came out with a lot of nonsense today, trying to find something profound to say about a senseless killing spree: “It was an attack on Democracy itself.”
    Is a school shooting an attack on education itself?
    Is a crime an attack on the legal system itself?
    This is the same sort of moral idiocy that produced statements that the 9/11 terrorists “hijacked Islam”.

    As for the Dupnik claptrap about “vitriol” and the implication that conservative radio, the Tea Party and those who want illegal immigration stopped are poisoning discourse and inciting violence, this is blatant political opportunism. “Dupnik” should enter the lexicon to mean a person who blames conservatism for acts violence. Krugman as been smacked down on Powerline for being a dupnik.

    On Fox New Sunday, the vapid Moira Liasson was a bit of a dupnik, explaining that the deterioration in political discourse came through the free use of inciting words like “Nazi, fascist and socialist”. Brit Hume was there to point out that “socialist” was not of the same order as “Nazi” and “fascist” (used reflexively by the left of the right, often with “racist”) and that there are congresspersons who are self-professed socialists. (But how come the left is squeamish about being called ‘socialist’ or having Obama being called ‘socialist’? Because that fighting word might incite the people to vote GOP.)

    What dupniks really want is the prohibition of guns and conservative speech, both being a challenge to Democrat policy itself.

  • Robbie

    I don’t understand why they just don’t shoot Loughner like the rabid dog he is. Instead, they’re going to waste thousands of dollars of tax money on a trial that will probably see this inhuman monster being put into an insane asylum, where hundreds of thousands of dollars more will be spent on giving him three meals, a room, and psychiatric counseling for the rest of his life.

    Justice for all my ass!

  • Fan of Heather Mac Donald

    The leftists are famous for villainizing and dehumanizing their opponents on the right, but of course will never accept any blame for violence committed by their brethren. However, as soon as I saw the victim in this case was a Democrat, I knew the MSM would blame the Tea Party and decry the “extreme” right. It is as sad as it is predictable.

  • ratsalad

    No racial component to this shooting eh? Loughner himself claims that Mein Kampf is one of his favorite books — Giffords is very publicly Jewish. And DHS lists her Jewishness as one of Loughner’s known motives. Perhaps you should think a bit, and research a tad, before you blag.

    • Macnvettes

      Then why isn’t he being charged with a hate crime? Maybe because he didn’t target anyone else on any basis whatsoever. He was apparently obsessed with anti-government positions, and Giffords just happened to be his representative and made herself publicly available. There are no reports of any slurs being yelled during the incident. Why do lefties think a life is worth more if the skin color of the body is a little darker than average?

  • Ralph

    Anti-gun laws do not disarm violent criminals. They disarm potential victims

    • In Switzerland where most must serve in the military and a weapon is often possessed for life, and in countries where weapons ownership is banned, the stats don’t change appreciably, but the modus operandi does. Where everyone owns a weapon the weapons security is remarkably tighter. People seem to tolerate a certain threat level and society compensates until that level is reached. Seems like an odd way to do business but what do I know.

  • TyS

    just minutes after the event, the very first 2 comments on CNN’s website were: “The Tea Party did it,” and “guns should be immediately banned” – not a workd about the tragedy, just more politicization. I am sure nobdoy needs to be reminded of the Left’s adimance in waiting until all evidence was available before condemning and critiquing a group of people after the Ft. Hood massacre (or September 11, 2001, for that matter).

    Before the suspect’s motives or description had ever been known, AZ Senator Linda Lopez went on public record, by saying that the assailant was a crazed “Afghan Vet;” Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik unequivocally blamed the Tea Party, despite the fact that there is not an iota of evidence linking him to the group, even now.

    To the contrary, Jared Loughner, by his own admission, was an admirer of Karl Marx, considered the US to be a terrorist nation, enjoyed watching the flag burn, advocated the elimination of sovereign US borders, disbanding police, and deeming the Constitution null and void. These are hardly the planks of the Tea Party Platform.

    Just Days ago, Frances Fox Piven and Ted Rall openly called for violent revolution in the streets on MSNBC.

