Newsom begins new anti-gun campaign

Dec. 15, 2012

By Katy Grimes

Immediately after the horrific and tragic school shooting in Connecticut Friday, opportunistic politicians all across the country jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon.

My CalWatchdog colleague John Seiler, thankfully also jumped on the politicians yesterday. “…it didn’t take long for gun-control advocates to take a bead on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Seiler said. “It’s also shameful that politicians use such tragedies to advance their tyrannical agendas.”

753d_marshmallow_shooter

Lt. Gov. jumps on bandwagon

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom wasted no time putting forth his next political campaign agenda. “For those calling for the postponement of any discussion of gun and mental health policy in America, you are wrong,” Newsom said, reported the Sacramento Bee, “Today is a clarion call to all leaders, regardless of political party.”

Newsom, one of the biggest opportunists in California politics, has clearly seen this tragedy as an opportunity to push forth another of his nutty ideas.

In 2007, when he was Mayor of San Francisco, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Mayor Gavin Newsom quietly introduced a package of gun control measures on Tuesday that would make it illegal to possess guns on city-owned property and require residents to store handguns in locked containers.”

“We should continue our efforts to restrict the use of legal guns and we will continue our efforts to stem the tide of illegal guns,” Newsom said.

Guns don’t kill people

Guns don’t kill people. Crazy people kill people. We should stem the tide of crazy people, not guns. This big social experiment to let crazy people live among us has failed. Crazy people are like a time bomb or a loaded gun, walking down the street; we never know when they are going to go off.

SUV’s don’t run over people in a crosswalk. The idiot driver behind the wheel is responsible. We are a society run by liberals who want everyone to live together, freely – except those of us who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. The controlling laws are directed at us.

Gun control and anti-gun laws only serve to weaken citizens, while gangs and crazy people collect illegal arms. But a liberal, tyrannical government wants its citizenry to live in fear. What better way than preventing citizens from protecting themselves?

“The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government,” Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote means more today than ever.

Criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear police. Because criminals go after the lowest point of resistance, citizens bearing arms are unpredictable.

Data from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation show that America has been on a firearms buying spree since the end of 2005, PJ media reported. In 2009, the FBI released preliminary 2009 crime data indicating that violent crime has been dropping at an accelerating rate since the end of 2006.

In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one weapon in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89 percent in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4 percent drop in Georgia as a whole. Ten years later, in 1991, it was reported that the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72 percent lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission, without paying a fee, and without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. For ten years in a row, Vermont remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union, and three times received the “Safest State Award,” which was ended in 2007.

Fifteen years following the passage of Florida’s concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52 percent during that 15-year period — thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.

The Center for Disease Control has admitted that there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The CDC has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the “evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws.”

51FQNh7E6jL._AA160_

Some other gun statistics:

* Guns are used 2.5 million times annually or 6,860 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than they are to take lives.

* Less than 8 percent of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

* 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse

* Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year.

* Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

God help any thug who breaks into my house… and it’s not just my German Shepherd and marshmallow gun to worry about.

35 comments

Write a comment
  1. Soquel Creek
    Soquel Creek 15 December, 2012, 11:15

    According to data from the United States Census Bureau, there is another nearly always preventable killer of Americans that takes nearly 100 TIMES more innocent lives than gun violence. If we want to debate preventable deaths, let’s broaden the discussion.
    http://www.twitpic.com/ajgers

    United States Census Bureau: Table 121. Deaths by Age and Selected Causes: 2007
    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0121.pdf

    United States Census Bureau: Table 102: Abortions by Selected Characteristics, “Total Abortions,” 2007
    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0102.pdf

    Reply this comment
  2. They want the Christian Right to stop getting guns
    They want the Christian Right to stop getting guns 15 December, 2012, 11:38

    Gun control is an issue based on socio-economic status. It is white college-educated upper middle class versus white high school-educated working class. Guess who controls all the American outlets of communication?

    Speaking of the white upper middle class, Gavin Newsom is going to be governor and then president. He’s on the forefront of all of the “progressive” advances of the Left. They are certain now that “history is on our side.” Newsom might as well recycle his old gay marriage line and adopt it for gun control:

    “This door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

    Reply this comment
  3. Left of Rio Linda
    Left of Rio Linda 15 December, 2012, 13:32

    Great write-up Katy. Write On!

