Just Wright

NBC's Bob Costas Goes On Gun Control Rant About NFL Player's Murder-Suicide | RealClearPolitics

BOB COSTAS: Well, you knew it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again: Something like this really puts it all in perspective. Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf-life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please, those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective. You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock with whom I do not always agree, but who today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.

"Our current gun culture," Whitlock wrote, "ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

"Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?"

"But here," wrote Jason Whitlock," is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

via www.realclearpolitics.com

One major problem with this view is that it simply is NOT back up by the stats or the facts. It may have an anecdotal application here and there, but the overall affect of private gun ownership by law-abiding people is heavily demonstrative of the reality that jurisdictions allow private gun ownership and/or carry have far less violent crime.
Maybe the focus should be upon enforcing the laws of gun ownership. If Jovan Belcher had a drug problem or was using addicted to narcotics--he was now a legal gun owner. If he was drinking and had a gun--he was disobeying the law. If he had domestic abuse issue, and lied about it on his gun purchase application or bought guns any other way--he was violating the law.
Costas says nothing of individual responsibility or the effects of deteriorating family units or living with and having children outside the institution of marriage or the indoctrination of gang-violence and gang-culture upon a persons values. Costas says NOTHING of what getting your head banged around while playing football does to one's psyche and mental processes.
As with so many others, Costas wants to find an easy scapegoat and an easy solution to the increasing violence in society. Sorry folks, but there are none. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water in our haste to place blame.
Americans did very well with guns up until the other above-mentioned factors and other societal ills became so commonplace.

The PJ Tatler » AG Holder OK’d Vast Spying on Innocent American Citizens

The PJ Tatler

« Christmas with Gov. Perry in Austin

Obama: Rice Removes Self from Secretary of State Consideration After ‘Unfair and Misleading Attacks’ »

AG Holder OK’d Vast Spying on Innocent American Citizens

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

December 13, 2012 - 12:44 pm

via pjmedia.com

No surprises here.

Connecticut gun law also allows concealed weapons at schools, but falls short of Michigan's legislation | MLive.com

Reports say Adam Lanza, 20, entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and killed 26 people, including 20 children. Lanza was also found dead, apparently of a self-inflicted gunshot.

Backers of laws allowing concealed handguns in schools, colleges and other places where they are banned say they could deter or limit mass shootings, especially where only the gunman is armed.

Connecticut law allows guns at public or private schools if the person has a firearm carrying permit and obtains school permission. Permit holders must be at least 21 and pass a criminal background test.

Michigan lawmakers late Thursday and today passed sweeping reforms to Michigan’s concealed weapons law. Concealed handguns are now forbidden in schools, churches, hospitals, and other places designated as "gun-free zones." They would be allowed beginning May 1 if the legislation is signed by the governor.

Critics were quick to note parallels to the timing of the tragedy and Michigan's reforms.

“It’s time to rethink that decision, and have a long overdue and honest dialogue about gun control in Michigan. We are urging Governor Snyder to veto this legislation.” said Jessica Tramontana, spokeswoman for Progress Michigan, in a statement.

MEA President Steve Cook also called for Snyder to veto the legislation.

“Those who think that students and teachers will be safer with more guns in our schools are just plain wrong. Thinking that teachers should carry weapons and fire on threats is a recipe for even more death -- not safety,” Cook said in a statement.

“To sign this bill in light of this tragedy would be unfathomable."

House members approved the legislation, 68-41. The Senate, which had passed a version earlier, concurred on minor changes in a marathon lame-duck session.

“While I believe I understand why people are trying to connect the Connecticut shooting to last night's passage of SB 59, the reality is that our new laws may actually have proven to be beneficial in such a circumstance,” said Ari Adler, spokesman for House Speaker Jase Bolger.

“Michigan will have the most highly trained concealed carry licensees in the nation. … Having well-trained individuals with the freedom to carry a concealed pistol is a public safety asset that may very well act as a deterrent against such shootings or, if an evil criminal does strike, may prove to be the difference between life and death for many innocent bystanders. ”

State Sen. Mike Green, who sponsored Michigan's legislation, chose not to react to critics in the wake of the shooting.

"My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this senseless tragedy and with their families. As a father of five children and a grandfather to 20 grandchildren, I cannot imagine the grief and agony that those left behind are experiencing," said Green, R-Mayville.

"The loss of a child leaves behind a wound that never heals. I join with so many others in offering my prayers of comfort and support."

via www.mlive.com

How can people have such differing paradigms. Social safety has generally deteriorated as it has paralleled the decline in societal moors. Then the Liberals driving this decline simultaneously decry the violence and blame it on guns. The Liberal media fans the fires, unwittingly granting misfits the notoriety they seek, thereby grooming copycats who want the same recognition.
The first time that it happens where there is an armed citizen who pops the perp before he can work his destruction, the quicker we will see a decline in this kind of self-absorbed attention-seeking.

