jump to navigation

Midnight Bombers January 16, 2013

Posted by Toy Lady in guns, Musings, Not about Food, Politics, random stuff.
trackback

If you live anywhere near a radio, the internet, or any other form of communication, you’ve likely heard about the New York legislature’s newest attack on its citizens.

It’s not enough to tax us into the ground – oh no.

It’s not even enough that it’s apparently okay, in this state, for newspapers to publish names and addresses of law-abiding citizens who are, well, abiding laws.

Now they’re coming after our guns.

That’s right – I said it. I don’t care if it makes me sound like a right-wing wing-nut.

This week, our legislature, under cover of darkness, and with no discussion, no due diligence, and HEAVEN FORBID we should ask the constituents what they think, passed what’s been lauded as the “most restrictive gun laws in the country.”

In the middle of the night, with no input from the very people who are most affected, our state government passed a package of laws that essentially criminalizes a significant portion of the State’s more conservative population.

Who legislates at midnight?

And, based on the President’s press conference, I can only assume that as New York goes, so goes the nation.

Now I am aware that many people, probably even many of our readers, “don’t like” guns.  Obviously nobody in either Albany or Washington does.

And you know what?  That’s fine.  I’m not asking you to own guns, or even to like them.  That’s your prerogative.  And it’s none of my business.

Just like someone else’s guns are none of your business.

This is just so wrong, though, in so many ways.

Oh, where to start?

How about with the fact that  the horrible events at Sandy Hook and our own Webster firefighters were used as political props.

Let me repeat that.  Both the Governor of the State of New York  and the President of the United States used these tragedies as leverage to ram through unconstitutional laws.

They have used  two recent instances where mentally ill people (e.g., nut jobs) gained illegal access to weapons and used them to murder, in the first case, innocent children, and in the second, first responders.

Do I agree that these horrors are unacceptable? Of course.  But I most adamantly do NOT believe the actions of two (TWO!) criminals should be used as an excuse to unreasonably restrict the rights all of the others who would never dream of such acts?

And frankly, does anyone even believe that restricting legal gun ownership is going to matter?

Does anyone really think that, by tightening the gun laws, that’s really going to get guns “off the streets?”

Really?

Neither the Newtown killer nor the Webster shooter was a legal gun owner.  And I’m willing to bet they didn’t buy their ammo legally either.  Huh.

Then there’s the restriction on magazine size.  But I’m sure that your average school shooter would probably stop and reload after 7 shots, too.

150714_10151231456320197_194304799_n

Citizens! Hand over your guns!

The really sad thing?

They’re all pretending this is about protecting the children.

It’s not.

This legislation – and the backlash that will (hopefully) follow is about one thing, and one thing only – and it’s not the kids.

It’s about the Second Amendment, and they know it.

It’s not about hunter’s rights.

It’s not even about self-defense.

It’s about citizens having the power to overthrow a corrupt government – what it’s always been about.  And they know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Comments

1. judy norton - January 16, 2013

As you know I am not about guns especially since my daughter ended her life with one but all three of my husbands had guns. One for obsessive hunting and two and three were police officers. Your post is informative and well written. I also read a post today about another reason for the second amendment to guarantee militias in the South before the war to patrol and control slaves on a defined time table and the penalties against the general population if they did not join in the militias and patrol. Lots of information going around these days. Thanks for another perception.

More guns being sold in NM then ever before, lines out the doors of the guns stores here and a hint of violence already when some perceived they would not be able to get what they wanted. This behavior scares me. judy

Toy Lady - January 17, 2013

Judy, I’m so sorry about your daughter – it must make this sort of discussion more personal for you. :(

You know, though, that as far as the slavery thing – if I’m not mistaken, the 2nd amendment was written before there was a “the South” – it may have been interpreted in such a way, but the intention was for the average Joe to be able to join with his neighbors and keep a corrupt government in line. Kind of the way the 1st amendment was written, not to protect pornography, but to allow for that same average Joe to protest against that same corrupt government.

Ugh, there’s so much that’s been perverted by Washington (and Albany) – is it any wonder decent people are mad? At some point, patriots are going to have to get mad enough to stop it.