    Reply this comment
  4. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 15 December, 2012, 14:39

    SUV’s don’t run over people in a crosswalk. The idiot driver behind the wheel is responsible.How stupid, we don’t buy SUV’s to kill people, but guns are bought to kill people. Enough of saying, after Columbine, after Virginia Tech, after Aurora, and now after Connecticut, that it is too soon to discuss gun laws. It is actually too late, because yet more Americans are dead, senselessly. In this case, children!!!!! Glad you explained yourself again Katy Grimes and your support for Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage! Put him along side the rest of them!

    Reply this comment
  5. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 15 December, 2012, 15:09

    I say it’s time to ban assualt type weapons and other types of guns NOW!! The only people who should have access to these weapons are police officers and the military!! Why the hell should people be allowed to have these weapons with unlimited rounds that are ment for one thing,TO KILL!! Police officers armor can’t stop a .50-caliber bullet, or movie-goer just sitting there when an armed madman enters,a college student, a high school student,and now small elementry children!!!! I support the Second Amendment and right to bear arms. But let’s get some perspective. Our Founding Fathers lived in an era of single-shot muskets. Today’s weapons equipped with high-capacity ammunition magazines have a rate-of-fire of 15 bullets per second. Our Constitution’s framers could not have imagined the lethality of modern firepower. The Glock used to attack Rep. Gabby Giffords carried 31 rounds. The AR-15 used in the Colorado theater massacre was fitted with a 100-round magazine just like the one used to help strike down small children in conn!!

    Reply this comment
  6. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 15 December, 2012, 15:19

    NTHEOC: It’s a low blow to say Katy is showing “support for Adam Lanza.” She is not.

    As to the 100-round magazine used in Colorado, it jammed. That’s because, on magazines that large, the spring easily ages and doesn’t feed the round properly. So banning them would make potential killers MORE efficient. Please do some research.

    But, pray tell, how would you confiscate the tens of millions of guns you want to ban but Americans own? I’m sure you know people, as I do, who would NEVER give up their guns. You’d have to hunt down and kill them and hundreds of thousands of other regular Americans. Are you up to doing that — personally?

    — John Seiler

    Reply this comment
  7. Why do we need weapons at all?
    Why do we need weapons at all? 15 December, 2012, 15:58

    I get nervous when experts start saying “why should people be allowed to…” and declare the purpose of things. Why should we have the Second Amendment at all, if guns are for killing? For that matter, why should the government have access to guns? Government shouldn’t be killing anyone either.

    There’s a lot of bad things going on out there in our country of 315 million that I wish people weren’t doing. Why should people be allowed to abort babies they don’t want? Why should people be allowed to engage in extra-marital sexual activity? Why should people be allowed to drink alcohol? Let’s get some perspective; these activities are costing our country in strength, money, and lives far more than powerful guns.

    If the military and police have certain weapons and the “people” don’t, the “people” are vulnerable to oppression from whichever faction controls the military and the police. And why can we trust police and military as opposed to “people?” Are they morally superior because they have a chain of command?

    I don’t trust additional restrictions on guns, because too many rich and powerful people desire to incrementally eliminate gun ownership of ordinary citizens. Private gun ownership among the common population helps to keep the rich and powerful of society in line. For example, they can’t force children into government-run educational or military institutions if the parents are armed. If they get rid of the guns over 25 years, in 50 years such people can control the money and minds of the masses without violent resistance.

    Reply this comment
  8. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 15 December, 2012, 16:02

    I KNEW IT….I KNEW IT…I KNEW IT…..!

    Forget about bodies being cold…..I knew that before the gunsmoke had even wafted away from the classrooms, SOMEONE on the Left was going to equate a reasonable pro-second amendment position as “supporting the killer” and/or “likes to see schoolchildren die”.

    Thanks, NTHEOC. You did not disappoint.

    What a despicable POS you are.

