Tuesday, May 27, 2014

As the Senseless Violence Continues...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


In the spirit of Patriotism no doubt 'Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher in one breath offered condolences to the slain victims of the UCSB shooting and in the next declared that "your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights. Technically I suppose he's right. Depending of course on how one interprets the 2'nd Amendment.

Support for the 2'd Amendment and the right for the populace to bear arms for hunting and sport is something I believe the majority of of Americans are fine with. But this right must be regulated and uniformly applied across the nation. Our patchwork of gun regulations and laws have done little to control the firearm violence that has spread in recent years.

Firearm manufactures with their money and lobbyists, along with the NRA have effectively stymied any reasonable, responsible, and needed national policy to improve the public's safety with respect to firearms and the violence that no one can deny is increasing at an alarming rate. For a civilized people to accept the level of firearm violence the USA is experiencing and do nothing is astonishing.

One has to question exactly what the founders would say today if they had a voice. I suspect they would not take the present position of the NRA and the firearms manufactures. It is is more likely they would find a way to protect the concerns of legitimate firearm owners and yet institute safeguards that more effectively protect the general public.

My right to own a firearm for the purpose of hunting and sporting is protected by the 2'nd Amendment. However, what about the right of innocent people to live their lives without fear of being mowed down by someone with a semiautomatic weapon or a handgun. Yet we have states with open carry and such lax regulations that it is not difficult for anyone to acquire a firearm.

I am not against responsible law abiding citizens owning firearms, not at all. I am however like most people, against the needless death of innocent people. Especially when we can do something about it. Unfortunately money and the NRA seem to trump common sense.

TPM - Samuel Wurzelbacher gave his condolences this week to the families of the victims of the mass shooting near the University of California, Santa Barbara. But no tragedy is going to stop "Joe The Plumber" from defending the Second Amendment.

In an open letter published Tuesday on the website Barbwire, Wurzelbacher went out of his way to explain to the victims' parents that the deaths won't undermine his "Constitutional rights."

"I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now," wrote Wurzelbacher, who became something of a mascot for John McCain's failed 2008 presidential campaign. "But: As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."

Wurzelbacher singled out Richard Martinez, whose son Christopher was one of the six students killed by Elliot Rodger in Isla Vista, Calif. Since the deadly rampage, Martinez has twice railed against politicians and the National Rifle Association for the failure to pass new gun laws after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

"There are no critical words for a grieving father. He can say whatever he wants and blame whoever he’d like – it’s okay by me. You can’t take a step in his shoes – at least I can’t," Wurzelbacher wrote. "But the words and images of Mr. Martinez blaming 'the proliferation of guns', lobbyists, politicians, etc.; will be exploited by gun-grab extremists as are all tragedies involving gun violence and the mentally ill by the anti-Second Amendment Left."
Read more BELOW THE FOLD.

Related information can be found AT THE LINK.

Via: Memeorandum

34 comments:

  1. The 2nd Amendment also ptoects the natural right of self drefense.......and the exists no right to live without fear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fear, used properly is a healthy emotion. Fight or Flight has been programmed in our species going back to primitive man.

    Self defense is indeed a right we all have.This post does not dispute that, nor is it the point of this post. Increasing firearm violence, irresponsibility on the part of the NRA, gutless politicians, and an industry that flourishes if America is armed to the hilt.

    Now, why not refute what the post says. Better yet, give us your solution to this growing problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For starters, the 2005 Act protecting gun mfgs and dealers from suit, could be overturned. The relatives of innocent victims have no recourse, but spill a cup of coffee on your lap and sue McDonalds for millions? We are an odd, sick country. Thank you, Wayne
      Lapierre, NRA.

      Delete
    2. Refute what? Who you assert, or what Wurzelbacher asserts?

      If fear is a healthy emotion, why should Americans need a right to not live in fear of being injured or killed by a firearm? I am always entertained by the hyperbole of being "mowed down" [intellectually lazy when used in regards to semi-auto], but that goes to the framing that the gun control crowd is forced to commit.

