Stopping Gun Violence Requires Commitment — Not All of It Voluntary


The good news is: Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of passing more idiotic gun legislation in response to the Newtown massacre. The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill, which would actually do something to reduce these mass shootings.

Instead, the Democrats will jawbone about “assault weapons” and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring “the gun lobby” to “children.” (Which is evidently not at all like preferring the teachers lobby to children.)

Democrats are hoping to pick up another dozen congressional seats in 2014, so they need terrified women.

Just don’t expect a vote. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot afford a vote on any of these nonsense gun laws because he needs to protect the seats of Democrats who have to get re-elected in districts where voters know something about guns.

Even the stupidest politician has to know how utterly meaningless “assault weapon” bans are. (In fairness, New York’s Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Gov. Andrew Cuomo may not know.) But Democrats need to gin up the most easily fooled voters.

“Assault weapons” are defined as “whatever politicians say they are.” The guns that are banned and the ones that aren’t are functionally identical. They’re all semi-automatics.

Semi-automatics shoot one bullet per trigger pull — that’s the definition. Any handgun manufactured since the Civil War is a “semi-automatic.” The most basic self-defense revolver for women is a “semi-automatic.”

An example of a gun that is not a semi-automatic is a musket. Also those guns where a “BANG!” flag pops out when the clown pulls the trigger.

An automatic firearm — what militaries and drug cartels have — continuously fires when the trigger is pulled. They have been subject to a near-total federal ban in this country since the 1930s, so they’re irrelevant to the discussion.

The only differences in the semi-automatics the Democrats want to ban and the ones they don’t are purely cosmetic details, such as bayonet mounts or pistol grips.

When is the last time anyone was killed with a bayonet in this country? Bayonets were rarely used even during the Civil War. Obama mocked the idea of bayonets during one of his debates with Romney. Now he’s terrified of them!

Semi-automatics with bayonets are some of the guns Democrats call “assault weapons.” It would be like defining 12-inch hunting knives with camouflage-colored handles — but not those with black handles — as “assault knives.” Assault weapons are the semi-automatics that look scary to soccer moms.

An example of the intentional obfuscation about semi-automatics (or “guns”) is the “Violence Policy Center” webpage, which states: “Semiautomatic assault weapons are civilian versions of automatic military assault rifles (like the AK-47 and the M-16) and automatic military assault pistols (like the UZI).”

This would be like saying: “Little girls’ pink bedrooms are civilian versions of military prisons (like Guantanamo) and terrorist rendition prisons (like CIA Black Sites).”

Yes, exactly alike, except the “prison” part.

Since not all Democrats get to run for office in New York, congressional Democrats can’t risk taking votes on such silly laws. Your guns will be safe, but your children won’t, because we’ll still have the mentally ill showing up at movie theaters, subway stations, shopping malls and schools.

If soccer moms want to worry about something, they should worry more about schizophrenics than guns.

In the late 1980s, New York City Mayor Ed Koch tried to institutionalize Joyce Brown, a mentally ill heroin addict living on the street who went by the name “Billie Boggs” (after local television host Bill Boggs). Brown was defecating on herself, removing all her clothes, burning money, running into traffic and shouting obscenities at passers-by. In other words, she was a prototype for Occupy Wall Street.

Brown’s family desperately wanted to have Brown committed to Bellevue Hospital. A Columbia psychiatrist argued for her institutionalization. The neighbors supported her commitment.

But the New York Civil Liberties Union wanted Brown back on the street. Her NYCLU attorney, Robert Levy, boasted that “Billie Boggs” was as sane as “a member of the board of the Civil Liberties Union.”

A New York judge, Robert Lippman, agreed –- but not the way I do. Instead of ordering the entire NYCLU board institutionalized, he ordered the release of this poor, mentally disturbed woman. She promptly spoke at Harvard. (Princeton already had Peter Singer.) Then she was back on the street, taking heroin and getting into fights with other homeless people.