    Reply this comment
  9. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 15 December, 2012, 16:48

    Why does anyone need to own an assault rifle or semi automatic handgun that has the capacity to shoot multiple people? Let me repeat, multiple people! What possible argument can be made for allowing someone to own such hideous weapons? Assault weapons and semi auto hand guns were designed to kill Billy and Susie, not Bambi and Thumper.If a weapon with this type of capability was developed when the Second Amendment was drafted, I have no doubt it would have been worded differently. The 2nd amendment argument employed by you Rambo wannabes is a perversion of our Constitution. Oh,I can hear it now. The zealots at the National Rifle Association will soon launch into their defense of these semi automatic weapons: ‘Guns don’t kill people, people do’ and insist ‘It’s our constitutional right.”!!! The right wing shooters are not intending to hunt animals with these guns, folks. You want self defense or to go bird hunting? A two-round shotgun will do. An assault rifle or hand gun is just an invitation for horrible violence!!!!

    Reply this comment
  10. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 15 December, 2012, 16:55

    jimmydeeoc says:
    a reasonable pro-second amendment position
    ———————–
    There is NO reasonable pro second amendment position when you support people owning assualt weapons with hundreds and hundreds of rounds of ammo,gas masks,bullet proof vests,etc,etc!! But there is reason to believe you support the shooters of these massacers when you take that position! I will choose to support the victims!!

    Reply this comment
  11. ExPFCWintergreen
    ExPFCWintergreen 15 December, 2012, 17:15

    NTHEOC – this is satire, right?

    Reply this comment
  12. I see where NTHEOC is coming from
    I see where NTHEOC is coming from 15 December, 2012, 18:13

    Everyone is upset about this massacre and wants to do something to hinder something like this from happening again. Depriving private citizens of powerful guns is one proposed response. A powerful gun was used in a horrendous crime.

    Would banning various kinds of guns discourage something like this from happening as frequently? Maybe. I’m not sure such a thing can even be measured. But a mentally ill person inclined to kill might be discouraged by lack of access to such a weapon.

    What’s the price to be paid? I don’t trust the Left, and for some gun control is a strategic step to a gun ban. Guns are an important tool to deter tyranny and provide protection against criminal activity or when there is civil disorder.

    We all love the Constitution except when it is an impediment toward solving a problem. (We especially depise freedom of speech and religion, but gun ownership is high on the list, too.)

    Reply this comment
  13. Bob Smith
    Bob Smith 15 December, 2012, 19:41

    Newsom is an idiot. California has statewide preemption for gun laws. Any law SF passes of the kind mentioned would be void ab initio.

    Reply this comment
  14. ExPFCWintergreen
    ExPFCWintergreen 15 December, 2012, 22:01

    What we should be talking about in the wake of this shooting spree is why don’t the mental health bureaucracy and lawmakers focus on keeping specific mentally ill people that are a danger to themselves and/or others from obtaining weapons, and from otherwise having no constraints on their activities. Time to stop mainstreaming in every case.

    Reply this comment
  15. ExPFCWintergreen
    ExPFCWintergreen 15 December, 2012, 22:03

    Newsom is a tool, and so are Leland Yee and DiFi. In a different era they would be disregarded as detestable folks who capitalize on tragedy for political gain.

    Reply this comment
  16. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 15 December, 2012, 22:36

    Well, you can look back to Reagan for the reason why all the mentally ill people in CA are walking the streets, instead of being in Psych hospitals where they would be forced to get help.

    Reply this comment
  17. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 16 December, 2012, 08:02

    …so we are to blame Reagan for your presence here, Seesaw?

    Reply this comment
  18. Donkey
    Donkey 16 December, 2012, 09:14

    ntheoc, you have lost your mind! People do no buy weapons to kill other people anymore than they buy any tool to kill other people.

    If a sick mind is looking to kill they can use many other methods. In Rawanda it was knieves and machetes, in the China of the 1950’s it was starvation, same as it was in the Soviet Union in the 1920’s and 1930’s. You can fill balloons with propane, butane, accetelyne, or hydrogen and cause death. You could fill a balloon with pure Ammonia or chlorine gas and cause many deaths.

    You are living in one of three worlds ntheoc. Either you are seeking to take the tools that free Americans have the right to own and use for their own protection or sport in the hope that you will be able to have a more compliant population when you come for more taxes to fund your RAGWUS lifestyle. Or you actually are a fearful coward and are not mature enough to take responsibility for your own protection or those around you. Or you are in fear that the good citizens of this nation may, with good justification, begin an armed uprising against the thieving RAGWUS machine and turn your world upside down. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  19. Rye
    Rye 16 December, 2012, 09:19

    I ask only a simple question.” Do we really want to live in a country/society where only the police & military are allowed the use/ownership of firearms ?”

