Wednesday, April 18, 2007

More blaming the victims

How should the survivors at VT feel? If you say greatly ashamed you must be a conservative.

Contrast that with Down With Tyranny:
Cho's Glock and ammo cost $571. He had a valid immigration card and driver's license and walked out of the store with the gun; no waiting period; no checking; nothin'. You can blame that on Bush and the right wing loons who have taken over our country. This morning a friend told me how her alcoholic son staggered into a gun store and bought an AK-47 and within minutes was threatening to commit suicide. The police arrived in time. My friend called the gun shop and the owner said, "Hey lady, I'm running a business here."
What about me? What do I think and why should you care? Well, I could be just another angry weird writer who's pissed off and can afford a gun.

Conservatives think that if they have a gun they can defend themselves from whatever enemy they fear is coming to get them. The government, the IRS, looters, blacks, Mexicans....

Smarter people know that if they and everyone else had guns they would be shot in the back or facing a gang of thugs better armed. For examples of no gun control see Lebanon and Somalia.

Post 13,664 on this blog.


Anonymous said...

It didn’t take long. The victims have not even been laid to rest and gun control advocates are already politicizing this terrible tragedy. Instead of acknowledging the responsibility for this massacre lies solely with the shooter himself, they choose to blame the tool he used to carry out his crime. This reasoning is just not logical. The same argument could be made for banning automobiles under their model. If there were no private vehicles, people could not drive drunk and kill other innocent victims. After all, The government could surely provide us with public transportation to the places we “need” to go.

The irony here is that the same people and groups calling for more gun control, which would infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights, are the same folks who are so outspoken in defense of other amendments included in the Bill of Rights. These are people who site the 1st Amendment claiming their right to free speech and expression when they distribute material that many deem obscene or offensive, or even inaccurate for that matter. These people are also the ones who have fought so hard against the surveillance and wiretapping by the FBI in their efforts to identify potential terrorist activity, citing the 4th Amendment and its implicit “Right to Privacy.” They are also, for the most part, the same folks who claim that holding terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay is in violation of the 5th Amendment.

I would challenge all of the “Gun Control” crowd to reexamine American History, as well as the Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers fought to free us from oppression and tyranny. Their desire to pass on a legacy of freedom from oppression is evident in each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. They did not want future generations to have to fight for the same freedoms that so many of them gave their lives for. The 2nd Amendment was not written to guarantee us the right to arms for hunting. It also was not written solely to provide for the defense of the homeland from foreign invaders. It was written, with the blood of those who died for our freedoms, to allow us to protect ourselves against any future oppression and tyranny that might be imposed by our government.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This does not state, “the right of the members of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that we are ALL members of the militia and that it is necessary that we retain the right to keep and bear arms for the “security of a FREE state!” This right is necessary if we are to remain free.
The point here is that we can’t pick and choose which rights we should protect. It’s all or nothing. An infringement on one leads to an infringement on others. Denying law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms, also infringes on the rights guaranteed under the 5th Amendment, depriving one of property without due process. If that person committed no crime, there is no justification to deprive him of property. This also closely relates to the 4th Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. If there is no probable cause that one committed a crime with a gun, then no warrant can be issued to search for and seize such gun. The 9th Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Can anyone argue that we all have the right to self defense? To protect our rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?”
It is true that our freedom is not without cost. Our free and open society allows us to remain vulnerable. Our right to privacy allows terrorists to plan attacks on us. They exploit our freedoms. The price we pay for that freedom is the potential of future attacks. Law enforcement cannot act on a “hunch.” They cannot search a person or his residence, effects, etc without probable cause. We don’t want stormtroopers kicking in our door because they think we might be doing something wrong. We will also not stand for being arrested for speaking out against our government when we disagree with policies, will we?
The argument for restricting guns because of this latest tragedy could just as easily be made for restricting freedom of speech and freedom of expression. What if this murderer were arrested and imprisoned based upon his previous writings? He gave plenty of warnings but no one heeded them. By infringing upon his 1st Amendment rights and punishing him for his hate and threatening thoughts/words/writings, would the end result not be the same as banning the tool he used? Is anyone willing to give up their right to free speech to stop violence? His rights afforded by the 4th Amendment meant that he could come and go as he pleased, carrying the weapon with him. The police couldn’t watch him and search him because they had no “probable cause.” So can we not say that by repealing the 4th Amendment, these tragedies can be prevented in the future?

We must all stand together as Americans and demand that ALL of our rights are protected. There can be no infringement upon one, without infringement upon others. We are the only true “Free Society” in the world. There is a reason that people risk life and limb to come here. It is because of our rights and freedoms. Each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights serves a specific purpose, and they are all dependent upon the others. They were not grouped together without careful thought and consideration. They were meant to be held collectively. If any are taken away, they are all in jeopardy.

Anonymous said...

What a LOAD?!? You somehow conjure up what a conservative would say about thye poor victims of this madman and then present THAT as a fact?!? Oh my God! That is SICK!!! The Looney Left at it's FINEST!!!

Gary said...

Anon still hasn't either learned to read or click through, greatly ashamed is what a conservative said he would feel as a member of VT.

Gary said...

The first anon hasn't read the history of interpretations of the 2nd amendment except through conservative propaganda.