Schizophrenics are generally incapable of knowing they need help. Without involuntary commitment, they are abandoned to the streets, getting beaten up, sexually abused, stolen from and set on fire. They also sometimes push people onto subway tracks, murder grandmothers, slaughter firemen and enter “gun-free zones” to commit mass murder.

But the Democrats won’t do anything about it. Even if you do not hear voices that tell you to kill strangers, liberals say: “Either we are all mad or none of us is mad.” Then they get mouthy about banning guns with bayonets. On which they will not vote. Montana’s Sen. Max Baucus has to get re-elected.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Ben Cohen

    Mass shooters are evil not insane, clinically speaking.

    • tagalog

      Mass shooters may or may not be insane. They are frequently mentally ill. One can be insane, mentally ill, and evil, all at the same time. Each term describes a different quality. Clinical terminology has nothing to do with it. "Sanity" and "insanity" are not clinical terms; they are legal terms.

      • JacksonPearson

        Add that most, if not all mass shooters are mentally ill democrats. Facts the MSM would like to somehow spin away, but can't, nor will they dare to discuss.

      • Ben Cohen

        Correct I meant legally insane. No mass shooter is outside defecating on himself or something like that.

  • UCSPanther

    The Clinton gun ban was a joke and this one will be no different.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The nanosecond the left sheds its mask is the moment that mentally ill people will not be let loose on the streets, whatever the case.

    So while they feign caring for the welfare of the kiddies, they make it impossible to shield them from those who cannot control their inner rages. As such, exposing the left's mendacity will go a long way towards protecting the innocent, young or old – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/03/leftists-go-p

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • DDS

    Controlling law abiding gun owners is relatively cheap…. but not as easy as the left might think. One need only ask General Gage.

    Controlling the mentally ill is neither easy or cheap. Neither is providing security for school kids. Thats why neither party is willing to consider doing either.

    But as David Codrea says, "Anyone who cannot be trusted to posess a firearm cannot be trusted in public without a custodian".

    The bottom line is: it is our government, they must do what we tell them to do! Turn off DWTS, put down the remote, and demand your congress critter do their job!

  • RedWhiteAndJew

    Perhaps if a law was passed, guaranteeing the involuntarily committed still had the right to vote, more dims would sign-on to a more sensible approach. The deeply insane and reality optional set is a small, but reliable, dimmie constituency. Let them have their ballots marked in crayon and feces.

    • Mark

      Hear hear! That way we really can have patients running the asylum (outside).

  • tagalog

    Revolvers are NEVER semi-automatic except for the Webley-Fosbery made in the first 20 years of the 20th Century, that failed to make any progress in the market and ceased production before the 1920s. In the movie The Big Sleep, when looking into the death of Sean Reagan, Philip Marlowe mentions the name of the defunct semi-auto revolver to one of the police detectives as they pull the submerged car that Reagan was in from the bay. That's the only revolver I know of that was made semi-auto.. Revolvers are double-action or single-action.

    The operative part of "semi-automatic" that is being missed is that a semi-automatic pistol also loads a new cartridge into the chamber and recocks the pistol by mechanical operation typically put into motion by the gas expended by the fired round and not by human action. Revolvers don't do that; the "reloading" of a new round is accomplished by the cocking of the trigger also operating a pawl that turns the revolver's cylinder. In a revolver the trigger is always cocked by some human involvement, namely, either squeezing the trigger (in a double-action revolver) or by pulling the hammer back (in a single-action revolver). It's misleading to call revolvers "semi-automatic" because double-action revolvers can turn a cylinder, cock, and fire as the result of the shooter squeezing the trigger.

    Nevertheless, Ms. Coulter is correct in saying that it is very dangerous to allow legislators to create a bogus definition just to suit their collective prejudices. There IS a definition of the term "assault rifle," but if they used the correct definition, they couldn't reach the kinds of firearms they want to reach. An "assault rifle" is a rifle that is manufactured to fire as a fully automatic weapon (typically being capable of selective fire) and that fires an intermediate caliber, between pistol strength and rifle strength, e.g., 5.56 mm for American military "assault rifles," or 7.62 x 39 mm. for Soviet and Red Chinese "assault rifles." When legislators can call a semi-auto only firearm an "assault weapon" they are not only engaging in fantasy, they are extending their power to define anything as anything they want to and thereby regulate it out of existence.