      Gun violence has decreased from a modern peak in 1993...it is not increasing. The NRA has not committed any crime, thus calls of 'irresponsibility' are subjective, and intellectually lazy.

      And in response to BB-Idaho....do you support suing Ford if a drunk driver kills someone with his/her Explorer? Because if you don't you're not being logically consistent. The solution lies in education, parenting and prudent identification of the mentally ill in our society. We've got to instill in our youth, that treating firearms as a pop culture status symbol, is irresponsible.

      Delete
    3. CI, as an ammunition scientist, I saw plenty of suits, including one against Ford where the
      fellow placed a coffee can of primers in his glove compartment (next to the fuse box) with
      the result that his lower body received extensive shrapnel in the resulting detonation. Firearms main purpose is to kill. If you manufacture and sell something like that, you are
      not without responsibility, IMO. Remember the wild west? Guns had to be checked in before entering town. Yes, there are responsible gun owners...most all. I would guess that
      the hunter, the target folks and the collector are not the cop wannabee, substitute penis yahoos we see strutting around with their piece like the redneck Texans with their AR-15s hassling the Moms against guns in a restaurant recently. That sort of crap is what brings out the gun control folks, IMO.

      Delete
    4. BB - I'm with you on the open carry idiots. I respect the right to do so [though I carry concealed]...but I blame their asininity for hurting the cause.

      In regards to suits against firearms manufacturers, it is illogical to sue a the producer of a lawful product because someone uses it in a criminal act. Respectfully, you sidestepped my question. Ford, like firearm manufacturers, can and should be sued when their products are mechanically unsafe or defective. Producers of lawful products should not be held liable for misuse in criminal conduct.

      If you believe that a firearms primary purpose is to kill [which I disagree with, and is a subjective definition], then your argument is rendered even more moot, as it was used as intended, no?

      Delete
    5. My understanding of the law is that a weapons mfg can be sued for product defect: a bit of a stretch, but under that paradigm, a murderer whose weapon misfires could sue Gloch, no? But if his weapon works as it should, his victim cannot sue the mfg. because their
      product worked perfectly as they designed it. Ford, et. al. requires a driver's license and registration, things decried by the NRA as Nazism. In all the ammunition and defense operations where I worked, a firearm on the property was cause for instant termination;
      as far as I know, it still is. That is a type of regulation, too severe perhaps for public places, but one that is there for a purpose. As far as designed to kill, and I include game animals,
      enemy soldiers etc, why the fascination with rate of fire, muzzle velocity, terminal velocity,
      bullet expansion, accuracy, wound ballistics etc? If one chooses to carry for protection, they are not going to choose a paintball gun, IMO. When I started in the business, there wasn't such a thing; there were laws and law enforcement officers. Guns were mostly of
      the long variety, kept away unloaded until season. In a generation, they have become ubiquitous and folks are worried about their safety. What happened CI? Is it a good thing?
      Is there 'collateral damage' (Joe, the Plumber-your dead kids don't trump my 2nd Amendment rights).? The virus is out of the bag and I see no reasonable solution, given
      that a score of slaughtered kindergartners evoked no response. I am not anti-gun, but I
      am not comfortable with the way it has been going.

      Delete
    6. In all the ammunition and defense operations where I worked, a firearm on the property was cause for instant termination; as far as I know, it still is.

      In every business and facility I worked in or managed over the course of my 41 years in manufacturing this was true. Unless things have clanged in the last 23 months (that I'm unaware) of it still is.

      Delete
    7. "My understanding of the law is that a weapons mfg can be sued for product defect..."

      That is correct as I understand it. A suit against a firearms manufacturer based on a criminal act committed with the weapon, would be in pursuit of some vague sense of 'social justice', an appeal to emotion.

      "Ford, et. al. requires a driver's license and registration, things decried by the NRA as Nazism."

      Ford does not. The State requires such in order to use the public roadways. On one's property no such requirement exists.

