Tuesday, January 11, 2011
More security on the Hill and elsewhere?
In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, increased security is now a hot topic.
It never ceases to amaze me how people with little risk of attack (incl. those who carry weapons as part of their job, who live in high security buildings, have bodyguards, or live in low crime areas) seem to think that other people arming themselves for protection is a bad idea. This of course make sense given that no matter where you are in the social structure, you almost always have more to fear from those below you in the social structure. On another level, It's amazing how ordinary law-abiding citizen has become a member of the "dangerous classes," to those opposed to people exercising their Second Amendment rights. Further, the more we force people to become dependent on government, the less they will question government tactics and violation of civil liberties.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With social progressives it's all about controlling everything we do and say. How else do you baby proof society? Unfortunately, the sheriff of Pima County lost control over prudent security measures for a threatened public official. But he retained full control over his exploitative tongue.
ReplyDeleteIn order to accurately determine if any level of security would have lessened this tragedy, a careful analysis of the activity within each second of the action would be needed. Since it happened in a crowd the only safe shot would be from the top of his head to his prostate, an impossibility, . The better possibilities are all grouped in time before he got into place with the weapon. We need better screening at the point of purchase . . . this shooter is not a little nuts, he is a mental implosion who was ID'd as dangerous by novices. The government conspiracy mentality that pours out of gun owners (I am one) is getting very tired.
ReplyDeleteI never subscribed to the conspiracy mindset. I'm simply opposed to overreaching bad government. The incident in Arizona was tragic. How do you provide better security for a public official, whose community office had just been vandalized? Plain clothed security? local law enforcement? IMHO, making legal concealed carry holders stand 1000 feet away doesn't offer any protection against a determined assailant. In fact it makes matters far worse by removing citizens that could respond to a threat. Something social progressives don't now nor care to understand. Why? Because it doesn't fit their warm fuzzy fictional world.
ReplyDeleteLet's do some guessing here . . . let's assume that this kid isn't that bright, but is obsessed with a self image of being terribly bright and found the competitive academic environment to be threatening to that self image. Let's assume that the alcohol and marijuana (both highly suspected triggers for schizophrenia) abuse were to chemically enhance that self image. The army declined to put a weapon in this prospect's hands . . . it would be difficult to argue that they violated his rights/freedom at this point. Nonetheless, the State of Arizona said "No problem, would you like a 30 round magazine with that?" Requiring proficiency and sanity for a driver's license while skipping the same requirement for a device that kills at 100 yds. is colossally inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the firearm and ammo retailers were operating in good faith and within the scope of the law, the fault is not with them. This madman apparently demonstrated he was a "scary" danger that needed help. The media reported local law enforcement chose to ignore same. Society doesn't hold the young and insane accountable for their actions. For this reason, they're also not entitled to rights of responsible adults.
ReplyDeleteThanks 44 & Ridgway. Just a few comments. Believe it or not, there is a colossal difference. It is called the U.S. Constitution! Driving a car is not directly protected by the Constitution. Keeping and bearings arms is. As the Court said in Heller, the Second Amendment does not protect gun-related activity with an unlawful purpose. Further, one must look carefully and seriously at the causation issues. Would such a law as you propose have kept him from getting a gun on the black market. What is needed is some way to get the names of dangerous wackos into the proper database so they can't lawfully buy guns (with some due process rights to challenge being in the database). However, as suggested above, there is very little that can be done to keep wackos out of the black market.
ReplyDelete