From Dana Loesch:
Washington Post writer pines for make-believe society wherein evil doesn’t exist, people don’t need to defend themselves, and the Bill of Rights are just malleable suggestions.
Excerpted with commentary:
“Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.
A gun-free society.
Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.”
Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?”
I know, because there are no
“Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.”
Oregon had background checks and “modest common-sense reforms.”
“And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.”
Actually, just changing the Bill of Rights. Why stop there? The killer cited reckless media coverage for making previous murderers famous; maybe it’s time we have a national conversation about common sense solutions to regulate media.
“But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”
The author says the incremental approach to undoing the Bill of Rights isn’t working, they need to go whole hog. Close a non-existent loophole here, restrict whatever weapon is black, has stuff on it, and looks shooty. Tell people that control is “reform.” Punish the law-abiding for the deeds of the criminals.
“Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?”
FBI Director James Comey issued a public statement admitting the state and FBI “flawed” in not flagging murderer Dylann Roof. Yes, let’s restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans for not only the deeds of criminals, but also because the background check people want expanded is horrifically flawed. Heaven forbid we spend time otherwise making sure that the people administering the law do so and that it’s followed to full extent.
“Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.”
Based on … ? Doesn’t seem to be working for Chicago, DC, Philly, NYC, etc. Maybe they’re anomalies.
“The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons.”
What “loophole?” If you are classified by the ATF as a dealer you must have a federal firearms license. Background checks are mandatory. You can’t order a gun off of the Internet and have it shipped to your home; it must go through an FFL. No FFL is going to jeopardize their hard-won license for a criminal sale. You may not purchase a firearm from across state lines as dealers are barred via the Gun Control Act of 1968 from selling or transferring firearms sans FLL across state lines.
You may purchase a firearm from an occasional seller, not a dealer (differences matter) in your state of residence if you are legally allowed to own a firearm (no domestic violence record, no felonies, no drug use, et al.) — meaning you are not a prohibited possessor or even suspected of being a prohibited possessor. If you are a prohibited possessor and you buy a gun regardless you’re breaking the law and will be charged with a crime. If a person knowingly sells a prohibited possessor a firearm they are breaking the law and will be charged with a crime. If they claim cluelessness they still may be charged depending on the results of the investigation. That’s not a loophole, that’s a criminal act.
Fred Hiatt—the author of the piece—is full of crap, but then he’s a WaPo hack. “Civilized countries” (since Hiatt doesn’t view us in that category) have fared pretty fucking poorly with their “gun-free” policies.
So have cities like D.C., Chicago, and New York, which have banned guns entirely, except for law enforcement, which should presumably be like English Bobbies with no need for weapons that fire projectiles at gun-wielding bad guys, since citizens aren’t supposed to have guns.
When some deranged wackjob walks right past the “gun-free zone” sign prominently posted outside a school and opens fire on students, it doesn’t stop the gun control idiots from blaming the firearms instead of the nutbag who wielded them.
Screaming for “gun control” plays well with the leftwingnuts, who wet themselves just talking about guns.
Bottom line: Armed criminals deliberately choose soft, unarmed targets. They couldn’t give one shit less about the idea of restrictive gun laws. Every law-abiding American citizen has the right to defend themselves from low life thugs and deranged psychos in spite of the Left’s fatuous politicizing.
We need a libtard-free society.
Anyone who thinks “gun free” societies exist or will ever exist has a shit factory for a brain. Criminals will always find ways to get them. Governments who rule over disarmed populations are prone to tyranny.
I am a retired Army Sergeant First Class. I own a firearm. I’m an NRA member. And I support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment ensures the protection of the First.
Criminals and dictators prefer unarmed citizens.
Screw you, Hiatt.