Gun Control and the Left’s Continued Predictability, Hypocrisy and Disregard of Evil

I wouldn’t bet we’ll have three straight days of sunshine here in the Pacific Northwest, but I’d always bet on the Left’s predictability, hypocrisy and disregard of evil when it comes to mass shootings.  The Left’s knee-jerk reaction will always be more “gun control.”

Whether it is the Sandy Hook shooting, the Las Vegas shooting, or, now, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the response is always the same.  Chip, chip, chip away at the Second Amendment, as if more laws will prevent bad people from doing bad things. 

So far this year, there have been 391 people shot and wounded and 91 killed in Chicago, a city with some of the toughest gun laws in the country.  Where is the outcry for those shootings/killings and innocent lives taken?  I never hear anyone on the Left talk about this to the degree that is expressed every time there is a school shooting.  Considering the vast number of people involved in these shootings are black, can we then conclude the Left is racist, something the right is accused of on a daily basis?

At the time of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the cable networks reported on the story 24/7.  In sharp contrast, the armed resource guard who shot and killed the shooter as he began his rampage at the Great Mills High School in Maryland this month, preventing a far worse tragedy, was overlooked on the CNN and MSNBC websites and I saw about 15 seconds of lip service given to the story on Fox News.   

The loudest cries for gun control come from the hypocrites in Hollywood who’ve made millions making movies depicting gun violence and have probably spent millions of dollars for their own armed security guards.  Yet, they don’t want me to defend myself.  Most recently, these same loudmouths were the recipients of the valuable time of the Los Angeles Police Department – 500 strong – to protect them while they displayed their naiveté at the Academy Awards.    Exactly how much money did these clueless celebrities donate to the police officers’ benevolent society as a “thank you” for this protective manpower? 

And, of course, there’s the National Rifle Association, which the Left would like to destroy and everything it stands for – safety and the Second Amendment.  Do they even know anything about the NRA?  Exactly how many of the criminal shooters have been members of the NRA?

I have no doubt that the far Left would be ecstatic if there was no Second Amendment.  Until they’re able to accomplish that, I have absolutely no idea what goes on in the mind of someone who thinks that if you remove guns from society, we will automatically live in Utopia.  Bad guys are bad guys for a reason.  They don’t follow rules.  They commit crimes.  They don’t care about laws.  The notion that removing guns will solve all of society’s ills is either naive or just plain stupid.  The idea we can legislate evil away is absurd. 

When drunk drivers kill innocent people while driving, where is the outcry to ban cars?

When terrorists drive trucks into crowds of innocent people, where is the outcry to ban trucks?

When terrorists create bombs that kill innocent people, where is the outcry to ban fertilizer?  Plumbing supplies?  Nails? Pressure cookers? 

When kids are bullied online and driven to suicide, where is the outcry to get rid of Facebook?

When terrorists fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of innocent people, where is the outcry to rid the skies of airplanes?

When terrorists cut off the heads of innocent people, where is the outcry to outlaw machetes?  Knives? 

When arsonists kill innocent people, where is the outcry to ban matches? 

What the Left in this country continues to disregard and fails to recognize is that EVIL exists and is behind all these actions.  These are conscious decisions to act, and, if that’s someone’s intent, they will find the means to do it – no matter what the law says.  EVIL does not exist in inanimate objects.  EVIL exists in people.

In my opinion, EVIL is ignored because it requires a judgment call and, of course, the Left doesn’t want to be judgmental.  Belief in God is waning while moral confusion is on the rise, particularly among young people.  Anonymity is protected on social media which has allowed incivility to increase and empathy to decline.  Personal interaction has decreased.  Does the notion of right vs. wrong even exist today?  I’ll leave all this to the sociologists and philosophers.  

When EVIL has been eradicated from the face of the Earth, I’ll gladly turn in my weapons.  Until then….

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Can We Legislate Evil?

If you don’t believe evil exists, you might as well stop reading and continue to believe that gun control will cure all of society’s ills.  I wrote about this at the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, and I’m writing again because the left doesn’t seem to get the point.

Having worked as an attorney in the dependency field for over twenty years, I can tell you that evil does exist.  Over my legal career, I saw the most unfathomable and unspeakable atrocities inflicted upon children by their parents that would give most people nightmares for the rest of their lives.  Dependency laws do not stop the horror.  Evil does exist.