    • FreeAmerican

      Ms. Coulter is merely statiing that one pull=one bullet. I agree with her assesment. Under the demmies definition, it can be considered "semi-automatic". To the term of "assault" rifle. There is no term even in the military. The term was used to instill fear into the public about particular weapons. The military refers to these weapons as simply "rifle". Her point about a particular knife being an "assault knife" accurately depicts the absurdity of these terminologies. And to the point of banning magazines, that hold a certain number of rounds, it doesn't matter how many rounds your weapon of choice holds. If we are permitted to defend ourselves (and embrace the responsibility to do so) I assure all would be "mass shooters" that one bullet from my weapon would render their "assault weapon" useless.

      • tagalog

        One pull, one discharge, is not the complete definition of the term "semi-automatic." We must be careful when we are criticizing the other side for using stupid definitions. Besides, not all revolvers are one-pull firearms. Single-action revolvers are not. To fire they require a new physical cocking of the firearm.

        On the "assault rifle," denomination, of course one mustn't forget the Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle") 44 of World War II vintage, the first "assault rifle."

        Certainly it's true that Americans who deal with weaponry professionally (and those who pay attention to firearms) don't dwell on using the term "assault rifle." They, fortunately, know better. Thank God there's someone who does.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      Revolvers are NEVER semi-automatic except for the Webley-Fosbery made in the first 20 years of the 20th Century…

      There's also the Mateba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mateba_Autorevolver

      • tagalog

        I stand corrected.

        I bet you had to look it up, though.

        Semi-auto revolvers are a really crappy idea. Too many small and breakable moving parts.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          Actually, upon reading your posting, an ad from an old Shotgun News I remember seeing, sprang to mind. Also, the manufacturer, Chiappa, has its US office here in Dayton, Ohio.

          I did rely on Google to help me with the spelling, though. :)

  • FreeAmerican

    Unfortunately those who know are not framing this conversation. The point is not that a revolver is not a semi-auto but that the politicians will find a way to categorize it as such.

  • Jim_C

    No limits to what can be purchased but all purchases subject to background check. More gun safety programs, more firearms instruction–but your gun should be registered and you should have to show proficiency for your license.

    Reasonable?

    • chhelo

      Jim C,

      No we do not need registration. Yes to training but only because we need to be to prepared. Here you go taking the bait. One step at a time until we given up a right. THere should be no negotiation. We are right they are wrong.

    • UCSPanther

      Canada has been registering guns for years, and all it has done is cost huge amounts of money with negligible benefit.

      We just got rid of the rifle/shotgun registry not too long ago, and its estimated costs: $2 billion dollars.

      Now imagine how much a US variant would cost, and see if the current government will have a prayer of running such a charade for years with the way the economy looks.

      • Jim_C

        Fair points, but the illegal acquisition of guns is a huge problem. I don't really know how else to address it.

        Though it is not elevated to a constitutional right, the reason we require cars to be registered is that they have the ability to cause death. That's common sense.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          we require cars to be registered is that they have the ability to cause death

          Do tell. That explains why we register knives, baseball bats, and rat poison.

          Oh wait.

          No, the real reason for car registration is the same as the reason for any sort of government registration: government control and government tracking.

          As far as the registration issue goes, it will do nothing to curtail crime. If the rightful owner of a gun is the victim of robbery of that gun, he can always go to the police and report its theft, and provide its serial number. Whether it was registered or not, will have zero impact on whether it is used in a crime. Likewise, it is a straightforward process for the police to trace legitimate ownership of a firearm, found at a crime scene, through its serial number. Registration will be of no additional help in these scenarios, other than cutting out a few phone calls. But the only place police work is easy, is in a police state.

          Registration, has historically been the precursor to mass confiscation.

          • Jim_C

            And government wants to track what? Your vehicle in case it was used in an accident or in the commission of a crime.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            A car is not a gun. A car bears a license plate, which can be spotted while a crime or infraction is being committed. Such is not possible with a gun. The serial number on a gun does not prevent a crime from being committed, and as you yourself tangentially note, car registration doesn't prevent accidents.

            But that's not all, of course. By treating the ability to operate a vehicle a privilege, the government may deny that privilege, based on issues unrelated to the ability to operate the vehicle.

          • Jim_C

            RW&J, you've helped clarify some points for me and I do appreciate your time.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            My pleasure.

    • tagalog

      Why? We don't require intelligence tests or literacy tests for the exercise of the right to freedom of speech.

      Watching The View or Tavis Smiley is depressingly revealing on that point. Hell, any news interview for that matter.

      Anyone who obtains a firearm and doesn't take steps to acquaint him- or herself with the workings of the thing is a damn fool.

      • Jim_C

        Free speech doesn't take life. But agree 100% on most interviews. It's why I don't get my news from TV.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          Free speech doesn't take life.

          I disagree. There is such a thing as incitement to riot, and it's illegal. The potential for it does not motivate the government to require registration of speech, though.

  • FreeAmerican

    I would no more register guns than register Christians. Get the point? It will simply become a "target" list.

    • tagalog

      I remember the scene in the original version of Red Dawn, where a Soviet soldier pries a handgun from the cold, dead hands of some American and the Cuban officer in charge tells one of his subordinates to get the BATF forms from the gun stores so that the invaders can run down the guns and the gun owners.

      Now, I'm not expecting any invasions any time soon, but the principle holds for anyone who's intent on finding the guns and confiscating them.

  • Ghostwriter

    I don't own a gun,anyway.

    • CurmudgyOneJr

      Pastor Niemoller … "When they came for ________, I wasn't one, so I didn't complain. … Then when they came for me, nobody was left to defend me …" (Paraphrased.)

      So, just because you don't own a gun, you'll toss those who do over the side? If you really are a ghostwriter, what will you do when they do the same thing to the First Amendment? How will you react when someone says to you, "It's okay. I'm not a writer anyway."

      Mighty self-serving and shortsighted.

      • Ghostwriter

        Well,CurmudgyOneJr,I have this to say. I may not own a gun but I'm not going to stop a law abiding person from owning one. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Are you satisfied NOW?

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          That's all we ask. I would never even consider trying to compel anyone to purchase a gun…or health insurance, for that matter.

        • CurmudgyOneJr

          @Ghostwriter — no, not really. I will fight as hard to protect your right to write what you want, as I will to own a gun because I choose to do so. You have stated that you don't own a gun, "anyway," so I take that to mean that you really don't care. So I repeat my question above. When will you realize that these affirmed Rights are not up to us to decide who can exercise them?

          Suppose I tell you,"I won't say that you must be a ghostwriter, and I will not stop those who tell you that you cannot be a ghostwriter." That's what you are saying, and you ask if that satisfies me? Well, um … NO! Your moderate stance (standing for NOTHING) will allow the USA to die.

          It is not just a "law" that allows a person to own a gun, it is a right affirmed by the Constitution's 2nd Amendment, just as your right to free speech is affirmed. It is RIGHT, not conferred by man or by Law. A RIGHT is not governed by law.

          How about the Right to Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness? Are you as Blasé about those?

  • Mary Sue

    Eh, Max Baucus needs to be booted out anyway because he's an idiot about Softwood Lumber, dams on Canadian rivers that flow into the US, and Cows. (cross border trade).

    Liberal feelgoodism will rule the day. Symbolism over substance.

  • CurmudgyOneJr

    Cmon, Ann, catch up with reality. The mass shooters you talk about are not the schizoid types like the woman in your article. The mas shooters are KIDS who have been put on psychotropic drugs by ill-informed doctors. That is the mental health problem that relates to school shootings. SSRI drugs CAUSE mental illness, but Big Pharma is too rich and influential (e.g. lobbying power) for the politicians to buck or even mention. Is that true of you, too?