Obviously, California Mass Murder Means Typical Calls For “Gun Control”
Never let a good crisis go to waste
(Politico) Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Sunday he would urge Senate leaders to reconsider tougher gun control and mental health measures in the wake of this weekend’s deadly shootings near the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” the Connecticut Democrat said the recent shootings reminded him of the 2012 shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. after which “it seemed like we were on the verge of legislation that would stop the madness.”
Those measures, which would include tougher background checks on gun sales and certain mental health initiatives, ultimately failed in Congress. But Blumenthal said he would urge lawmakers to “reconfigure” the bills to focus more on the mental health provisions, where he said there could be some agreement with Republicans.
You can bet that the “reconfiguration” would still include all the restrictive measures which essentially impact law abiding gun owners, and barely impact, if impact at all, the criminals that use them. The problem here is that more mental health provisions could impact the privacy of citizens. Furthermore, there is a danger that the mental health provisions could be used in a political manner. And Congress has not been known lately for passing specific, targeted legislation. Instead, that legislation has seen the details left in the hands of political appointees and career bureaucrats.
And then there’s Mark O’Mara, who says he owns a gun and wants gun control
We have a problem with gun violence in this country. I think this much is not in dispute. The real debate is this: What do we do about it? Unfortunately, most answers to this question involve greater governmental regulation and intrusion into our lives.
Americans are fiercely independent, sometimes to a fault, and we bristle at any effort seen as trampling our inalienable rights. But the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution have never been unfettered. Each amendment in the Bill of Rights has spawned a legacy of case law that interprets, defines, refines and restricts our basic freedoms based on the values and needs of the people at the time. (snip)
We’re free from government intrusion as long as we are not doing something illegal or something that would negatively affect our community. (I can live at peace in my home; I cannot do so with a meth lab.)
Yet, heavy handed gun control would impact those who are not doing anything illegal.
A gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is the perfect, unassailable instrument for self-defense and for the protection of one’s family. To tell someone who is acting reasonably and rationally that they have to give up that right is unfathomable to the responsible gun owner. That’s why gun rights advocates have such a negative response to any perceived restrictions on gun ownership: They know, without question, that they will only use their weapon properly.
But all too often guns are used improperly, without justification, with tragic results. While we have laws preventing convicted felons from legally owning guns, we live in a reality where even properly maintained guns wind up in the wrong hands, where the overly free commerce of firearms virtually assures that some of them will be used by people with criminal intentions.
Gun rights advocates often see a comment like that as an argument for further restriction on their use of weapons, but that’s not the way I intend it. I myself am a responsible gun owner. I believe in the right to justified self-defense. I also believe that reasonable restrictions to assure that only law-abiding citizens can purchase firearms better prevents over-restriction of our Second Amendment.
Mr. O’Mara fails to make any recommendations as to what gun control measures he wants. He seems to be saying quite a bit throughout his opinion piece that the rights of law abiding citizens is super awesome, but, hey, more gun control. Let’s not forget that California has some of the strongest gun control measures in not only the country, but in the world. Yet, it’s not just nuts like Elliot Rogers using a gun for murder, but the gangs that are rampant within lots of areas of the state of California. Massive, restrictive gun control only stops the law abiding from obtaining guns, taking away the means to defend themselves.
Let’s also not forget that Rogers used a knife and his auto. Yet, no one is calling for restrictions on knives and cars, are they? Why does it seem that there is more gun violence within areas that have the most gun restrictions? Why is it that more people are killed with hammers than guns?