hillary-calls-for-gun-control

August 28, 2015.

Here we go again.

Once again gun prohibitionists have clamped onto a murder committed with a firearm, as usual they are using the heinous act to suit their needs.

Their new cause celebre, the high profile murder of a local TV news crew in Virginia, who were murdered while they were filming an on air segment about tourism.

I’m sure you’ve read the details, seen the live video from the TV station or the frame grab and maybe even the first person video captured by the killer.



As usual, while the bodies were still warm the gun prohibitionists were heartlessly ascending upon their soapboxes calling for more laws to be passed, more rights to be taken away, shifting the blame directly at guns and the lack of laws to protect people.

Virginia’s Governor Terry McAuliffe, a self-proclaimed “gun owner” was in front of the microphones as news was still breaking, before law enforcement had found the killer.  His sound bites included the usual rhetoric, including the need to “close loopholes” and to pass a “universal background check” system.

With the predictability of the sun rising and tax day, the social media feeds of the usual “gun bans are the answer” groups exploded as they all swooped down on the story and used it to say “we told you”, “pass laws”, “it’s the NRA’s fault!” etc.

It was disappointing to see elected officials once again using murder to push a rights restriction agenda, this was made worse by their insensitive timing and talking points which are devoid of fact.

Claiming a need to close a “gun show loophole” is nothing but grandstanding, especially when one considers that; A. there’s no such thing as a “gun show loophole” and B. the handgun was purchased legally at a dealer, month’s before it was used in the murder.  Governor McAuliffe also hit on the background check rhetoric, disregarding the fact that the murderer passed one while legally purchasing his gun.  He also spoke about the need for a waiting period, which wouldn’t have made a difference as the crime happened two months after the purchase of the gun.

Then we had heartless Hillary, she of the “what difference does it make” quote when discussing our murdered ambassador and other Americans in Libya (by weapons that she likely supplied).  This time, because it suited her agenda and looking for a boost for her free-falling likability ratings, she was “heartbroken” by this murder, tweeting about the need for more laws to prevent such tragedies from recurring.

The elephant in the room that the gun prohibitionists are avoiding is this.  You simply cannot pass a law that will stop the next person with evil intent in their heart.  They frequently talk about the little changes they want to make which are “respectful of our Second Amendment rights”.  That’s rubbish, their true intent is to nibble and nibble at our Second Amendment rights until there is nothing left, at which point they will ban and confiscate firearms from the law abiding.  Why else would they constantly mention Australia and their confiscation of property?

At our office we have noticed a trend of people calling to ask if something is legal.  The genesis of their phone call is often that they can’t find the law, which grants permission for them to do what they want to do.

It’s sad that we’ve got to that point, where people have become so conditioned to government control that they seek permission via written law to exercise a right.  For the record, that’s not how it works, for government, or for the people.  Law are written to prohibit and act, not to allow an act.

Rights cannot be restricted without due process.

The first priority of legislators, at any level, is to make sure that the process of rights restriction is limited, just and within the framework of our Constitution.

Rights restriction, as in the passing of laws, which affect our Second Amendment rights, goes directly against a legislator’s reason for being.

Sadly, in this Internet age, too many have lost sight of this.  Instead of introspection and facts, we get sound bites and rhetoric.  Instead of talking about real solutions we get blame of inanimate objects.  Instead of getting rights protection, we get laws, which trample our rights in the name of “protecting us”.

No law passed will stop a person like Vester Flanagan.  Many of the proposed laws, which have and will come from crimes of this nature, will only enable evil acts to take place.

I hope that we don’t lose sight of this as we go forward, towards yet another battle with legislators and well-funded special interest group’s intent upon misguided rights restriction.

Here we go again