I counted 34 separate stories about the Colorado Springs tragedy (Girl, 14, mistaken for burglar, killed by stepfather in Colorado Springs) and five about the Piedmont, South Carolina homeowner who was wounded but shot an intruder who later died (Homeowner Shoots, Kills Suspect In Attempted Home Invasion In Anderson Co). So why is the bad DGU so much more newsworthy?
As if Our Nation’s Capitol doesn’t already place enough roadblocks in the way of the right to keep and bear arms, “a D.C. Councilwoman has introduced legislation that could make the District the nation’s first jurisdiction to require gun owners to buy liability insurance.” Given that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility, I’m not sure an insurance requirement is really Constitutional. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is. How are you going to figure the cost? Allow me . . .
The anonymous commentators/opinionators over at the Montpelier, VT Times-Argus are ignoring, obfuscating and bloviating in the finest tradition of classical gun-grabbers. The T-A editorial board piece, titled On the altar of guns, features the perennial civilian disarmer’s question: How many lives must be sacrificed on the altar of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States…? Of course, who but the most insanely fascist statist would ask, How many lives must be sacrificed on the altar of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Or . . .
It’s unusual, if helpful, to have a columnist announce his lack of qualification to comment on a subject right off the bat. Don Murphy opens a piece he wrote on school safety for lohud.com by stating, “I’ll begin with the disclaimers … I’m not an educator, in law enforcement, in politics or a mental health professional nor a member of the National Rifle Association. I understand the Second Amendment but I am not a gun enthusiast. In fact I’ve never fired a gun.” Maybe you can see where this is going . . .
Political commentator Cynthia Tucker is sad. As she’s noticed, National Gun Fever Shows No Sign Of Breaking. Even worse, “Apparently, there will be no ban on assault weapons.” She apparently thinks that the way to attack these problems by encouraging future mass murderers; listing various mass casualty shootings including the names of the shooters in her articles. But, like so many wanna-be gun grabbers, she confuses reality with liberal fantasy land . . .
Reporter Michael Luo, of The New York Times reports that In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection. He sets things up by presenting a sympathetic victim and her horrifying story:
Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.
… In neat block letters she wrote, “ He owns guns, I am scared.” …
Ernest Tews has written a letter to the editor of the Asbury Park [NJ] Press, demanding regulation of gun owners. Actually he seems to think that the Second Amendment makes such a demand. He starts out conventionally enough, quoting the Second Amendment and then making the usual plaint that’s it’s just so darned hard to understand. “The Second Amendment says, ‘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.’ The Second Amendment is frustratingly non-specific, but let’s look at it as a product of the time it was written.” I think part of Ernest’s confusion here . . .
John P. Rodgers, writing at mondaq.com, has just noticed that ‘guns in cars’ laws are being considered by various legislatures around the country. Here’s a hot tip: he doesn’t appear to be in favor of them. Setting Rodgers’s opinion aside, however, let’s look at the businesses’ objections to the law. To wit . . .
I seem to be doing a lot of these pieces lately, maybe because I’m working on testimony opposing the silly-ass bills the Minnesota legislature has been trotting out to “address gun safety.” But someone has to vivisect the antis’ dissection of supposed pro-gun arguments. When I saw Richard (RJ) Eskow’s entry into the field, I just couldn’t let it pass. Optimistically titled 12 rational responses to irrational gun arguments, RJ offers little in the way of substance, relying instead primarily on quips and ad hominem attacks. Best of all, he starts by accusing the pro-2A side of relying on … quips and ad hominem attacks . . .
Welcome back, kids. I’m fisking my way through Walker Bragman’s Debunking 18 Pro-Gun Myths, so pull up a seat and we’ll press on. In part one, I only managed to rip apart one myth before hitting my self-imposed too-long-didn’t-read limit. In part deux I dealt with four more myths which gets us almost a third of the way through. So what pile of putrefied pap does Walker offer up as his Myth #6? . . .
Uh oh. The People of the Gun have the folks at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune alarmed again. This time it’s reporters Brandon Stahl and Jim Ragsdale soiling themselves over the fact that Minnesotans can actually appeal a sheriff’s denial of a permit to carry application. Worse — as far as they’re concerned — is that deciding the ultimate appeal isn’t up to the sheriff, but a judge. Worst of all is the fact that those judges make the sheriffs back up their denials with actual facts and evidence. The horror . . .