      "As far as designed to kill, and I include game animals, enemy soldiers etc, why the fascination with rate of fire, muzzle velocity, terminal velocity, bullet expansion, accuracy, wound ballistics etc?"

      I would say that a firearm is designed to defend as well. Somebody dying is not requisite for a firearm to be employed or function properly. The fascination amongst many, is on the technology aspect. This is nothing new.

      "In a generation, they have become ubiquitous and folks are worried about their safety. What happened CI? Is it a good thing?"

      I'm not sure that I would agree that firearm ownership for self defense purposes has undergone a significant paradigm shift, but media venues and technology leaps can certainly make it appear that way.

      I have no 'silver bullet' solution for the instances of gun violence, though they're not necessarily increasing.....they're the topic du jour for media coverage. I simply want to ensure that appeals to emotion do not create precedence with which the gun control cabal can use to erode Constitutional protections. I do however appreciate your reasoned and concerned arguments on the matter.

      Delete
    8. IMO, CI, self-defense has grown exponentially from the old shotgun in the house.
      There is a plethora of advertising on the net targeting (no pun intended) those who feel the need for a firearm for protection. I am in favor of having one in the home if needed, but am uncomfortable with the aggressive pushing; for example my state recently banned colleges and universities from banning concealed weapons on campus and in classrooms. At the very least, this is discomforting to professors and many (most, if area polls are correct) students in those classrooms.

      Delete
  3. Fear is healthy used in the right way.

    I did not use the word crime, As to the NRA being irresponsible they are. At one time in the past they were responsible.

    The hyperbole, lets just say it exists all around. In spades with the NRA and the Nugent crowd.

    As to your solutions? Yep I agree. In tandem with uniform reasonable regulations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The hyperbole, lets just say it exists all around. In spades with the NRA and the Nugent crowd."

      Agreed, I have no fealty to either....though I see far more disingenuity on the part of the gun control lobby, with irrational framing and utter ignorance of what they seek to ban or regulate.

      "In tandem with uniform reasonable regulations."

      Aside from the mental health paradigm, I say that those already exist. Not terribly well enforced however.

      Delete
    2. Aside from the mental health paradigm, I say that those already exist. Not terribly well enforced however.

      Yes, a patchwork of state regulations that are ineffective and lack uniformity. IMO a uniform national policy is the only way to accomplish what needs to be done. This will not happen because money buys the lack of political will.

      Delete
    3. Not simply money...the collective will of the people. Alabama and Vermont resolutely don't want the restrictive firearm regulations that California and New York want. Why should we default to less liberty?

      Delete
    4. We shouldn't.

      When is the time right to take action? When the number is 66,000 deaths?

      Where is the liberty? For the slaughtered?

      Perhaps if one of your loved ones becomes a statistic you'll see things in a different light.

      Time to think outside the box and find realistic solutions.

      Delete
    5. Where is the liberty for any who are cut down, by any implement? It's a red herring. That begs the question.....what is defined as a realistic solution?

      Delete
    6. For starters get he NRA an gun loonies to pull their heads out of their asses and act responsibly. Engage in a serious discussion on how to REDUCE the gun violence, not stop it as that is impossible. Even if we outlawed firearms for all civilian purposes. Even that would not eliminate it and we all know the reasons why.

      I don't advocate the confiscation or banning of firearms outright. However even I, a former hunter and target shooter am getting DAMNED pissed off at the lunacy of the NRA, gutless politicians, and idiots that think it is their god given right to pack heat in public forums where there are children, the elderly, and conveniently and completely IGNORE the right of other citizens to not be exposed to their their BS symbols of power and control.

      Society is no longer sane enough to continue on as we are. PERIOD. It is past time to neuter the NRA and get rid of their goddamned influence on gutless politicians as well as that of the firearm manufactures.

      Yeah, a ffu**ing red herring. Bull*hit!

      Delete
    7. I'll give you this much...it's difficult to argue against rights that you keep inventing.