2. Anne - January 16, 2013

My very dear friend is one of those right-wing wing-nut gun owners. I love him dearly, and I have no objection to him owning whatever his little heart desires, legally. Which he does. We’ve had a lot of discussions on this issue, mostly he talks and I say “uh-huh.” I have no interest in guns. None. Nada. He tries to interest me, and I tell him he could put his transmission on the table and I would be no less interested than I am in his guns.

All that said, I sure don’t think more laws will help anything. Shortly after Sandy Hook, there was a report of the number of mass shootings (more than 4 casualties, in a public setting) since, I don’t know, the last 40 years or something, in the US. Seven in 2012. Seven crazy people. Out of 300 million. More gun laws are not going to identify the next seven crazy people, either. And they’re certainly not going to stop the criminals from stealing guns or buying them on the street.

I don’t pretend to have any idea what the answer is. I personally don’t think anyone needs an AR-15 for anything. If you can’t hunt with a rifle/shotgun, maybe you need some target practice.

And as for the slimy politicians, @($*#%@@@. !!!!

Toy Lady - January 17, 2013

The thing is that there’s virtually no information about how many “mass shootings” were prevented by legal gun owners. How many would-be shooters were deterred by the fact that their target area might have a pistol-packing mama? We’ll never know. There are accounts – few and far between, and never widely reported – where a would-be shooter is stopped by an armed citizen. And even if it’s only one in ten (which is the conservative estimate), that’s better than NONE in ten.

But I have to disagree, Anne, with your remark about “needing” an AR-15 – it’s not up to Comrade Andy or anyone else to tell anyone what they “need” – we could say that nobody NEEDS an SUV, or 165 cable channels, or whatever *I* don’t happen to approve of.

Anne - January 17, 2013

Absolutely. I agree that the gov’t has no business telling us what we can/cannot have. I just think AR-15s are dumb. So are Hummers. And 12,000 square foot houses. But if someone has the means to acquire them, and use them legally, they should be able to.

Toy Lady - January 17, 2013

Exactly, Anne! I have a family member who shall remain nameless who starts many sentences with “nobody should be allowed to … ” or “I don’t see why anyone would need ….” and it makes me BAT SNOT CRAZY! ;) (Don’t tell the gun police. . . )

3. tdmmom - January 17, 2013

Great article! I always enjoy reading your commentaries! You are right, Toy Lady!

Toy Lady - January 17, 2013

Thank you, TD – and thanks for commenting! :)

4. mazco34 - January 17, 2013

Overthrow a corrupt government? Can you tell me if there was ever a government that wasn’t in some fashion, “Corrupt?”

Toy Lady - January 17, 2013

I agree – government is, I think, by its nature, corrupt to some extent.

But there is (should be) an area between anarchy and totalitarianism that is acceptable. But when the people are silenced, and then when they’re disarmed, I think we’ve crossed that line – and I think any rational person knows where that path leads.

5. sjbraun - January 17, 2013

I agree totally. This gun stuff just adds to my already-gloomy feeling about our country. It’s just taking me back to when our nation was founded. The founders had such wisdom. The 2nd amendment was not a mistake! I keep thinking of the origins of Nazi Germany as well, with the dictator surrounding himself with children and disarming the public. Yet I wonder how a majority still thinks that all the legislation in the world will decrease gun violence? It will just disarm the law-abiding :( And yet, we seem to just be lying down and taking it. I can literally feel my heartbeat rise when I think about all this too much. Yet I feel helpless to do anything about it. I feel for you living in NY; all the regulation and taxes you have there must be a nightmare. Ever consider relocating, say to TX?

Toy Lady - January 17, 2013

I know – it’s getting downright scary, isn’t it?

I can’t help ask myself how many private citizens in China have guns? Or Iran, or North Korea? Or even Russia, for that matter? The really unfortunate thing is that the people the government is picking on – they’re the ones who, historically, have just sucked it up and obeyed. :(

And as to relocating – I actually asked Peeps last night how far over the edge his mom would go if, 5 minutes after dragging her her to NY, we announced that we were leaving? :shock:


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers

%d bloggers like this: