Liberals and Bad Policy

In the days since the Aurora, CO massacre, there’s been tons
of liberal-speak for the need of increased gun control laws. Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy (D-NY) has proposed a ban on high-capacity magazines; Sen. Frank
Lautenberg (D-NY) has introduced a bill that would effectively cease the online
sale of ammunition, by requiring buyers to present photo identification at the
time of purchase; and Mayor Bloomberg (D-NY) even went so far as to suggest
that police officers go on strike to force the public to place pressure on
congress “to do something”. There’s also been lots of talk about the “fact”
that up until the Aurora, CO shooting suspect, James Holmes, pulled the trigger
on the first of many innocent victims, he had yet to commit a single crime.
Unfortunately, and as is usual with liberals pushing an unconstitutional
agenda, many relevant facts have been completely ignored in the effort to place
a negative spotlight on firearms.


First, before the suspect ever got to the movie theater, he
had already committed numerous federal felonies that surely would have
guaranteed him a lifetime in prison. Prior to setting out on his deadly
rampage, Holmes had built several (60, according to the Washington
) advanced explosives and triggering devices, and rigged his apartment
to explode, and kill, upon entry. According to many news sources, these devices
included hand grenades (already outlawed by federal statute), numerous jars containing
incendiary liquids, and containers filled with chemicals which, when mixed
together when triggered, would create wide-scale explosions and a devastating
fire. The mere possession and construction of such devices would bring down the
wrath of the federal judiciary and lead to a one-way ticket to Florence
SUPERMAX (home to numerous terrorists including Unabomber Ted Kaczynski). In
fact, the suspect even constructed gas grenades and used these in the preamble to
his murderous rampage. This might lead to other questions being ignored by the
liberals: had James Holmes failed to acquire a single firearm, would he have
instead rigged the theater to explode? Or carried out his rampage using
hand-thrown explosive devices? Of course, having such devices is already
outlawed and therefore, asking such questions fails to further their anti-gun


Second, James Holmes appears to have amassed a cache of
nearly 6,000 rounds of ammunition via the internet, over a period of several
months. Yet, he never came close to firing that many and thus, no matter how
many he had stored in his apartment, the only relevant number is how many he
had possession of when he carried out his deadly attack. By many reports,
it appears that Holmes first fired his shotgun and, when that emptied, moved to
his rifle, loaded with a 100-round drum magazine. When the rifle jammed, he
switched to his handgun. Preliminary reports seem to indicate that Holmes did
not reload. By all accounts, it would seem that Holmes carried and used only a tiny
fraction of the ammo that he had amassed and in fact, this small number of
rounds could easily be bought at any sporting goods store without raising a
single eyebrow. Therefore, limiting the quantity of ammunition that one can buy
online, or even outlawing its sale online completely, would have had zero
effect on the outcome of this terrible tragedy. Likely, it would also have
little impact on future mass killings as well. For example, the FBI defines “mass murder” as the killing
of 4 or more people without a cooling-off period. Even in California, where the
capacity of a magazine is limited to 10 rounds (and assuming that a suspect is
only in possession of a legal magazine), the carrying out of a “mass murder” is
still very possible. Therefore, one must ask what impact such gun-control laws
would have? Limit a single purchase of ammo to some vague quantity, and a
person simply amasses their cache over a period of time (much like James Holmes
did). Or more likely, they simply use a backdoor method to amass their cache
much quicker. Eliminating the online sale of ammo would have zero impact as
well, for all the same reasons. A person can simply make their first purchase,
wait for the “cooling off” period to expire, and then make their next purchase.
Assumingly, this would raise no eyebrows either, as the government would have
already determined that a person making such legal purchases is a law-abiding


Banning so-called “high capacity” magazines will likely have
no impact either. Here in Los Angeles, where I live, urban gangbangers prove on
almost a nightly basis that you can pass all the gun-control measures you want,
and they will simply take their business to the black market. There is no
reason to believe that a determined psychopath simply wouldn’t do the same.


The unfortunate reality is that there is simply little you
can do about “crazy”. The Secret Service frequently states that their greatest
fear is the “lone wolf”, a determined killer, acting alone, with a plan and a
means to carry out that plan. For the same reasons, such a person is also the
greatest fear of the general public. Also unfortunate is the theory that
politicians believe that they can legislate away these types of events from
ever occurring, if only the NRA would loosen the grip it has on politicians. By
all accounts, and common sense, this too is untrue. Perhaps one day, liberals
will wake up and realize guns are not the problem; people with a complete lack
for the respect of human life are the problem. Until that day comes, however, I
will proudly continue to renew my NRA membership year-after-year!