Gun laws in Connecticut | Ask.com Encyclopedia

Summary table

Subject/Law	Long guns	Handguns	Relevant statutes	Notes
State Permit to Purchase?	No	Yes	CGS 29–36(f), CGS 29–36(g)	Certificate of Eligibility for Pistol or Revolver required to purchase handguns. Applicants must complete an approved handgun safety course, and pass a NICS background check prior to issuance of certificate. Certificate of Eligibility valid for five years. There is a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of long guns, with exceptions for peace officers, Active-Duty military members, and holders of carry permits and hunting licenses.
Firearm registration?	No*	No*	CGS 53–202	Registration required for assault weapons purchased before October 1, 1993. There is a de facto registry of handguns maintained by the Department of Public Safety as any handgun transfer, be it from a dealer or private party, must be accompanied by an authorization number issued by the DPS and a form containing personal and weapon identification (DPS-3-C) must be submitted to DPS and local police. This form is collected and maintained on all long guns purchased from FFL dealers as well, however is not required for the transfer of long guns between private parties.
"Assault weapon" law?	Yes	Yes	CGS 53–202	Partial ban (selective fire weapons, some .50 BMG variants, an enumerated list of specific restricted features and certain brands of semi-automatic assault weapons and weapon "types".) No restrictions on magazine capacity.
Owner license required?	No	No
Carry permits issued?	No	Yes	CGS 29–28	May-Issue by statute, but Shall-Issue in practice. Permit needed to carry open or concealed. Exceptions for peace officers and Active-Duty military members. Out of state permits not valid in Connecticut, but nonresidents may apply for a Connecticut Nonresident CCW permit through the mail.
Open Carry?	No	Yes		May carry openly with permit/license.
State Preemption of local restrictions?	Partial	Partial	CGS 29–28
NFA weapons restricted?	Partial	Partial	CGS 53–202(c)	Selective fire assault weapons prohibited, unless purchased before October 1, 1993.
Peaceable Journey laws?	No	No	CGS 29–38	Federal rules observed.

Permitting system

Connecticut, by law, is a May-Issue state, as state statutes contain a suitability clause and a provision for applicants to "show good cause" for the issuance of concealed carry (CCW) permits. However, Connecticut is Shall-Issue both in practice and by Article 1, Section 15 of its Constitution: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state”, although state and local authorities have some of the broadest powers in the nation to deny, delay issuance of, or revoke a permit.^{[citation needed]}

Connecticut has a two-tiered permitting system: a 60-day Temporary permit

via www.ask.com

Connecticut gun laws are among the most restrictive of the states. Enforcement of even a small percentage of these laws would have stopped the shooter. Yet, President Obama and the whole left are out front before the blood is even dry--implying or saying outright, that SOMETHING must be done--regardless of politics.
I am betting that what he and they has/have in mind is NOT encouraging MORE teachers carrying guns in the classroom. This is the ONLY measure that will put a stop to school shootings--especially in the short-term.
One armed teacher could have possibly stopped this creep when he showed up with guns and held him for police before anyone was hurt--but probably not. But it is pretty easy to rightly assume that one armed teacher (more-so with numerous armed teachers) could have prevented such numerous murders.
But instead, Liberals race to the conclusion, having been waiting for the next "crisis" to push their ban on certain weapons that Connecticut Sate gun laws have already banned or highly restricted.

Obama will not go after legal pot | kgw.com Portland

Obama will not go after legal pot

Print

• print

Email

• Email this article

|

via www.kgw.com

Of clurse he won't. However, he is poised and ready to spring--on his own,if necessary as implied by his recent comments in the wake of the Connecticut shooting, to take action banning guns--even though Connecticut State's own gun laws had zilch preventive effect. He picks and chooses which laws he will enforce.
Ideologically, I am against anything that makes marihuana or any other harmful or addictive substance commercially available without any kind of supervision. [No stop. Don't EVEN give me that bogus crap in defense of MJ. I was there. I was raised in the sixties.I was liberal. I was A Liberal.Moreover, don't fool yourself into thinking there is anything good about marijuana--except as used medicinally under close supervision of a doctor--as with any other dangerous drug.It is merely another factor eating away at the judgement and morality of Americans.)
Practically, and personally, against the feelings of many great religious leaders and medical professionals and sociologists whom I respect, I can't help but have a part of me feel that the prosecution of this federally is a lost cause. I totally disagree regarding the priorities of our president. I believe that if this local law ran counter to what is politically popular to his base or not advocated for by a minority of vocal Liberals or his own simple beliefs--President O would be on this like smoke on wheat-straw. But a part of me realizes the extreme cost of fighting the losing battle to keep pot out of the hands of so man Americans--who are willing to break the law and pay the prices and fuel the horrendous designs of the foreign drug cartels. Part of me concedes that the money used to combat this and potential tax revenues from the sales of legal weed would be better directed elsewhere--maybe PR and drug-addition treatment programs--or paying down our national debt. But this hope too is futile. It will not be used this way. It will be used to further abuse the rights of Americans and to rob theme of their dignity and to crash our government.

