Gun control quickly rears its head in Calif.

Minutemen 1776Dec. 15, 2012

By John Seiler

In the wake of the Connecticut school shooting, it didn’t take long for gun-control advocates to take a bead on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

It’s horrible what happened there. Our prayers should be with the victims and their families.

It’s also shameful that politicians use such tragedies to advance their tyrannical agendas.

The first to attack is state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco:

“The lawmaker said he is considering reintroducing a gun-control bill that died in committee this year. Yee said the proposal would have closed a loophole in California’s assault weapons ban that allows guns to be easily reloaded with multiple rounds of ammunition through devices called ‘bullet buttons’.”

But such a law would have done nothing to prevent the Connecticut shooting. And even if California imposes such a law, it would not affect states with more freedom, such as Arizona. Such devices could be obtained there, then brought into California.

The fact remains that guns prevent crimes far more frequently than gun crimes are committed. Anyone wondering about this should read a pamphlet by one of my favorite groups, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: “Gun Facts, Version 6.0.”

One of the things the JPFO always has pointed out is that Nazi Germany enacted draconian anti-gun laws, which meant that, when the SS came to grab them, Jews were defenseless to fight back. JFPO is determined to make sure that doesn’t happen here. And I am with them 100 percent.

Since our rebellion in 1776, in America widespread gun ownership has been essential not just to preventing crime, but to liberty.

28 comments

Write a comment
  1. Gun ownership is to protect us from the government
    Gun ownership is to protect us from the government 15 December, 2012, 06:37

    Thank you for writing this. I know it sounds nutty to most people, because I try to explain the same thing. Eyes glaze over.

    The 2nd Amendment is a check and balance against the power of the state – state meaning “the government.”

    No one understands the purpose of the Constitution. Most Americans think of government as a benevolent provider of goods, services, safety, and stability.

    Most Americans think people are basically good at heart, and that will be reflected in a government “of the people.” Democracy is wonderful.

    Historical ignorance, philosophical ignorance, theological ignorance: the intellectual basis for future tyranny.

    Reply this comment
  2. us citizen
    us citizen 15 December, 2012, 08:19

    Oh this is only going to get worse. BO and his fake tears on top of it. Just to let you know if you are so inclined to believe the BS he put forth yesterday……..when you cry your eyes glaze over and then they turn red…..this did not happen. Also your tear ducts are on the inside, next to your nose and this is where tears come out. His display was insulting and for the use of trying to get gun control laws. Never let a tragedy go unused. If a person goes nuts they will find a way. There is no control over situations like this because mentally ill people will always find a way whether they have guns or not.

    Reply this comment
  3. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 10:06

    And, you two posters are not using this horribly tragic event as an opportunity to hurl your personal brands of invective at our government and Obama–of course not!

    Reply this comment
  4. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 15 December, 2012, 10:30

    Change your handle, “us citizen.” You have the gall to accuse the President of “fake tears” during this time of national tragedy. He cries, like any parent should, over this horrible crime. You never let an opportunity to bash the President of the United States go unused. You, sir, are no patriot. Shame on you.

    Reply this comment
  5. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 15 December, 2012, 10:36

    Seesaw – your ignorance is appalling.

    The first poster was talking about ANY government…..not specifically our government.

    And as to the second: As expected, President TelePrompter basically said “this is not the time to politicize this tragedy”…….and then immediately went on to politicize it.

    Imagine if Obama had simply said: “Our thoughts and prayers go out to all affected by this tragedy. The end.”

    No one would be saying anything about him right now. But he can’t. He simply CAN’T let a crisis go to waste.

    Only a dullard would fail to recognize this.

    Reply this comment
  6. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 10:53

    No kidding! How would you describe your own type of ignorance in thinking that you know everything about me? I’m sure if Romney had been up there, you would have praised him, regardless of what he said or how many tears he shed. I’m sure you would have known just exactly what to say at that very tragic moment, for you are so wise! (I was away for the day, and did not even know of the event until I got into my car in the evening, and pushed the radio button. I heard what I heard and screamed–alone. I’m sure you would not be at a loss for words to critique my reaction.)

    Reply this comment
  7. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 11:32

    Oh, for you information Jimmy–I think it is standard procedure for the CEO and Commander in Chief of our nation to make a statement to the citizens, when such a tragedy of national proportion occurs. Those of your ilk just can’t let the opportunity to bash our President go to waste, can you!

    Reply this comment
  8. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 15 December, 2012, 12:05

    SeeSaw u bleeping moron…..

    I don’t doubt Obama’s sincerity. All I am saying is that, in addition to the condolences, there was a not-so-thinly veiled politicization.

    And yes, for THAT I will bash him.

    Reply this comment
  9. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 15 December, 2012, 12:08

    “Only a dullard would fail to recognize this.”

    A dullard or an emotionally unstable and highly suggestible liberal zombie. Don’t bother trying to reason with these statist drones JimmyD, their too busy doing things like screaming hysterically in their cars. This is the reaction of someone who gets a tingle up their leg when The Dear Leader speaks.