    Reply this comment
  20. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 16 December, 2012, 09:34

    Ronald Reagan is not responsible for letting the mentally ill walk the streets:

    By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became socially trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. Unfortunately, the mentally ill were lumped in with the developmentally disabled in these discussions.

    Simultaneously, the ACLU was pushing a mental health patients right agenda that resulted in O’Connor v. Donaldson. In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. The Governor signed a bill inspired by those who clamored for the “civil rights” of the mentally ill to be on the street and who claimed they’d be better off with community counseling.

    Reagan, didn’t close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who “know better” did it. Then finally, the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: “There is…no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one.” With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases.

    Katy

    Reply this comment
  21. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 16 December, 2012, 09:54

    You know more than I, Katy–I will take the information to heart. I do not advocate throwing people in mental hospitals at the whim of the person or people doing the committing, but we could certainly do a lot more than we are doing to help people who need it, so that they can lead future meangful lives. I worked in an area where people came in every day talking to others who were not there–and they were homeless too. My daughter was a Psych Tech in mental hospitals–they do not exist in CA anymore, except for the criminally insane.

    No Dys, Reagan has nothing to do with my existence in CA. I am not now, nor have I ever been mentally ill.

    Reply this comment
  22. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 16 December, 2012, 13:38

    I vote to have seesaw committed. Who will second that motion ??? 🙂

    Reply this comment
  23. dltravers
    dltravers 16 December, 2012, 17:14

    Drugs are illegal and easily attainable in school. I went through school being able to purchase any type of illegal drug I wanted. Knowing that I worked my ass off to keep my children off drugs.

    Once you make guns illegal then only criminals will have guns. Just like drugs, making them illegal does not keep them out or our schools.

    Look at Mexico, guns are restriced to the police and military and gun violence abounds. I did not buy a gun to kill innocent people, I own one to protect my family, myself and my property from criminals who will have guns legal or illegal.

    Cars kill and maim more people than guns. You do not have a legal right to own a car. It is a privilage granted by the state.

    We as a society, if we make guns illegal, will continue to bomb and shoot up far away countries. We will continue to rain missles on children to kill a suspect. We will continue to sell arms overseas.

    The disrespect for your basic rights will lead to a police state; been through an airport lately? We are the most surveiled people in the history of the world. All of our communications, all of our movements, our purchases, and just about everything we do is recorded to be kept in a database.

    Take the guns and make yourself feel better. Honestly think about it, a gun free society will never exsist. Someone will have them and use them against us law abiding citizens who will turn in our guns if the laws change.

    We will be left defenseless. The media circus perpetuates this type of violence as does the crap some call entertainment. How much gun violence are we exposed to by the movies, televison media on a daily basis?

    Turn it off, tune out, find a new reality. Get free. My sympathies to the families and all that suffered such loss. I don’t want to be part of your suffering in the media circus and the opportunists trying to prove a false point of logic that will lead another clown to repeat the act.

    Reply this comment
  24. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 16 December, 2012, 21:13

    Look at Mexico, guns are restriced to the police and military and gun violence abounds.
    ==
    Bets argument against gun control.
    More guns= less crime

    Reply this comment
  25. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 17 December, 2012, 10:50

    What was that part about Reagan signing the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which became the national model? It appears from your response that Reagan was in fact the one who opened the doors of our mental institutions, Katy.

    Reply this comment
  26. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 17 December, 2012, 10:54

    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.

    Katy, there is NO reason that civilians need assault weapons, 100-clip magazines, armor piercing bullets, etc., in order to hunt or protect their families. 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. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 17 December, 2012, 11:59

    “……will allow the Nazis or the Communists or even our own American government…”

    You imply these are three separate and distinct entities.

    I used to think so. As of late I am having my doubts.

    Reply this comment
  28. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 17 December, 2012, 13:39

    The ‘assault’ weapon is largely a misnomer. The term ‘assault weapon’ was invented by anti-gun fanatics to confuse those unfamiliar with guns between semiautomatic weapons, which fire once per trigger pull, and other kinds of rifles, which fire continuously.

