Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Connecticut Is Ground Zero of Liberal Social and Arms Policy

Might as well chime in directly.  I was raised in the NorthEast, in New York and Connecticut.  My family never owned a gun.  I moved after college to Washington D.C.  Night after night in the most gun averse polity in the country I heard the "pop pop" of 9 millimeters on the Hill.  One night I had to call 911 and direct the police over the various backyards from my second story vantage point to an armed guy running around Eastern Market.  I got married and moved to Virginia.  In this state I have seen at shopping malls men with side arms.  They are doing it somewhat to shock the suburban yankees but it brings home the point that in the most gun friendly state I have ever lived in there are no bars on the windows as there were in NY when I lived there.  There is palpably less fear than in the liberal paradises in which I grew up and lived in my youth.  In D.C. in the 80's and 90's friends and girlfriends were either mugged or menaced in the gun free zone.  I bought a semiautomatic rifle when I'd been in Virginia for a while.  Remington.  I went to the range, hunted when I had the time(rarely) and was given a shot gun (Wincester) by my father in law.  There is one difference between my Remington and a Bushmaster but the fact my amunition is more deadly in semi-automatic than those rifles based on the AR-15 model.  The AK-47 and the AR gain their deadliness-from the ability to fire endless burts of tumbling rounds and suffuse a target area.  Chicago has a Newton every month and it has every policy that any liberal ever dreamed up.

That being said I posted here that magazine size needs a looking at and Dave went ballistic.  It was concessionary but apparently not enough.  Well, I know he used to be a fan of the Washington Post movie reviewer Steven Hunter.  His views, which I also adhere to, are here.  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/a-word-from-stephen-hunter-2.php   For years newspapers did not publish the names of rape victims they shoudl not do so of mass murderers who are not "at large" either.

I also think Pat Buchanan is right here: http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2012/12/18/the-dead-soul-of-adam-lanza-n1469007  And I have not been in sinc with Buchanan since the 80's.

Dave, and CRH, are fond of "the science" whenever liberal policies are advanced thereby.  Lets look at the random mass killings using semiautomatic weapons when we had the "assault weapons" ban during the time it was in effect compared to an perior of equal time before and after it.  If it is statistically insignificant--and it is--then the laws advocated are merely the policy preferences of the Left unconstutionally adminstered when demonstrably ineffective.  This violates the liberal precepts of  Lawerence v. Texas where the Supreme Court said that the state could not legislate merely out of a moral view against the actions of a minority when it infringed their rights.  Finally, here are more statistacs on violence.  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/the-times-embarrasses-itself-on-guns-again.php   America culturally has lots of groups who are far more violent than anything seen in most of Europe.  It further has a complete break down of the family governed by a present father.  The Connecticut massacres is one of a series of lone, white, highly intelligent social misfits.  When they snap they take out a lot more people than your average fiend.  From my perspecitve I'm constantly amazed that we dont' get more of this.  There are 300 million Americans.  If even 1% are crazy that is three million crazies who could go off at any minute.   Three million crazies who could plot and plan any horrible thing.  Yet newton almost never happens.  That is a miracle to me.   

I forebear here from the policies on the family that no liberal would countenance that would lower violence in our society but since I feel these mass killings by white, upper class, loners are rare and not understood I will refrain from the normal rote answer to our pressing problem. 


Dave S. said...

Wow. OK.

Shorter first section: My experiences in different socioeconomic settings across time differ from each other. How can this be? But of course - liberals!

In this state I have seen at shopping malls men with side arms. They are doing it somewhat to shock the suburban yankees...

That is a fucked-up mindset.

Chicago has a Newton [sic]every month...

Cite please for double-digit murders by single perpetrator by month in Chicago, and take a moment to spell the locale name correctly. It is the absolute least you could do.

I posted here that magazine size needs a looking at and Dave went ballistic.

Golf clap for turn of phrase. You have also identified the precise and sole reason for my action. Bra. Vo.

Yet newton [sic, again] almost never happens. That is a miracle to me.

Thank God, indeed. I was going to suggest you slap "Legislate in Haste, Repent at Leisure" on a T-shirt and wear it to the funerals but the above is much, much better.

I forebear here from the policies on the family that no liberal would countenance that would lower violence in our society...

After all that you go coy on us? You disappoint me.

That's all the time I have for the FJM treatment.

Unknown said...

The blog has gotten a little dark and political over the last few days from Bork to Newtown.

I agree with Dave that surely there must be a middle ground somewhere on guns that is easily reached if we are realistic. I'm not a gun expert but a few examples.

Winchester M70 Rifle w/5 rounds -good
AR-15 that is not powerful enough to hunt Deer but has 100+ rounds -bad
K9 Pistol w/ 7 rounds-good
Hollow Point Ammo banned by Hague Convention -bad

To me the whole concept of a gun for self defense/protection is deterrence. You were accosting me, I have gun, you stop.

In a country where the majority of police officers retire without having ever fired a shot at a criminal I fail to see why an individual needs the ability to put down 100 rounds in less than a minute. Especially since those rounds can be optimized to penetrate body armor or do maximum bodily harm.

What is needed now is sensible negotiations to allow hunters, sport shooters, and personal defense advocates access to weapons that allow them pursue their interests but minimize the potential collateral damage to the rest of us.

smrty.mrty said...

How about the semi-automatics are locked up *at the gun range* and only accessible there.