Unfortunately, the left in this country either believes evil does not exist or that it can be legislated.

Enter Hillary Clinton, not twenty four hours after the horrific massacre in Las Vegas, who thinks the solution to this madness is gun control.  And keeping with the lockstep mentality on the left, pundit after pundit, celebrity after celebrity, legislator after legislator, began the thunderous cry for gun control.  Even Nancy Pelosi is hoping for the “slippery slope” that would eliminate the Second Amendment altogether.

What’s different this time is the left’s new mantra, and I’ve seen and heard it several times in the new from the pundits and on Facebook, “our prayers and thoughts are not enough – something must be done.”

Well, what exactly should be done?

Does anyone actually believe you can pass a law and stop people from behaving a certain way?  How many laws do we have on the books at this moment that people break every day?  Why do criminal courts exist if passing laws stop illegal behavior?  Simple.  Bad people do not follow the rules and definitely do not care about laws.  You can see how well it works in Chicago, with one of the toughest set of gun laws — 58 homicides in the last month.

I’m sick and tired of hearing about gun control; get rid of guns; get rid of semi-automatic weapons; ban automatic weapons; get rid of bump stocks; get rid of the Second Amendment.

And then what?  Will we be living in Nirvana?  Utopia?  Shangri-La? Sure.

In calling for the elimination of the Second Amendment, those advocating something so stupid don’t realize that our brilliant Founding Fathers included this Amendment, not to allow us to hunt, but to allow us, the citizenry, to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.  Every tyrant in recent history, from Hitler to Stalin to Mao Tze Tung to Idi Amin to Pol Pot, disarmed their people FIRST in order to take control.  And if anyone thinks democracy will protect us here in the United States, they are foolish.  Just consider what’s happening with the Catalans in Spain right now.  Thank God our forefathers included the Second Amendment in our Constitution.

The loudest voices with the largest audiences come from people who live in gated communities, have armed bodyguards around them whenever they’re in public, and those attending self-congratulatory events like the Academy and Emmy Awards all protected by, you got it, armed police personnel (paid for, no doubt, by the taxpayer) to protect them.  I’d like to know how many legislators on the left appear in public without some type of security team around them.  I doubt very many.  Yet, they want to disarm me while they have the luxury of having armed protection for themselves.  The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

What some don’t understand or fail to recognize is that evil will always find an outlet – be it with a gun, plane, car, truck, fertilizer, knife, machete, bomb or box cutter.  Do we ban all these instruments of potential death because someone chooses to use them to do harm to others?  To take this argument to the umpteenth level of absurdity – do we castrate every man because someone chooses to rape?

As I said, the current meme on Facebook is “Your Prayers and Thoughts are Insufficient.”  Well, maybe there aren’t enough prayers these days.  Some of you might not like to hear it, but perhaps more of us should be asking Our Father to “deliver us from evil” on a daily basis.  Whether you want to believe it or not, the Lord is far more powerful than anyone in Washington D.C.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Jimmy Kimmel: Critics Are Partially to Blame for Murders

In the wake of every horrific mass-shooting in this country, there is a predictable cycle of how Americans choose to respond. While we’re pretty united in mourning the loss of the victims, and offering our best thoughts (and prayers) to the families and the survivors who face a long battle to recovery, it doesn’t take long for the political war-drums to begin their steady beat.

Some of us ask why the violence happened. We eagerly await new details on the shooter so that we can best understand what can be done — if anything — to try and prevent such a travesty from happening again. Others don’t wait. They quickly fall back on their ideological instincts that tell them that the killer and the circumstances are far less important than the mechanism used to kill. And to them, that mechanism is known by a single encompassing word: guns.

Yes, guns are to blame, and those who support and promote gun-rights are unequivocal villains. They don’t care about victims of gun violence, and they are — for all intents and purposes — accomplices to murder.

Think I’m exaggerating that sentiment? Just listen to last night’s monologue from late-night talk show host, Jimmy Kimmel, who in the aftermath of the Vegas shooting has become perhaps the country’s most outspoken voice on gun control.