Comments on: I am Adam Lanza's Mother - The Blue Review | The Blue Review

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

via thebluereview.org

People want to take the easy knee-jerk route, blaming guns and enacting laws that have never worked to curb this kind of tragedy. They don't want o look at the real problems because that makes them feel helpless. It is more complicated. People want a scapegoat. Or more. They want a whipping boy. They want to feel like they have done something--even if if they have not.They want to blame someone or something tangible. Something they can quantify and sink their teeth into. Only those who feel their course of action doesn't hurt themselves want to do those things. They want to punish those who have different views of them in the process. Kick 'em while they are down. Never-mind that they may in reality be kicking themselves or at least their kids or grand-kids in the process.
This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the true problems are not uncovered and blamed, instead of the make-believe boogie-men being trotted out as usual on cue and used for ulterior motives--this problem--these problems--will only get worse.

Better go buy Yourself an Assault Rifle for Christmas

I guess I don't have to tell you that if you have want a semi-auto rifle of one of the long 22 cal or short 30 cal varieties for hunting, target shooting, or for home defense, now would be a good time to buy one--if you can find one. Sales are sky-rocketing on speculation that they will be banned soon. It is very likely that the democratic push for a ban will again succeed in the wake of people wanting to blame guns for the recent tragedies. You may even want to buy several and tuck them back for future commerce. When the ban took place under President Clinton, existing inventories and those already in the possession of private citizens were excluded, making them highly sought after and desirable, sending prices through the roof. It was also under President Clinton that many firearms were outlawed for importation--which have never since been allowed--such as those from NORINCO, all true Makarov surplus handguns, and many other military surplus collectibles. It is always interesting how the very threat of banning guns exacerbates and perpetuates the "problem". The net effect is several-fold, but not what the banners intend: 1) Only that it increases the price of well-made variants fitting the description, which may indeed make them less likely to wind up in the hands of law-abiding poor people. 2) Ensures that only criminals and wealthier Americans can afford these guns for legal purposes. 3) Increases the manufacture of cheaply made alternative arms that skirt the law--such as Tech 10's and Mac 9's such as were used at Columbine. 3) Increases the sale of "parts kits" minus one or two parts that actually make a firearm a firearm--which is perfectly legal. 4) Further divides the country regarding legal gun ownership. 5) Promotes theft of firearms among criminals as an even more valuable commodity--leading to more burglaries and greater black-market commerce by gangs and cartels. 6) Increases the flow of firearms from beyond our borders--especially from Mexico, and Central and South America where most of the true machine-guns are found abundantly due to Cold-War stockpiles that have now been compromised. Perhaps the saddest part about this whole charade, is that it further emboldens and empowers the criminal elements, especially organized crime--gangs and cartels--while penalizing legal owners of firearms. IT DOES ZILCH TO CHANGE THE HEARTS OF AMERICANS AND WILL DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF VIOLENCE DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS (MOST) OR DUE TO FAILED MORALS. I just saw a post on a blog by a gun banner who said that this would NEVER HAPPEN IN CHINA (the school shooting). But in fact this does happen in China too--they simply don't report it in the State-run media. Besides, do we really want to be like China?

via notesandnods.typepad.com

I wrote this for another blog.

