Additional Pages

Friday, December 14, 2012

Ban Lunatics First

The awful truths of the tragedy in Connecticut is that every law was broken and every means of security violated that led to this horrible event.

Adam Lanza was disturbed. He was under 21 and therefore could not legally possess a handgun. He obtained the handguns illegally. He brought them to a school, also illegally. He entered the school through its new security protocol. He began these mass killings in the administrative offices.

Think about all of that for a moment.

In a post I wrote only a few days ago, I wrote:

It might be a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics, but it is not allowed under the Second Amendment. By restricting the right to keep and bear arms they have only disarmed those who would be the victim of a lunatic, allowing much more latitude for mayhem.

We have laws against the mentally disturbed from owning weapons; from people under the age of 21 from owning handguns; from bringing firearms into a school. All of these laws were broken. Any future law will not prevent lunatics from doing damage to society if they take a mind to do so. No law was strong enough to stop this event and no future law will stop any future event.

What the laws did do, was they kept the staff of the school from owning weapons and being proficient in their use and ready to stop the mayhem at the first point of contact, which was the administrative offices where, in my mind, two or three of the individuals there should have been forced by law to be proficient in the use of deadly force to protect their students.

The narrative now, from the President's own speech was to do something about this, regardless of the politics. Which politics? How about regardless of the gun-banning politics and look at this one of two ways: 1) either ban lunatics (a thing not easily or realistically done); 2) force school administrative officers, i.e. principals, vice principals and senior staff members to become proficient in the use of deadly force including the use of firearms.

I ask which would be more intimidating to a would-be mass murderer a sign which read: Firearms Strictly Forbidden on the Premisis, or Administration is Heavily Armed and Will Defend the Students Herein?

One thing in common with every shooting I have heard of in the past few years is that each individual involved in these shootings had mental instabilities. When will the mental health system reach for some answer to these shootings other than to ban guns from the very people who might be able to stop them?

The only intended mass killings that has been stopped before it got started is the one which would have taken place at Focus on the Family, where an armed person shot and killed the would-be attacker before he got past the lobby.

I will not denigrate President Obama for being a little choked up at the press conference. The tears seemed real to me. But I will ask him bluntly: Where are those tears when children shoot children on a daily basis in Chicago? What has been done there, or in any of our major cities where gang violence kills many more children on a monthly basis than has ever taken place in a school shooting?

Cries for gun control fall on deaf ears here.

16 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Thanks. Good to see you here Wirecutter.

      Delete
    2. I'm here every day, TL - Don't comment much because you manage to cover what I have to say in your posts but in a much nicer way.

      Delete
  2. I agree with one commentary on the subject in regards to the laws disarming people who might otherwise use guns for defense.

    The people who seek out teaching positions are almost ALL liberals who are anti anything that does not follow the socialist party lines. More than 95% of them are rabidly anti
    second Amendment. Even if private possession of firearms on school property was legal and allowed less than 1 in 100 teachers would even consider doing so much less actually carrying. Teachers who are pro gun are rare these days....on the verge of becoming extinct. When it comes to schools and the safety of children I say we fire a couple of teachers/vice principals etc. and post plain clothes armed LEO in schools.

    As Daniel Greenberg points out in his blog today the ONLY thing that will stop an evil person with a gun is a good person with a gun. We cannot allow the murder of children to
    be so easy....Casino's in Vegas have better security than any school in America and that is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. TL, as in Matt Bracken's novels, I believe they will go for a permanent ban this time. I say good luck getting compliance.

    http://pluckingtheyew.blogspot.com/2012/12/let-us-be-vigilant.html

    LB

    ReplyDelete
  4. We murder more children everyday, and THEY go about there business of trying to legislate Gun control? Gun don't kill people! People kill people!

    http://www.arcticpatriot.com/2012/12/the-murder-of-children.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. This kid was, no doubt, medicated from an early age which is a contributing factor. He was also at the age for the onset of schizophrenia.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We can all agree the heart of the issue stems from pure EVIL. Until this part of the equation is addressed whether people want to or not it will increase in magnitude.

    Addressing this fully cannot be addressed in its entirety in a few paragraphs on a blog. Evil must be dealt with on a daily basis person to person morally.

    Yes, you can arm teachers, principals, all authority. Still the head of the snake remains intact.

