David Hardy's Of Arms and the Law and Sebastian's Snowflakes in Hell have pointed out something interesting about what is not happening in the wake of the massacre in Crandon, Wisconsin. The country's major civilian disarmament (aka "gun control") groups have not had a word to say about our country's most recent shooting massacre.
This seems, at first glance, rather surprising. As Mr. Hardy points out, the Brady Campaign, for example, has been quick to jump on shootings in which the death toll was significantly smaller. The fact that the killings in Wisconsin were committed with an AR-15 (the dreaded, so-called "assault weapon") makes the silence all the more deafening--the push to ban "assault weapons" is the Violence Policy Center's bread and butter, I thought (didn't their founder and executive director, Josh Sugarmann, invent the "assault weapon" terminology?).
Immediately after the Virginia Tech killings, and lasting for months afterward, the Brady Campaign website prominently featured this expression of "outrage":
(click to enlarge) 
Now, a rampage ends with seven dead, most of them teenagers (one as young as fourteen), and they can't even muster a bit of annoyance? They're not even a trifle miffed? What is different about this mass shooting that makes it so much more tolerable?
Could the reason for their apparent willingness to tolerate this shooting be that the killer was a law enforcement officer? Could it be that murders committed by agents of the government are less outrageous than those committed by private citizens? Could it be that bringing attention to the carnage wrought by an armed police officer is incompatible with an agenda of citizen disarmament?
With at least one of the so-called "gun control" groups, the silence should not be surprising--the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has already gone on record as saying that "the government must have a monopoly on force" (more here).
Dictators throughout the world, and throughout history, would certainly agree with the CSGV about that. Interesting choice of ideological allies, isn't it?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
I guess expressing 'outrage' over this mass shooting doesn't fit with the agenda
Stumble it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Their silence is not surprising at all. Remember, it was an "Only One" who committed this atrocity. Now, the gun-grabbers are tying to lay low, and hope it goes away, but it's all over the internet.
Amazing stuff. I wondered if it would go this way.
I find it interesting that the media report that I looked up, a CBS "photo essay," preferred to describe him as a "law enforcement employee." I guess that's supposed to distance him from other officers. In fairness, they did mention once that he was an officer--but in all other references he was an LE "employee."
The article also said "officials" shot him. I wonder what kind of game would have been played (by media and the LE departments he worked for) had it been an armed "civilian."
Would they have tried to characterize it as an "officer down" incident?
A week later, and still nothing. Although they're still outraged about the tool that a mass-murderer chose at VT. They're also busy tellin' it to th' man about Parker v. DC. Tut-tut you ignorant liberty types, it's a "well-regulated militia", not an "armed populace".
I hate spoil their fun and point out that the introductory clause doesn't actually alter the meaning of the right affirmed at the end. So, it's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Look, it even has the word "right" in it. In other words, a skilled (and stocked) militia is necessary to the security of a free land, so people should be able to own and carry arms without restriction. It could give any reason in the introductory clause:
"Because Ben Franklin is fat, and lots of the people like guns..."
"It's Tuesday, we have to pass some Amendments before the boss gets back, therefore..."
"We know that the Disarmament Movement will someday gain strength, they'll attempt every maneuver to disarm the people..."
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Sorry Brady Bunch, It doesn't matter what's at the beginning, and anyway, the Militia is "the whole people, except for a few public officials."
As to the excellent question about the Brady Bunch, I believe we have to first figure out just what the hell they're talking about. My Disarmer's Dictionary is well used, some of the dog-earred pages split, and some pages fell out of the binding. We know the translation of the codeword "guncontrol", but what exactly is "gunviolence"? Like the former, the words create a comically impossible scenario.
I read the whole about page on the Brady site, and even though "gunviolence" is mentioned several times, it only details confiscation of "illegalguns" and keeping guns away from kids, like the revolver that Sarah Brady's son was playing with. (What parent doesn't teach their children not to handle guns without adult supervision? Christ, my father taught me that when I was four.)
No clues this time, but your scrutiny has renewed my own interest in finding the answers.
"Because Ben Franklin is fat, and lots of the people like guns..."
Not fat, just "big-boned." ;-)
Good stuff, TJH--thanks.
Post a Comment