Better go buy Yourself an Assault Rifle for Christmas

I guess I don't have to tell you that if you have want a semi-auto rifle of one of the long 22 cal or short 30 cal varieties for hunting, target shooting, or for home defense, now would be a good time to buy one--if you can find one. Sales are sky-rocketing on speculation that they will be banned soon. It is very likely that the democratic push for a ban will again succeed in the wake of people wanting to blame guns for the recent tragedies. You may even want to buy several and tuck them back for future commerce. When the ban took place under President Clinton, existing inventories and those already in the possession of private citizens were excluded, making them highly sought after and desirable, sending prices through the roof. It was also under President Clinton that many firearms were outlawed for importation--which have never since been allowed--such as those from NORINCO, all true Makarov surplus handguns, and many other military surplus collectibles. It is always interesting how the very threat of banning guns exacerbates and perpetuates the "problem". The net effect is several-fold, but not what the banners intend: 1) Only that it increases the price of well-made variants fitting the description, which may indeed make them less likely to wind up in the hands of law-abiding poor people. 2) Ensures that only criminals and wealthier Americans can afford these guns for legal purposes. 3) Increases the manufacture of cheaply made alternative arms that skirt the law--such as Tech 10's and Mac 9's such as were used at Columbine. 3) Increases the sale of "parts kits" minus one or two parts that actually make a firearm a firearm--which is perfectly legal. 4) Further divides the country regarding legal gun ownership. 5) Promotes theft of firearms among criminals as an even more valuable commodity--leading to more burglaries and greater black-market commerce by gangs and cartels. 6) Increases the flow of firearms from beyond our borders--especially from Mexico, and Central and South America where most of the true machine-guns are found abundantly due to Cold-War stockpiles that have now been compromised. Perhaps the saddest part about this whole charade, is that it further emboldens and empowers the criminal elements, especially organized crime--gangs and cartels--while penalizing legal owners of firearms. IT DOES ZILCH TO CHANGE THE HEARTS OF AMERICANS AND WILL DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF VIOLENCE DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS (MOST) OR DUE TO FAILED MORALS. I just saw a post on a blog by a gun banner who said that this would NEVER HAPPEN IN CHINA (the school shooting). But in fact this does happen in China too--they simply don't report it in the State-run media. Besides, do we really want to be like China?

via notesandnods.typepad.com

Harrold, Texas School Gun Policy Defended After Newtown Shooting

Harrold school superintendent David Thweatt stands by an entrance to the Harrold school, Monday, Aug. 25, 2008, in Harrold, Texas. Thweatt said his district's policy allowing employees --including teachers -- to carry concealed weapons will better protects students. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

52

12

2

12

via www.huffingtonpost.com

Why is this considered so ridiculous by large, intelligent swaths of our society. If you think about it, it is the only thing that DOES make sense.

NRA

More Guns, Less Crime in Virginia

11/27/2012

Virginia Commonwealth University Professor Thomas Baker has crunched the numbers in the state of Virginia, and has determined that gun sales in the state have climbed 73% since 2006, while the number of violent crimes involving guns has declined by more than 27%.

For years, we've heard the shrill voices of those who hate your guns. "More guns on the street means more crime!" "More guns equals more murder!" and so on. And yet, clearly that's not the case. So now the gun ban crowd is changing its tune.

Andrew Goddard, a gun control advocate in Virginia, told WTOP radio, "It's quite possible that you can sell a whole lot more guns and crime is still going down. But is the crime going down because more people are buying guns, or is the crime going down because the crime is going down?"

I don't know anyone who thinks a decline in violent crime can be attributed to a single factor. That's not the point. The point is that, despite Goddard's new assertion, the anti-gunners have been telling us that what's happening in Virginia is impossible. The point is people like Andrew Goddard think that Virginians would be safer with Chicago-style gun control laws, even though that flies in the face of logic and reality.

The point is, gun owners and the NRA have been right all along. It's the criminals, not the law-abiding gun owners, who are the issue. More guns, less crime isn't just "quite possible," it's a fact.

via home.nra.org

This phenomenon repeats itself over and again all over the United States. It is evident in virtually every jurisdiction where accurate statistics are available. It is actually very intuitive if it is thought about without undue pressure or influence to the contrary, but through years of leftist propaganda, some citizens have been convinced that what is so intuitive to believe has actually become counter-intuitive. Yes, there are particular instances where, when taken alone, would indicate otherwise--but when the overall picture is looked at, the facts are conclusive that guns in the hands of responsible citizens both deters crime and violence, and promotes the safe-handling of firearms. This leads to less gun violence.
One of the most restrained presidents in American history, advocated a national defense policy by saying, "Walk softly, but carry big stick." The implication is to never be provocative or pushy as a nation, but make sure you have the ability to inflict great harm upon any nation that pushes you into conflict.
This is also a great personal or family defense policy. To never provoke another person is good policy. But unless one has the capacity to punish anyone who abuses you or your family beyond what is acceptable, the nature of many predators is to bully and harm those whom they can.
The most violent jurisdictions in America, are those jurisdictions wherein only the criminals have firearms. Citizens have been made docile and rendered unable to defend themselves against armed criminals. They have been made to believe that only law enforcement should and can protect them. Such is a failed policy. Individuals can and should be given the right to whatever means is required to protect themselves, because law enforcement cannot. This is basic.