I’ve deliberately avoided immediate, knee-jerk commentary on last week’s mass shooting on the campus of Oregon’s Umpqua Community College. Last week was not the time.
Last week and ever, our hearts and prayers go out to the friends and families of those touched by this tragedy.
I did, however, load up on industrial strength antiemetrics to short-circuit the usual reaction to Obama’s usual reaction. Trying to exploit a tragedy and score political points before essential facts are available is unconscionable and irresponsible. Even for The Man Who Would Be King. But what else is new?
So. A few thoughts on Roseburg:
- This is a hate crime. Although details remain sketchy, it appears that the shooter’s lethal rampage was directed against Christians. Peeps, this is the sort of thing that goes on in the Middle East. If that doesn’t set your teeth on edge, what will?
- On that awful Thursday, some people on the UCC campus were trained to run toward the sound of gunfire. And did. Chris Mintz is a hero.
- No, the Australian gun law model hasn’t been the raging success the Left fantasizes it is. Opines the Chicago Tribune (not exactly a shill for the NRA):
You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths. …
“We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don’t work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn’t work either.”
Captain Obvious moment: The Land Down Under? Really? Other Captain Obvious moment: Chicago. Duh.
- When it comes to reducing gun violence, here’s another blinding flash of the obvious a la Steve Chapman in Better Ways to Fight Gun Violence:
“If we hope to reduce gun crime, the answer doesn’t lie in broad laws that mostly affect people who pose no threat. It lies in targeting the criminals. Most gun control measures involve rearranging the haystack. What these initiatives do is locate the needles.”
- No law can control what’s in the heart and mind of one intent on evil and mayhem. This is a heart issue, not a hardware issue.
- If you choose not to own a firearm, fine. Why is your choice more important than mine?
This tragedy has ignited yet another debate on “common sense” gun legislation, whatever that is. I have yet to see it ignite another “national conversation” on anti-Christian bigotry and hate.
Don’t hold your breath.
Meanwhile, here are a few questions:
- The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. (That’s Bill of Rights for the lib trolls among us. Look it up.) If we’re going to start editing, pruning, reducing, rewriting, slicing, dicing, excising, or otherwise tossing out the Second Amendment, which amendments are next? What else gets cut out of the Bill of Rights? Who decides? Based on what? And where does it stop?
- Don’t forget the first clause in the 2A. Between “Militia” and “the right of the people.” It’s kind of important.
- When someone talks about taking away another person’s guns, they’re talking about confiscating private property. They’re also taking away one’s decision about how s/he chooses to defend themselves and their fam. Whatever happened to that famous Lefty “choice” mantra?
- How many responsible, law-abiding gun owners harm innocents intentionally?
- If we’re okay with dumping the Second Amendment for everyone – including responsible, law abiding gun owners, because some deranged nut case abuses it – what else are we okay with dumping? How ’bout tossing the First Amendment because some foul people abuse that, too? How ’bout dumping the Fourth Amendment? Cuz bad people hide behind that, too. And so on.
Let’s be very, very careful about dumping any portion of the Bill of Rights. Once we start down that slippery slope, where does it end – and who decides?
Oh, and when Mr. Empty Suit shows up in Roseburg on Friday, you can bet his security detail won’t be packing pea shooters.
Obama got one thing right last week: “our thoughts and prayers are not enough.” However, dumping a portion of the Bill of Rights isn’t it. So, what should be done? How ’bout we start with teaching “Character” and re-instating “Accountability”? Remember those quaint little notions?
This weekend I – like many of you – suffered the ignorant and uninformed in our social media feeds, many of them kvetching about why something “can’t be done” to stop the continuation of these violent outbursts. Perhaps like you, I was a bit dismayed at how out-of-touch leftists are in understanding the simple basics.
Something can be done: put simply, introduce character and accountability. …
The one thing the President didn’t mention in the aftermath of Roseburg is this. None of the shootings that he cited, none of the shootings from Columbine to Newtown to Aurora to Virginia Tech – NOT A ONE OF THEM – took place in a right-to-carry zone. All of them – ALL OF THEM – took place in “gun-free zones.” …
The killer in Roseburg, whose name history should forget, had no character and he feared no accountability. When those who have character enforce accountability, the President’s solution will be found.
Alan Ladd sums it up in the 1953 classic, Shane. If you haven’t seen this, you really, really should. Cuz it’s really, really good. At about 2:00:
A few more thoughts (you knew this was coming, right?):
Finally, hug your kids. Today.