Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Killing the 2nd Amendment won't stop the killing

Yesterday President Obama applied his “pen and phone” approach to announce executive actions on gun control since he could not persuade Congress to enact new laws directly. Never mind the many, many gun laws already on the books that either aren’t enforced or are no deterrent to criminals determined to commit crime.

The president feels that asking Congress to provide funding for 200 new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents and 230 new FBI examiners and staff will suddenly do the trick in stopping gun violence.

As he shed crocodile tears in remembrance of Sandy Hook (though he never shed one for Americans beheaded by jihadists) Obama also called for increased government access to mental health care records (I warned about this in one of my recent print columns).

Obama said he will task the Social Security Administration to ensure that “appropriate records” are reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System pertaining not only to people who have been determined to be mentally ill or legally incompetent by a judge, but also to people “who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment.”

This means that anyone prescribed anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medication could now have “a documented health issue” that could exclude him outright from his 2nd Amendment rights. Even someone receiving Social Security benefits though a third-party representative could now be deemed “unable to manage those benefits” because of some “mental impairment”.

I don’t see any of these measures deterring gun violence. Instead I see this as a big deterrent for those seeking the care of a mental health practitioner. Under Obama’s reasoning, you now must make the choice of seeking care or possibly giving up your 2nd amendment rights.

The question is, would any of these "executive actions" have prevented even one of the mass shootings we have had in the US in the past eight years? No. How about enforcing some of the hundreds of laws on the books and start putting offenders away? That would be a great change for starters.

A plan to truly make America safer would be to announce an enforcement effort to round up the law breakers and put them away. It would send a message and take the lawbreakers off the streets, thus at least taking a step toward making it safer for all of us.

Instead, Obama is trying to use ineffective bureaucratic processes to solve a problem that cannot be solved by more regulations. Reducing crime needs to start with law enforcement. We have laws right now that would put felons, gang members and others who are in possession of firearms unlawfully in jail for five years. Why do we fail to enforce these laws?

The bureaucrats seem to think that making guns hard to buy or sell will reduce gun crime. No again. That will just make guns more expensive. Illegal drugs are expensive too. Drug users still obtain them. The costs of weapons will have no impact on crime other than to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to afford them as a measure of defense against crime. 

In fact, all the political "feel good" regulations and illegal executive orders in the world won’t change a thing, except take more guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, who then become sitting ducks to the criminals who will still have the guns. It can’t be stressed enough that the shooters in the most recent mass shootings consistently targeted “gun-free zones” over areas where citizens are free to “pack heat”. How many more times does a mass shooting in a gun-free zone have to happen before the light bulb comes on?

The other thing we need to start enforcing besides existing laws is family and cultural values. Some people hate to hear this, but the more we scoff at and reject morals, the more societal decay and violence we see. It’s been happening for decades now.

Maybe appealing to parents, schools and Hollywood to positively shape young minds would be more effective than further eroding the rights of decent citizens to protect themselves from evil-minded murderers.

Reason alone reveals that taking guns away from good people only subjects them to the dangers of bad people. At the very least, let’s apply some good old-fashioned common sense to the issue.


  1. Julie, you are such a cynic. 

    The republican majority in the house and senate do nothing and you insult the President for taking the first step. This is the true moral decay taking hold in America. 

    How many more children need to die as they did at Sandy Hook, before they do something? 

    What does the beheading by jihadists have to do with gun laws in America? 

    Do you know how many depressed people take their life each year. I have heard of several who did it in a motel room so their wife or husband didn't have to clean up after them. And as far as having your rights taken away, your speckulating. 

    "Round up the criminals" you say, who pays for that? The Republicans want smaller government. They want to run government in Washington. Oh I forgot, they are on track for the 63rd attempt to repeal The Affordable Health Care Act. Far too busy for fixing gun laws.

    Why don't you write about all the existing laws you say are on the books? Why don't you contact your representatives and senates in Washington? They might listen to you, all you tea party republicans. Maybe the Trumpeter can help.

    Better to light one candle then to curse the darkness dear.

  2. A new day reviles a CNN-ORC survey of 1000 Americans finds the public supports Obama's executive action plan at 2-1. 67% in favor. 32% oppose. 63% of gun owning households support the measures. Even the NRA agreed that their overall impact would be small. Also 51% of republicans support Obama's executive action on guns. Julie is part of a small, very vocal group linked to the NRA,who want the public to think their numbers are larger. The survey margin of error 3%. That's more facts then you will ever get from Julie. Mark Cichewicz

    1. Public support for something doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a good thing. Many Americans can’t think for themselves or are often too lazy and hesitant to examine the issues with an unbiased mind. A roomful of armed, law-abiding citizens is no threat to anyone. How many new gun laws do we need to pass before the liberals figure out that this is not a “gun issue”, it’s a “heart issue”? Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and yet gun crime is out of control. Even if Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all of the other liberal loons were successful at not only outlawing assault rifles, but closing the manufacturing facilities, gun crimes would still be committed with whatever guns remained legal/available.