Responding to pundits and those on the Internet who have criticized him for (when few facts were known about the shooting) using his platform and the murder-victims to shame political opponents, demonize gun advocates, and push for new gun laws, Kimmel said the following:

“Well maybe it’s too soon for you because deep down inside you know in your heart, you know you bear some responsibility for the fact that almost anyone can get any weapon they want and now you want to cover yourself until the storm of outrage passes, and you can go and do your dirty business as usual.”

It was quite a statement. According to Kimmel, if you publicly disagree with his conduct or his stance on this issue, you’re partially to blame for mass-murder.

Kimmel added, “But it’s not too soon for us because we’re Americans and the last time I checked, the First Amendment is at least as important as the Second Amendment. So we will talk about it and shame on you for suggesting I we do otherwise.”

It seems pretty clear that Kimmel has no understanding of what the First Amendment actually is. It doesn’t protect him from criticism for what he says, no more than it protects those he’s lashing out at. And the people who have a problem with what Kimmel says aren’t any less of Americans — nor are they shameful — for speaking up about it. Kimmel’s remark was an example of Hollywood elitism at its worst.

But let’s get back to Kimmel’s earlier point — that those who oppose his vision (or at least his policy positions) on this issue bear some responsibility for mass-murder. That charge is both wrong and disgusting, and Kimmel has no moral high-ground from which to cast it.

You see, if Kimmel is going to evoke the names of murder victims to push for a public policy change, he has a moral responsibility to explain exactly how that change would have conceivably helped those victims. If he can’t do that (and he hasn’t done it), he should have the common decency not to use those victims as a crutch for his argument. Instead, he’s going as far as placing blame on people whose only sin is opposing legislation that wouldn’t have helped the victims in the first place.

“Do something about guns!” isn’t a solution — but that’s what we keep hearing from Kimmel and his ilk. Still, if these people want to parrot talking points (about background checks, machine guns, the gun-show loophole, suppressors, etc.) that are often at odds with the realities of existing laws, they should feel free to do it.

But none of these things are applicable to the terrible event that took place in Las Vegas. None of them. Thus, they shouldn’t be sold to the public as the answer, and they sure as hell shouldn’t be used as a benchmark for assigning blame for murder to people who don’t agree with a late-night comic’s prescription.

Now, I don’t doubt that Jimmy Kimmel — and many gun-control activists for that matter — think they’re doing the right thing. I don’t doubt that they are sincere in their desire to protect innocent people from gun violence. But guess what? So are those of us who don’t subscribe to false solutions, dishonest narratives, and hyperbolic nonsense.

My advice to Jimmy, who clearly has an earnest passion for this issue: grow up, talk to people on the other side of the argument instead of assuming they’re evil, do some research, and advance some productive solutions.

For example:

If we want to honor the victims of the Las Vegas shooting by making a change that could have possibly helped them, why don’t we look at a ban on bump stocks? These are the devices that the shooter used to essentially convert his legal weapons to illegal ones, by emulating the functionality of an automatic rifle. Sure, there would be no guarantees that people wouldn’t create their own bump stocks, but the move would at least target an area of proven concern. And I suspect the measure would receive widespread support from both sides of the aisle.

Just a thought. No moral preening attached.

A Victim Anti-Exploitation Pledge in DC

Chris MurphyThe biggest complaint I hear about the state of American politics isn’t that Washington DC is out of touch with the voters (though that’s a close second). It’s that our political discourse has become so reflexively nasty and divisive that issues can no longer be discussed rationally, and thus not be effectively addressed.

I agree. As a society we’ve regressed into a soundbite-driven culture where there is rarely a good-faith effort put forth to understand the other side of an argument. People are demonized for political disagreement, and attributed the worst possible of motivations for holding a particular view. The loudest, angriest voices tend to take center-stage, and opportunistic politicians are more than happy to feed off of the rancor…or even lead it.

The most glaring examples of this societal strife seem to come in the wake of unspeakable tragedies and appalling acts of violence that rock our nation. The terrorist attack in Orlando last week was no exception. While DC politicians were tossing acrimony back and forth, my friends on social media (including some who rarely discuss politics) were similarly trashing each other with heated, overly personal rhetoric on gun control, terrorism, and immigration.

