Leftist congressmen, not letting crisis go to waste, rush out new gun restrictions

[Little-Acorn]

It's the crisis the leftists in Congress have been waiting for: A high-profile shooting of one of their own, along with a Federal judge and a nine-year-old girl. And they are faithfully following the Obama administration's advice in such situations: Never let a good crisis go to waste.

The blood of the dead is barely cold, but new legislation is being hastily written Congress to disarm insane people like this shooter... by disarming everybody.

Should we really be surprised?

There's an old saying that emergencies make for bad law. But we still have people in Congress who believe there is no bad law... and this emergency is a mighty handy thing.

It may become the first important test of the new Republican majority in the house: Can they say NO to legislation that the media and other leftists are making popular, but that is ineffective? And even unconstitutional?

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson

By SHIRA TOEPLITZ | 1/9/11 5:57 PM EST

One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday.

McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.

“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.

Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.

[crin63]

Was there any doubt that this would happen? Where was security? Who and what was security?

Better legislation would be to arm and train every citizen, then there would have been folks there to immediately dispatch the assassin. Although he would have known it was a suicide mission and may have reconsidered.

[Little-Acorn]

Was there any doubt that this would happen? Where was security? Who and what was security?

Better legislation would be to arm and train every citizen, then there would have been folks there to immediately dispatch the assassin. Although he would have known it was a suicide mission and may have reconsidered.

Many of these whackos (people who actually start shooting into crowds, at malls, post offices, schools etc.) know it is a suicide mission. The idea that they may be killed, obviously doesn't deter them... in that way, anyway.

But what most of them want, is go go out with a huge splash. They want huge headlines after the fact, crying and wailing about the ten or twenty or thirty innocent people who died, how horrible it all is, wailing and gnashing about what we could have done to prevent it, three-page exposes about the shooter's disturbed childhood and how unfair society was to him, etc. etc. To their twisted minds, that's worth getting dead over.

But if they show up at their planned execution site, start pulling the trigger, wound the first person, miss with the next shot, and then get get shot through the middle of the bod by someone in the crowd they never suspected might have his own gun, next day's headlines will be much less lurid. Some nut pulled a gun and fired two shots, wounding one. The wounded person is now recovering in the hopsital, and the nut is dead, end of story. He's a footnote on page 28, if that.

And THAT's what the whackos don't want to happen. They want huge headlines and weeks of media coverage, that's mostly why they're doing it.

If everyone is allowed to carry, most people still won't bother. I probably wouldn't most of the time. But some people will. And a nutcase like this guy will never know which people in the crowd, are the ones with their own gun. Could be the granny in the wheelchair over there, whose kids were killed in a home invasion robbery five years ago, who swore she'd never go unarmed again, and never misses her weekend hour or two at the practice range.

The deranged whacko is certainly insane. But he's obviously still coherent enough to have a goal in mind, and to do what he needs to carry it out.And he's probably coherent enough to realize that a few unknown people in the crowd who have guns and are practiced in their use, can and will deny him the splashy headlines he wants. And there's nothing he can do about it.

It's enough to make even a deranged whacko reconsider his plans. Why start shooting at a public event, if you're simply going to become dead three seconds later with little or no lurid body count to show for it?

Letting law-abiding citizens carry freely is, and has always been, the best deterrent to crime. Criminals know there will be somebody nearby who will discourage them quickly. Only in so-called "gun free zones" are the criminals guaranteed the freedom to carry out their crimes. Or does somebody think that some nutcase who is ready and willing to murder dozens of people, will turn around and obey a new "No guns permitted here" law?

[logroller]

Was there any doubt that this would happen? Where was security? Who and what was security?

Better legislation would be to arm and train every citizen, then there would have been folks there to immediately dispatch the assassin. Although he would have known it was a suicide mission and may have reconsidered.

What's odd is the shooter was ex-military and didn't kill his target-- better training indeed!