    There is an even more widening divide between good and evil occurring as we absorb this horror. Battle lines are more clear now than ever. I am not suggesting we forget the fight at hand including preservation of the Constitution. However, we must accept whom the real enemy is, his tactics and strategy, his weakness. The weakness of all evil is manifest in God. As written in the commie manifesto, the first revolutionary was Lucifer.

    Of course, we must rely on implements of defense, but our greatest tool for the defense of our constitution is prayer and our association with God.

    If I am wrong, help me to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  7. These drugs the doctors are feeding children, to keep them calm in class, are part of the reason why these kids are snapping as they get older. When I was in school the teacher had to have skills on handling children with family problems, mental problems, and asshole parents, now they just drug them to make their life's easier. Fuckin liberals......

    ReplyDelete
  8. We murder more children everyday

    Precisely and yes, as posted numerous times, no more gun free zones. There have also been some new ones on drugs in these incidences.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We didn't have a problem arming pilots after 9/11, whats wrong with school staff being armed?
    Like I said before, let the lunatics have guns too, that way when they go nuts we can solve two problems at once. No more crazy idiot with a gun threatening citizens, no more citizens funerals.
    Thailand and Israel have armed teachers, not one innocent person harmed yet dozens of terrorist attacks on schools stopped.
    China, one of the strictest gun-control countries, basically no one but police and military can have guns, have numerous attacks on school children. Their weapon of choice, knives.
    Read what happened in China at almost the same time Sandy Hook was occurring ; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/china-school-attack-doomsday-rumors_n_2313876.html
    I see no difference between people who consciously commit crimes (criminals) and people who are insane except they are both sociopathic personalities. They need to be in cages or hanged in public.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ban the lunatics bent on destruction of that which stands in the way of their tyranny: Liberty

    My December 18th 2012 letter to Sen. Joe Manchin:

    Heading: Treason

    Dear Senator,
    You took an Oath of Office to defend and protect the US Constitution. By consequence that extends to protecting all Liberty and unalienable freedoms and rights codified in our governing documents. You are my elected representative in Congress. I have no other representation in the upper house.

    I ask of you to reply to my question:
    What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution do you not understand?

    This is a serious question. It is predicated upon the rule of law. Law that I as an American have to, and do, abide by.

    The 2nd Amendment is the supreme law of the land, just as the constitutional amendment of prohibition against slavery is. What you have proposed concerning outlawing "assault weapons", is akin to violating prohibition against slavery by permitting just a little bit of slavery.

    Please allow me to remind you the act of outlawing a particular arms, the fact of which is protected under the rule of law of the US Constitution, suggesting legislation which you have stated clearly needs to take place contrary to the supreme law of this Republic, requires a Constitutional Amendment. The very nature of the rule of Constitutional law clearly does not give you or any American the power nor right to pick or choose what is legal or not based on your political position, or of singular power of office.

    You are by law beholden to the sovereign will of the people. A people who are morally bound to respect all laws regardless of their political stance.

    I wish to stress upon you, you Mr. Manchin, are on a slippery slope. You portrayed yourself as a champion of the right to bear arms in your last election. In that portrayal, in a vivid display of firing a rifle on national television, you stated you are a steadfast proponent of the law pertaining to the 2nd Amendment in no uncertain terms. You did not prevaricate in your exhibition. It was clear at the time of your campaign you portrayed yourself as an honest moral truthful law abiding man, an American, to be trusted to defend Liberty.

    In no uncertain terms I am writing you to tell you you have violated my trust in you to protect and defend my Liberty and this Republics Rule of Law. You have violated your Oath of Office. And you propose to extend that violation via extra constitutional laws prohibiting my right to defend myself from tyranny, my natural right to defend myself, from the very tyranny you represent.

    In light of these facts, I consider your proposal to ban "assault weapons" nothing short of an act of treason.

    Respectful regards and
    your constituent,
    XXXXXXXX

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See you at the Rally Saturday? 10am WVCDL

      Delete
    2. Oh Ya?
      1st I've heard, thanks!
      Where?

      Delete
    3. WVCDL page

      https://www.facebook.com/events/139625186189301/139977019487451/?notif_t=plan_mall_activity

      Gonna let Manchin know we are pissed.

      Delete
  11. Here is evidence that meds and today's psycho babble tie to violence, especially young men.

    http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

    There will be no "Conversation" on this subject. Too much big Pharma money at stake.

    ReplyDelete