Emotions understandably run rampant after incidents like this, and the knee-jerk inclination of many people is to demand a swift legal response that will hopefully prevent such an act from ever happening again. To them, the answer is simple, morally just, and eclipsing of any legal nuances that may apply. Thus, those putting forth a conflicting diagnosis, a non-legislative solution, or an unwelcome complication like constitutional rights are often viewed as heartless obstructionists — or worse: enablers of the type of people who would commit such violence.

The finger-pointing, demagoguery, and political exploitation that follow rarely lead to any actual remedies. They just create more hard feelings and spawn more social division. Nothing gets fixed, and the cycle starts all over again, once the next disaster strikes.

So here’s a question: Can Americans break the cycle? Can they approach serious, emotionally-trying problems and achieve practical solutions that don’t stoke more division?

It’s tough to see how, especially when the nation’s top leaders, and those currently vying for the White House, have campaigned so successfully off of anger and fragmentation.

Still, a person can dream and try and come up with some ideas. One popped into my head the other day…

One of the regular points of contention with the legislation that lawmakers advance in response to a horrific event is that the legislation would have never prevented the event from happening in the first place.

For example, Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut, who led a filibuster last week on new gun-control measures, bolstered his case for the bills by saying, “Ask yourself what can you do to make sure that Orlando or Sandy Hook never ever happens again.”

He was then interviewed by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl over the weekend, and wasn’t able to explain how the bills in question would have stopped either the Orlando or Sandy Hook shootings. The truth, as Karl pointed out, is that they wouldn’t have. Yet, Murphy had no problem invoking specific instances of mass-murder to infer that lawmakers opposed to the bills were failing the protect citizens from the same fate as the victims.

That kind of underhandedness is a prime example of division being needlessly stoked, rather than solutions being created. It ties people’s passions to false premises, and turns people with logical objections into villains. If Senator Murphy believes that his legislation can potentially save lives, he should just say that, and make a case for it. Channeling victims that wouldn’t have been helped by it is dishonest, exploitative, and shameful.

Another example, from the other side of the aisle, came from presidential candidate Donald Trump, who used the Orlando attack to further justify his proposal of a ban on immigration from Syria and other countries with ties to terrorism. The problem, of course, is that the Orlando killer was an American citizen born in this country. No immigration ban would have stopped him. It was another false solution to a serious problem, and the victims in the Orlando attack shouldn’t have been exploited in an attempt to substantiate it.

Here’s my idea:

Imagine voters coming up with a written commitment (maybe called “The Victim Anti-Exploitation Pledge”) that they insisted their elected representatives sign. Imagine that pledge committing candidates and incumbents to abstaining from identifying victims with proposed legislation that wouldn’t have reasonably helped protect those victims.

The pledge could state in no uncertain terms that if you’re putting forth a bill to keep potential victims safe, you don’t get to promote it on the backs of real victims whose fate wouldn’t have been changed because of it. If you’re going to invoke specific sufferers or fatalities to justify legislation, you need to demonstrate precisely how it would have helped those individuals. And if a lawmaker who signed the pledge later broke it, he or she would be subject to a public censure from either their colleagues (who also signed the bill) or their constituents.

Sure, some would argue that the validity of a link between cause and effect would be subjective, but that’s usually not the case. As one can see from the Murphy interview, the irrelevance of legislation to a particular event is typically established pretty quickly, under even a small amount of scrutiny.

Of course, the pledge could not be legally binding. The point wouldn’t be to infringe on one’s First Amendment rights. The point would be to hold lawmakers accountable, and keep them focused on solving problems, rather than demagoguing their way past them for other purposes. And it would certainly be telling to listen to the explanation of lawmakers who refused to sign it.

If our elected leaders were meaningfully pressured to qualify their conduct when addressing sensitive issues, the civility that comes from it might just trickle down to the electorate and possibly even the media. We’d be a more cordial country. We’d also get a lot more done in Washington.

Get your signed, personalized copy of John Daly's thriller BLOOD TRADE

Get your signed, personalized copy of John Daly’s thriller BLOOD TRADE

Of course, this would only work if voters, in large numbers, insisted upon it. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Not enough people are engaged in politics, and a number of constituencies actually rely on false premises (and problems never being solved) in order to achieve purely ideological victories. Sadly, those types of victories — fueled by a sanctimonious sense of self-worth — are good enough for some people. They shouldn’t be good enough, however, for those who actually want problems fixed.

