I just can’t seem to lay off responding to weak logic. I took a whack at some favorite libs – my Panama City posse will know these mental beanbags – the reliably wrong Diane Reeves here and the intellectual leader of the lefties in PC, Rezzyboy (Rezwan Haq) here. The News Herald has posted another exercise in illogic from a Chris Dixon of Callaway here that states:
President Obama recently revealed a comprehensive plan on gun control measures and mental health support as suggested by the vice president’s task force. I have read all the provisions and I find them to be exciting and insightful. Many of the measures do deal with guns directly, and none of those provisions violate the Second Amendment. But there are also provisions to provide more support for police officers, new training for first responders, greater support for mental health programs and providers, and more funding for classroom programs.
I am a gun owner and a parent, and I am thoughtful enough to consider all sides of an argument. I do not wish to vilify any gun owners who think the provisions overstep their boundaries. I only wish to ask them: What are you going to do about it? Meaning, if you don’t like what the president has proposed, what do YOU propose we do about this problem we have? America’s gun violence is never going to go away entirely, but if we can come together and reduce it by even a fraction — if we can prevent even one tragedy like Newtown from happening — then we must try.
I support all the new measures and provisions in the president’s plan. I hope Congress can make it a reality. I hope that you support the plan, too. But if you don’t, come up with your own plan and we can talk about it.
I know that there are a lot of readers that do not do FaceBook or care what happens in PC outside of spring break – but PC is an interesting microcosm of society that blends redneck and royalty, leftist hippies and conservative businessmen and debauched college students and peaceful retirees – all drawn to the sugar sand beaches and the emerald water. It is fun to watch.
I responded to Mr. Dixon thusly:
Mr. Dixon – First, it is disingenuous to ask “us” to propose a solution because we didn’t cause the problem. My peaceful and legal ownership of a gun does not contribute to “gun violence”. The fact that I own several weapons did not cause Sandy Hook, Columbine or any other school shooting or murder, yet we are pressed to be part of a “solution” by having our rights restricted.
We aren’t part of this problem, but we HAVE proposed an alternative. It is the same alternative that allowed schools to hold formal marksmanship classes in the 40’s, 50’s and into the 60’s without school shootings. It is the same alternative that allowed me to have a.22 rifle in my vehicle in the high school parking lot and wear a real Colt in my high school’s production of “Oklahoma!” in 1977 (my senior year).
The answer is morality. It is the presence of God and parents (two of them) who love their children and taught them right from wrong and a respect for life.
What stops you from breaking the speed limit when no cops are around? What prevents you from stealing? What prevents you from walking over to your neighbor’s yard and randomly digging a hole?
It isn’t the law – it is RESPECT for the law. No government can pass enough laws to stop any crime without a moral respect for that law. Crime is an individual decision and cannot be stopped with a corporate edict.
According to FBI statistics, there were 8,583 murders in the US in 2011 that involved guns. Rifles accounted for 323 of those murders. The weapon that Obama seeks to ban is even a smaller subset of those – but even if you accept that they all were the inaccurately named “assault weapons”, that means that we are attacking the Second Amendment rights of 311.5 million people for a murder rate of 0.001% while we are silent on another insidious class of weapons that accounted for double that rate, killing 728 people. What were those weapons?
Hands, fists and feet.
I reject your premise as fallacious that “we” must propose an alternative to the President’s proposals because we have and government and the secular humanists in America have rejected it. Perhaps you should direct your question to them.