    What I choose to do instead of screaming like an emotional basket case is reject the Government-Media Complex fake “reality” entirely. I REJECT EVERYTHING THE FASCIST GOVERNMENT-MEDIA COMPLEX DOES OR SAYS. I am in charge of my perception of reality. Not them.

    As tragic as these mass shootings are they account for a very tiny fraction of the overall homicide rate, which has thankfully been dropping for decades.

    Children die by the tens of thousands in this country every year from car accidents, cancer, sports accidents, drugs, drowning, beatings, accidental poisoning, when their school bus gets hit by a train, when they get hit by a car and on and on and on. And lets not even get into the routine doctor induced death of millions of fetal infants. Tragic death is a part of life so deal with it like an adult, not some juvenile emotional wreck!

    Only infantilized, emotionally unstable people over react to tragedies like this and that is exactly what the Fascist Government-Media Complex tries to evoke. They want to create crises to exploit for their Fascist power grab.

    Saul Alinsky would be proud of The Dear Leader for using every Alinskyite trick in the book so skillfully. The tears were masterful and guaranteed to turn millions of American mush heads into sobbing wrecks. I feel sorry for people who are that easily manipulated.

    REJECT THE GOVERNMENT-MEDIA COMPLEX MIND CONTROL.

    THINK FOR YOURSELF.

    DON’T BE A SUCKER.

    Reply this comment
  10. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 15 December, 2012, 12:09

    And since you opened up this can ‘o worms, Seesaw—–

    “….. I’m sure you would have known just exactly what to say at that very tragic moment, for you are so wise!….”

    No, I wouldn’t have. And neither did Barry.

    Other people write it. He just reads it. =)

    Reply this comment
  11. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 12:53

    Of course. He has an important job. Who expects him to write it? He is expected to make an appearance. And, of course those of your ilk will crawl out of the woodwork and critique whatever someone else wrote.

    I am pretty good at thinking for myself Dys. I don’t have to post viscious drool toward others, as the type you spew at me. You are the perfect specimen for a miserable human being. I feel pity for any family members who get in your way.

    Reply this comment
  12. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 15 December, 2012, 13:48

    “Of course. He has an important job. Who expects him to write it?”

    Once upon a time, Seesaw, it was considered normal for a president —– get this……..I hope you’re sitting down —– TO ACTUALLY GIVE REMARKS WITHOUT AID OF A TELEPROMPTER!

    Lastly…..You may have heard of a little piece of oration known as The Gettysburg Address. It was written by a man who also held an important job….the VERY SAME job, in fact. And while this man did not, as the fable goes, write it on the back of an envelope, he did indeed write it…..

    ….unlike the current holder of this job, whose contributions are more akin to the little girl in the old Shake ‘n Bake commercials: “……and I helped!….”

    Reply this comment
  13. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 15 December, 2012, 13:56

    “I am pretty good at thinking for myself Dys”

    No you’re not.

    “I don’t have to post viscious drool toward others”

    The truth hurts doesn’t it?

    Reply this comment
  14. CC
    CC 15 December, 2012, 14:49

    What the tragic event in Connecticut reveals is the need for lunatic control, not gun control. Politicians should demand to rebuild state mental hospitals and toughen laws for involuntary commitments. The nations’s 40 year experiment with “community based treatment” for the mentally ill has horribly failed. It’s time to admit there are some folks who need to be locked up for their good and ours.

    Reply this comment
  15. Gun ownership is to protect us from the government
    Gun ownership is to protect us from the government 15 December, 2012, 15:02

    In response to a comment above from the politically-hypersensitive “SeeSaw” claiming I’m using “this horribly tragic event as an opportunity to hurl your personal brands of invective at our government and Obama,” no, I’m talking about Government with a big G. I actually respect and honor our president as our leader and think he shows good character, although I don’t agree with many of his policies. I do not see him individually as a potential tyrant.

    I understand that fear of Government is a strange and foreign sentiment nowadays in America, because most Americans believe that humanity is inclined to be good by nature, especially when it is “enlightened” and “educated.” From infancy, most Americans learn that we’re wonderful just the way we are – a direct quote from Barney the purple dinosaur. Americans also learn that America is special and democracy is the best form of government. How could our Government ever turn against its own people?

    I once believed all of that, without ever really thinking about it. I learned it from the newspapers at home, network TV news, the entertainment industry, my parents family and friends, my public school education (especially “science”), and my humanistic church. And society rewarded me for learning and believing it. My thoughts and actions were acceptable to the American elite. I didn’t challenge The System.

    But something happened in middle age. I turned away from the fleeting nonsense of daily life and start reading the works of Western Tradition that schools no longer want to teach. I read the Federalist and understood the basis for our Constitution. I read the Bible and discovered its tremendous power and wisdom. I started thinking of our Government philosophically instead of pragmatically as the Great Wizard who solves problems.