In a perfect model of representative government, elections themselves (and possibly term limits) would deal with this situation. Unfortunately, a detached electorate allows for indecent behavior to flourish. A pledge (with humiliating consequences for breaking it) might tone down some of that behavior.

Again, this will never happen…but like I said, one can always dream.

The Battle of Athens

In 1946, there was a rebellion in McMinn County, Tennessee, that came to be known as the Battle of Athens. Frankly, I had never heard of it until recently. I guess it took the latest campaign against the Second Amendment to remind people that there was a time when Americans had to depend on their guns to ensure their rights against their fellow Americans.

It was shortly after the end of World War II. A group of rotten politicians, a crooked sheriff and his corrupt deputies, were once again trying to steal an election by confiscating the ballot boxes and reporting the tally. It had been a way of life in the city of Athens, but this time was different. This time, a bunch of returning veterans, who had just got done fighting and bleeding for liberty in Europe and Asia, decided to put a stop to it. And thanks to their guns, they did just that by storming the sheriff’s office and rescuing the votes before they could once again be miscounted..

The battle was short-lived, as they often are when the people finally get their fill of being pushed around by bullies drawing government paychecks.

I recently got around to watching The Iron Lady with Meryl Streep doing her accent shtick as Margaret Thatcher. Her performance wasn’t terrible, and thanks to makeup, they managed to make her resemble Mrs. Thatcher. What was truly disgusting about the movie is that well over half of it was spent showing the woman shuffle around her apartment, talking to her dead husband, while suffering from Alzheimer’s.

If the producers had wanted to make the case at this late date that it’s a dreadful disease that destroys the mind and memory of those afflicted, they could certainly have based it on a fictional character, as TV has done more times than I care to think about. But this should have been the story of an extraordinarily courageous and accomplished woman, with her melancholy end, at most, a minor coda at the end of her inspiring saga.

After watching the movie, it occurred to me that there’s nothing the Left enjoys so much as depicting the lives of those they detest on stage and screen. They have already demonized or at least ridiculed the likes of Nixon, Palin, Reagan, Bush and Mrs. Thatcher. Next, I hear that the devoutly liberal John Cusack is set to produce and star in a movie about Rush Limbaugh. I don’t think it’s because they look alike.

Until I heard it from Michael Medved, I had not been aware of the fact that although only about nine percent of all Americans are left-handed, every president since 1988 has been a leftie. I’m not sure what it all means, but I’d say that in Barack Obama’s case, it has not only prevented him from being even-handed, but has let it totally dictate his political agenda.

Although I’m aware that most liberals would love to see all guns banished, I’m equally aware that Democrats, especially those up for re-election in 2014, merely want to raise their voices in moral outrage. They sure don’t want to go on record by voting for such blatant nonsense. Still, it was pretty shabby of them to pretend it was a matter of life and death that law-abiding Americans identify themselves and their legally-obtained weapons, when these are the very same palookas who insist it’s an infringement of civil rights for people to obtain photo IDs in order to vote in our elections.

Just to prove that all the liberal loons are not taking up space in the Oval Office or Congress, otherwise known as the Politburo, we have proof that they are also well-represented in Pennsylvania and Maryland school districts. In the first case, a six-year-old boy was suspended from school for pointing his finger at another tot and going “bang-bang.” Rumor has it he’s facing more serious charges now that it’s been discovered that his other fingers were loaded.

In Baltimore, a five-year-old girl who threatened another little girl, saying she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soap bubbles, was initially suspended from kindergarten for 10 days. But she had her punishment reduced to two days, thanks, no doubt, to a last minute stay of execution by the governor.

Only time will tell if these two little menaces will still grow up to be another Bonnie and Clyde, but at least nobody can accuse those school systems of not doing their level best to keep the world safe for gangbangers, psychos and jihadists.

Speaking of schools, it recently occurred to me that in my youth, criminals used to have to seek a safe haven by fleeing to countries that didn’t have extradition treaties with the United States. But, more recently, as we’ve seen with the tawdry likes of Angela Davis, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, they only have to go as far as the nearest college campus.

Perhaps the last word on the phony war on guns — the only kind of wars that liberals condone – came to me in a recent email: “Ban all gas tanks over five gallons. There is no reason on earth for people to have large capacity gas tanks except to run from the police in deadly high-speed chases.”

©2013 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write