    Most of the anti-assault weapon legislation is actually toothless and rather meaningless, and is proposed to make the lawmaker look like some kind of hero in the face of a horrible tragedy. As I said earlier, it’s opportunistic.

    Drunk driving is far more more dangerous and kills more people every year. This is political opportunism at it’s ugliest.

    And what about the crazy people who are always the perpetrators of these kinds of heinous acts? Where are the opportunistic politicians when it comes time to talk about the insane and mentally ill? Instead we now call them ‘homeless,’ and pay them Social Security.

    This is a government created problem.

    Katy

    Reply this comment
  29. Sean Morham
    Sean Morham 17 December, 2012, 14:57

    It sounds like the same who advocate rights for the insane, would argue in a few years(arter getting toothless death penalty repealed) that a life sentence is too harsh, and life sentences need to have maximum years served.
    I don t where Newsom stands on this, but I do know, based on this actions, that his morality is in the gutter.

    Reply this comment
  30. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 17 December, 2012, 17:50

    Katy says,
    The ‘assault’ weapon is largely a misnomer. The term ‘assault weapon’ was invented by anti-gun fanatics to confuse those unfamiliar with guns between semiautomatic weapons, which fire once per trigger pull, and other kinds of rifles, which fire continuously.
    ===============================
    The Bushmaster AR-15 assualt rifle — the most popular rifle in America, according to gun dealers — was the weapon of choice for Adam Lanza and has increasingly played a role in recent rampage killings. Katy, these weapons hold large ammo clips and can fire as fast as your little fingers can pull the trigger.Also, they are easily able to be converted to “FULLY AUTOMATIC”. Reports have shown that most of the children were hit at least 11 times!!! Sorry Katy, there is no logical argument you can make as to why anyone other than police or military should own these type of weapons. But as long as you support the ownership of them then you will have blood on your hands! I will continue to support the innocent children and all innocent victims of gun violence. I’m sure the mass shooters of America thank you for your support.

    Reply this comment
  31. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 17 December, 2012, 18:26

    b<stevefromsacto says:
    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.
    Here is another fact, the shooter tried to buy multiple weapons a week before the shooting and was turned down, the laws worked in his case- the guns belonged to his mother who used them for sport shooting. Nice try Steve.

    Reply this comment
  32. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 17 December, 2012, 18:27

    The Bushmaster AR-15 assualt rifle — the most popular rifle in America, according to gun dealers — was the weapon of choice for Adam Lanza and has increasingly played a role in recent rampage killings. Katy, these weapons hold large ammo clips and can fire as fast as your little fingers can pull the trigger
    ==
    Wasnt his rifle ntheoc, it was his mothers who used it for sport shooting.

    Reply this comment
  33. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 18 December, 2012, 06:50

    Mao Zedong’s dictum: “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” The rulers of every country realize that the only way to retain their control over the people is to monopolize the firearms.

    Katy

    Reply this comment
  34. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 18 December, 2012, 08:45

    CalWatchdog says:
    Mao Zedong’s dictum: “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” The rulers of every country realize that the only way to retain their control over the people is to monopolize the firearms.
    Katy
    ======================================
    This is already a done deal Katy,weak argument! No matter how many assault weapons and ammo you store down in your bunker, you will never be able to take on the gov’t. The real difference in our opinions is this Katy, I consider the children of CT victims, you consider them as collateral damage as long as you can keep your assualt weapons!!!

    Reply this comment
  35. Donkey
    Donkey 21 December, 2012, 06:38

    Ntheoc, the country of England believed that the state was all powerful too, and that a bunch of backwoods hicks could never challenge their control. Why do you see the individual today as less capable of challenging the all powerful state? 🙂

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Issues split CA GOP delegation in Congress

Typically, congressional delegations can be divided into two camps, Republicans and Democrats. Some smaller states — such as Massachusetts or

$50 Million-A-Day Budget Talks

Katy Grimes: Sen. Bob Dutton showed an appropriate level of impatience with the continuing spending bills in the Budget Conference

CalWatchdog Morning Read – September 2

De Leon panel-packing scheme died handily Loretta Sanchez tries to attract the Right ACLU: Charter schools breaking the law How a