      When we have liberals who can’t figure out that gun-free zones don’t deter gun violence (they, in fact, attract gun violence), we need to get people like that out of public office and replaced with those who can think clearly. It’s scary to imagine Hillary Clinton running the country – we’ve already had enough of a failure like Obama.

  3. Liberal loons...that's a new low blow even for you. I thought you were above name calling? Good to knows I'll be safe when you show up at the next mass shooting. Just hope you don't get your head blown off by the cops in the process. Good guy with a gun...bad guy with a gun, in a mass shooting who will know the difference.

    1. “Liberal loons” – yeah I might have picked that up from watching TV (probably O’Reilly). That’s extremely mild compared to what I hear from the left. I wouldn’t even say it’s “name calling” - it’s more of a label.

      Your comments make no sense. “Good to knows [sic] I’ll be safe when you show up at the next mass shooting. Just hope you don’t get your head blown off by the cops in the process”???? First of all, there likely won’t be any cops (not for at least several minutes, maybe a lot more) – only a bad guy mowing down many innocent, unarmed people. And, the attack will likely occur in a gun-free zone. Remember, the liberals have designated those zones as such to prevent anyone from bringing their guns. Do you see why I used the label “liberal loons”? I’m seriously starting to think that certain minds are not functioning properly.

      Is it better to have perhaps dozens of people massacred in a gun-free zone by an attacker with guns, or is it better to allow people to carry weapons that would likely minimize the number of innocent people slaughtered (or possibly even prevent any of those fatalities)? By the time the cops show up to a gun-free zone, you’ll likely have a huge body count. If there had been even one armed person at the Charleston church shooting, you would very likely have seen far fewer than the nine fatalities – possibly none, except for the gunman.

  4. Here comes Paul to our lady of the blogs rescue. You both have it worked out so well. Tell me Paul does she pay you for this junk? Never mind I don't want to know.

    1. No, but I have her site bookmarked along with other worthwhile sites. I do like to read her blogs but whenever I see some “liberal loon” making nonsensical arguments, I can’t help but sometimes step in to try and illuminate those minds (although, admittedly, many of those minds are highly-resistant to illumination). Julie’s got too much class to respond to every internet troll that comes through trying to wreak havoc.

      Why are YOU always reading her blogs? Trying to learn something?

  5. Paul, You are so self righteous. Read what the Pope has to say about people like you. Come to think of it, the way you object to me being Christian and gay makes me think you might be covering something up. When I was young I dated a women. It was a desaster but helped me cover up being gay. It was an ugly time in my life and hers and I don't advise anyone to do it. That's it your gay, in the closet And the Bible keeps you there.

  6. Mark,
    I’ve already addressed the points that you’ve made but I’ll GLADLY go over them again as many times as you’d like if you are sincerely interested in a biblical perspective. First of all, I’m not self-righteous. My comments about “illuminating the highly resistant minds” were meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I didn’t mean to offend. I have friends who I affectionately refer to as “liberal loons” and they’ll categorize me as a “conservative nut”. I don’t even think it’s “name calling”, but I’ll leave it at that.

    Secondly, I was a DEVOUT Catholic for the first 27 years of my life (altar boy, choir member, substitute organist, etc.) until I got saved and eventually moved to a biblically-based church. I don’t want to get into a Protestant/Catholic debate, but you’re probably aware that Francis is a much more liberal Pope than others we’ve seen over the last few decades, and he stirred up many Catholics with his “who am I to judge?” statement regarding the attitude toward gay people/priests in the Catholic church. I would argue that Jesus gave clear instructions (Matthew 18:15-17), for both clergy and laity, on how to deal with church members involved in sin. Francis is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I look to the Bible for answers and not to any particular individual or church.

    Thirdly, virtually ALL professing Christians agree that the Scriptures are God-breathed revelation which means that even though men wrote it, they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That means that we can’t cherry-pick which portions of the Bible we’ll accept and agree with, and which we’ll set aside and ignore.

    Fourthly, because we are ALL fallen sinners, we ALL have unique sinful desires. If we ALL recognize that the Bible is the Word of God, then we need to allow our thoughts, desires, motives, and lives to be guided by what the Bible (God’s Word) teaches. I am 100% heterosexual (always have been), but if the Bible were to teach that heterosexual sexual activity was sinful, I would have to identify my desires as incompatible with God’s design. And even though the Bible doesn’t prohibit opposite-sex sexual activity, it DOES place limits on that activity.

    You may have tried dating women, and you may have never developed opposite-sex attraction, but if you’re truly a Christian, you’re still bound by the same biblical constraints as a heterosexual person. The Christian life is NOT easy and that’s why Jesus Himself warned people to count the costs involved with following Him.