      Delete
    8. I'll give you this CI, you just can't refute anything I said. :-)

      Delete
    9. Of course I can...and have. But there's no RIGHT to be offended or fearful...of the practice of another's Constitutional right. Are there immature boobs who have adequacy issues? Sure. Does that negate their ability to open carry, if authorized to do so in their state? Nope.

      Delete
    10. Okay, carry on. As I said you've proved nothing. You have however made your case. Ultimately sanity will prevail and effective national regulations will be enacted and enforced.

      You'll still be able to hunt and shoot for sport. You will have your firearms for protection in YOUR home, and magazine sizes will be regulated.

      Oh, and BTW, you will be able to thank the loonies for it all.

      Delete
    11. Though it is the default position of activist mommies who demand attention, blaming the NRA is a poor substitute for policy. I would be interested to know how many rounds in a magazine you think the State should 'allow' a citizen.

      Delete
    12. Though it is the default position of activist mommies...

      Your trite and immature comment is so noted.

      I would be much more interested in what YOU think is a reasonable mag. capacity is and why.

      Delete
    13. I vote for one. That was the magazine size when the 2nd Amendment was written.

      Delete
    14. Yes, because employing 'loonies' is erudite. YOU brought up magazine restrictions.

      Delete
    15. Jerry, one? Be reasonable. I see nothing wrong with at least six.

      Delete
    16. Okay CI, loonies wasn't necessary. Perhaps misguided gun fanatics?

      I tossed out a number on mag. capacity (not etched in stone), now it's your turn. Unless of course you chose to evade the question.

      Delete
    17. "Perhaps misguided gun fanatics?"

      Sure, as long as you'll accept misguided anti-gun fanatics.

      And I haven't evaded a question yet....I merely expect one to provide a foundation for an assertion, especially when asked. I don't favor any magazine restriction. It's needless legislation when current laws aren't being enforced to any degree of efficacy. Large, non-standard magazines are prone to malfunction. But this goes back to framing and wordplay. You'd see six rounds as legitimate, but consider seven 'high capacity...all based on a number that makes you feel good.

      Delete
    18. I said 6, followed by not etched in stone.

      You failed to adequately enunciate the reason why unlimited mag. capacity is sensible. So I'll ask it this way, what purpose does unlimited capacity serve, other than to make one (you).feel good?

      Anti gun nut fanatics, sure, except neither I or most are truly anti gun.In my case both my family and my wife's family grew up around firearms, hunted, and target practices. Most people are neither pro gun nor anti gun per se and have no problem with responsible individuals owning a firearm(s).

      At any rate those with a brick wall mentality are the problem, on both sides of this issue. You can take that wherever you wish, I've been around this block as many times as I wish this week.

      Delete
  4. I'm not philosophically opposed to gun control, Les. But I also try and be empirical about it, and when you have entities like the Centers for Disease Control and Harvard University (neither of which is bankrolled by the Kochs) doing exhaustive studies and not finding any hard evidence that gun control works, you really do have to wonder if what we're attempting here is simply for solace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where you been? The NRA and their sycophants in congressemasculated any medical studies, including the medical costs of treating
      gunshot wounds.

      Delete
    2. Will, back in my younger days I was opposed to gun regulations. You know, back in the days the NRA was respectable, before the Loons got control if the organization and it became all about firearm proliferation and supporting the firearm manufactures and cozying up to gutless lawmakers so they could buy their votes.

      So yeah Will, the very group I used to support, I was a NRA member 30 years ago, managed to turn me against them.

      It is time for a uniform national policy that is enforced across all 50 states. It can be done while preserving 2'nd Amendment rights. If the NRA and loonies would pull their heads from their asses and engage in constructive dialog.

      Or we can wait untll the numbers escalate to 100,000, 300,000, a half a million.

      Delete
    3. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf - more NRA propaganda? And the murder rates are coming down, Les. This, despite the fact that right to carry laws have been enacted all throughout the country.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.