    A group called “21st Century Democrats is already using the attempted assassination as a fundraising tool

    An interview with a DNC insider admits that DNC strategists are already hard at work plotting how to spin the attempted assassination to blame dissenters (read: the Tea Party) –
    link to article at Politico (who buried the quote deep within the story):

    The passage of interest reads:

    One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.

    “They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. [despite the absolute absence of any evidence, I might add] They continued: “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

    Don’t you dare think that Leftist propagandists who pull strings at social netwrking sites and blogs aren’t already hard at work forging fraudulent links throughout the internet – little threads for the MSM to weave together over the coming weeks…their own little Reichstag fire. We’ll probably see outlets such as MSNBC,CNN and NPR begin leaking “never-before-seen” documents” once the feds scrub Loughner’s sites – make sure to have cached links and screenshots available, because things won’t add up after they get through with it

    Sorry for the rant, but as a Tucson, AZ native, I need to vent

  • Anonymous

    Great insight, bro!! I got a friend in Virginia who tells me they actually tried to take guns away from crazy people after that unfortunate incident at Virginia Tech where that crazy kid killed 32 people in April 2007. Fortunately my friend says there is a great state senator there, Roscoe Reynolds, who has a bill this year, SB-755, which will restore concealed gun rights to the mentally incompetent. We got to protect our gun rights!! After all, as Wayne has told us so eloquently, “The guys with the guns make the rules!!”

    • Macnvettes

      Roscoe Reynolds (D-VA) introduced this bill:
      Which would allow someone who has gone through substance abuse or mental health treatment to PETITION THE COURT to allow gun rights to be restored. If they are still “mentally incompetent”, they should be refused. Personally, given the choice of being armed or unarmed during an attack, I would prefer to be armed, but if you think your legs can move your body faster than a bullet, be my guest and run COWARD!

      • Anonymous

        Right on, mac!! Everbody knowd that a CCW guy woulda shot that crazy kid in Tucson before he even fired the first shot. We seen the movies an we knowd how it werks. Like Wayne says, “The guys with guns make the rules.”

        • Macnvettes

          Actually, I agree with the author of the article, an armed member of the audience could have reacted before the clip was emptied and saved a few lives or injuries. And in the process, saved us a lot of money on legal fees and incarceration. But to dash your feel-good hopes of banning all guns, you might want to read on the Washington DC crime statistics, after all, they had a 31-year complete ban on handguns, and they are now one of the safest cities in the nation. Oh, wait a minute, you mean that a sweeping handgun ban didn’t work? What is wrong with those criminals, don’t they follow the rules?

        • Anonymous

          Right on mac!!! But I don’t think you plan to ban all guns is a very smart idea. In fact, I feel very strongly that all crazy folks should be issued the gun of their choice before they get committed to a mental institution. You just know that them crazy folks is gonna have to defend thirselfs from all them evil docs in those mental wards. But good luck with your plan. However, you need to keep in mind that as Wayne and I like to say: “The guys with the guns make the rules.”

        • Macnvettes

          Tell you what, I’ll carry my gun wherever I go, like I normally do, you go on believing that there is no need for guns. If I get into a situation that warrants it, I will use my gun. If you get into a similar situation, do whatever it is you think you can do being an unarmed sissy and all.

      • Anonymous

        Mac, where’d you go? I should haf expected that a snivling, gutless, gay, liberal, twit like you who would never hurt a fly, much less shoot someone would not be man enuf to reply. An how you doin on tryin to take away America’s 300 million guns, you silly boy? Out of my cold, dead hand, as Moses say, you pink pistel. Out of my cold, dead hand. Rest in piece mac.

        • Macnvettes

          Apparently common sense and statistics don’t matter to people like you who would want to take my gun. I’ll make you an offer: come and get it, see what happens.

        • Anonymous

          You wouldn’t stand a chance in a shootout with me, mac. May god haf mircy on yer sole. Rest in piece.

  • Early reports stated that people were firing back. I do not know if that was verified.

    I wrote another angle on this but rather than blame the gunman entirely maybe we need to look at ourselves some:
    Our Inability to Pay (Attention)

    • Macnvettes

      I believe that the early reports had to do with the second person of interest, who at the moment is still at large, but did not do any shooting.

  • Pingback: Our Inability to Pay (Attention) | maureensharib()

  • Frank

    Succinctly put and right on the mark.