Exclusive: Jumping The Gun

“This is not normal,” Barack Obama complained, one day after a lunatic [I’ll not name the suspect here] opened fire in a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility, killing three and wounding nine others. “If we truly care about this … then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them.”

The problem, aside from the serial citizen disarmament zealot ignoring his oath of office and once more doing his best to undermine the Second Amendment, is that the type of weapon(s) used had not been disclosed by law enforcement investigators at the time Obama made his angry proclamation.

“Other items which cannot be released include information on any involved weapons to include those used by officers and the suspect,” a Colorado Springs Joint investigation Media Release announced two days after Obama had once more tried to fraudulently gin up mob anger against “assault weapons.” Based on his past statements and actions, as far as he’s concerned, the only people who do have business wielding such weapons all work in government.

As an aside, for someone who claims credentials as a lawyer and Constitutional scholar, Obama is wrong while wearing both hats. The Supreme Court in the Miller decision confirmed that a weapon protected by the Second Amendment has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” So even if it turns out the gun used was of the type the government allowed to “walk” to Mexico, that revelation would have no legitimate bearing on your and my right to own them.

Those of you who are reading this on a printed page will no doubt know exactly what kind of gun was used and more. That’s an inherent weakness I’ve alluded to before when discussing breaking news items in a column for a magazine that won’t hit the stands until months after article submission, and it’s one of the reasons why the publishers see fit to post these articles online immediately at GunsMagazine.com. At this writing, one day after his first court appearance, we know next to nothing about the suspect or his motives outside of hearsay. So predictably, just like Obama set the tone for, those with a “progressive” axe to grind are ginning up their respective mobs to lay blame on those who profess ideologies they wish to suppress.

That means they’ve taken to social and “regular” media to incite resentment against conservatives, Christians, Republicans, gun owners and pro-life advocates. Some of them don’t appear very fond of white males, either. And once more they’ve dusted off the meme that “home grown terrorists/right wing extremists/hatriots” (I guess those would be anyone who believes the Second Amendment provides a last resort bulwark against tyranny) are more of a threat to the Republic (although they call it “our Democracy”) than jihadists.

So again, before anything is actually known about the suspect and his motives (except that his voter registration showed he was unaffiliated with any political party and his sex was listed as “female”), Progress Now Colorado and Pro-Choice Colorado held a joint press conference to apportion the blame. Culprits they cited included “hateful rhetoric” along with “too easy access to guns” by “white men who desperately need mental health services … fighting against progressive ideals,” and pro-life presidential candidates.

What they didn’t blame was the misfit who did the shooting.

It’s “the voice of reason that is calling for stricter gun control laws,” the activists declared, not so much unaware that Colorado had just enacted expanded background check and magazine capacity controls in 2013, as obviously unsatisfied by those steps and demanding of more. “This act of domestic terrorism must be a call of reckoning on many fronts.”

The abortion advocates then proceeded to name names of Republican legislators who were critical of Planned Parenthood. They also called on the Department of Justice to investigate the Colorado Springs attack as an act of terrorism.

We should stop right here for a moment and acknowledge recognition that readers will have differing views and the purpose of this column is not to advocate a “side” on the abortion issue. It is fair to point out though, that while no-compromise gun owners may take opposing stances on the issue, those holding the press conference showed little tolerance and respect for the rights of pro-choice gun owners.

The issue that should be of interest to all readers here is that religious, speech and firearms freedoms are being blamed for the evil actions of a defective individual, one who appears incapable of living freely among his fellow human beings. And further restrictions on those who do not share those defects will solve nothing, except to make it harder for good people to defend themselves against bad ones.

Invoking the Justice Department and demanding activation of its anti-terror apparatus over what appears to be an act of random violence ignores the proper powers of the states, and that the national government is supposed to be one of limited enumerated powers. Unless further information comes to light necessitating legitimate federal involvement, crime ought to be a local matter to investigate and prosecute.

Exploiting the Planned Parenthood attack to pressure against opposing views and criticism is also a tactic that needs to be called out. Sure, in a perfect world we’d all conduct ourselves with civility, but hot button issues are called that for a reason, and heated passions sometimes result in heated discourse. Where the line is drawn among people capable of living outside of custodial care is before serious threats are made or force is initiated.

If “rhetoric” is responsible for provoking the incapable among us to blood lust, then what else might set such ticking time bombs off? Is the solution to muzzle and hamstring everyone else, or to deal with aberrant individuals as their behavior warrants, and with full due process protections as required by a society that claims to be free?

Curiously, demands to tone things down only seem to be aimed in one direction. It’s apparently perfectly acceptable to attack gun owners as racist, rustic “ammosexuals” and cowards with blood on our hands, who are compensating for our lack of physical endowments, and who ought to just shoot ourselves. Talk about hateful rhetoric. And those are just the charges the editor won’t reject from print.

Also curiously, by assigning blame to rhetoric that supposedly compels the weak-minded to commit violent acts, the suspect may have been given a legal “out” by the people who want to assign guilt elsewhere. Barring further developments, he is eligible for the death penalty, and the public defender representing him in his first court appearance is the same one who got the jury to give life in prison to the Aurora movie theater killer. “The rhetoric made me do it” just might work.

Those of us limited to revelations from the time this draft was written will learn more in the days, weeks and months to come. And while the gun-grabbers remain unwilling to wait for the facts to come out, there are still some conclusions that are safe for gun owners to make: We will not be made scapegoats. We will not be intimidated from speaking the truth. And we will not disarm.

To anyone that upsets or infuriates: Deal with it.
By David Codrea

Read More Rights Watch Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

(Spamcheck Enabled)