    Now I can say that humanity is selfish and evil by nature (starting with myself, by the way). Gun ownership is a restraint against factions that have the opportunity to use democracy and the Government as an agent to pursue their selfish and evil desires.

    Those factions could comprise a large majority of the population. That’s why we need checks and balances. Gun ownership is a check and balance against tyranny.

    SeeSaw, I’m sure I sound like a nut to you. But you might need that gun if some sort of right-wing Christian theocratic dictatorship evolved through our democracy, just like I particularly fear a left-wing “progressive” dictatorship evolving through our democracy.

    Reply this comment
  16. us citizen
    us citizen 15 December, 2012, 17:08

    One of the first things Germany did was take away the guns. When the nazis came, the people could not defend themselves. Dont think this cant happen again because it has in many third world countries.

    Only ill or crazy people kill like this. This is not the norm. And society should not have to suffer in defending themselves over an anomaly.

    As far as BO goes…….I call them as I see them. You can believe anything you want to and so can I.

    Reply this comment
  17. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 15 December, 2012, 17:12

    Gun Owner don’t blame seesaw, she was an abused child and b/c of that her mental logic is severely lacking 😉

    Reply this comment
  18. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 19:42

    Oh really, Dys? How come is it that Prop 30 passed, Prop 32 failed, and BO was re-elected? Looks like my thinking outdid your’s–ha-ha. Truth hurts, huh.

    Not so Rex. I was raised on a farm in WY by good parents; went to good schools, and had plenty food to eat–no abuse background at all in my lifetime! I hope you can say the same about your own pre-adult life.

    Reply this comment
  19. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 19:54

    U.S. Citizen, nobody is coming to take your gun, so don’t get excited. I agree that this was a mentally-ill person. But, how do you characterize all these gangs that are armed to the teeth and have no compunction against killing? I don’t put them in a category of being mentally ill. Shouldn’t there be some regulation to put a stop to the carnage that they cause?

    Reply this comment
  20. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 20:06

    Spare it Jimmy–I went to school, and I know about the Gettysburg address and the man that delivered it. What has that to do with the world we have now! I could care less whether or not BO uses a teleprompter–such things did not exist in Lincoln’s day.

    Reply this comment
  21. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 20:15

    No Gun Owner, I am not politically hyper-sensitive. My only political activism is limited to discussion and opinions derived from observation. I do not give money to political campaigns–I vote. My personal political stance is but a small iota left of center–not hyper anything, in my book.

    Reply this comment
  22. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 20:54

    G.O, there are guns in my home–they are behind lock and key. We don’t put them in our car and go out and rob and kill with them.

    Reply this comment
  23. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 16 December, 2012, 10:01

    Saw Diane Feinstein on, “Meet the Press”, this morning. The Bill she is going to present has been in the works for years, before this incident. She advocates that assault weapons be banned from private ownership, prospectively–not retroactively. Therefore, you could keep your prescious possession. She stated that there are 900 kinds of weapons that would not be banned. Could you live with that?

    Reply this comment
  24. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 16 December, 2012, 21:15

    Saw Diane Feinstein on, “Meet the Press”, this morning. The Bill she is going to present has been in the works for years, before this incident
    ==
    It is DOA….Just like the law she tried to enforce in San Francisco when she was mayor, banning ALL handguns, struck down in a nanosecond.
    We could use instant background checks, that is what we need. Not firearm censorship.

    Reply this comment
  25. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 16 December, 2012, 21:32

    Your “DOA” prounouncements always fail, Rex. Is there one that you ever predicted right?

    Reply this comment
  26. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 17 December, 2012, 10:51

    Here’s a FACT: The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary used an assault rifle that had been banned until 2004, when the NRA and the gun nuts forced Congress to allow the law to ban such weapons of mass destruction to expire.

    In other words, he had the weapon he used thanks in part to the NRA.

    John, there is NO reason that civilians need assault weapons, 100-clip magazines, armor piercing bullets, etc., in order to hunt or protect their families. That’s not firearm censorship, Rexie, it’s reasonable controls.

    And anyone who truly believes that stopping someone from owning an assault rifle–hardly a draconian law–will allow the Nazis or the Communists or even our own American government to invade our homes may be too delusional to own a gun in the first place.

    Reply this comment
  27. double l
    double l 19 December, 2012, 17:05

    If California imposes gun control, which takes precedence CA law or the U. S. Constitution? I’m betting on the Constitution.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Related Articles

FPPC imposes regulation on political bloggers

The California Fair Political Practices Commission just ruled this week to require campaign committees to report to the State who they

As consultant, bullet-train boss helped write doomed business plan

A lengthy Comstock’s profile of Jeff Morales, the former Washington D.C. and Chicago political operative brought in to save the

Brown Declines Press Club Invite

Katy Grimes: Gov. Jerry Brown has declined an invitation to speak to the Sacramento Press Club – and what a