L. Hoy: Liberal dream is within reach

What shall we make of the most recent spasm of gun control hysteria? How shall we understand it?

A discussion about violence and depravity in both individuals and culture should include an investigation into the weaponry involved in mass killings. As such, the role of guns in crime and culture presents itself as a legitimate area for consideration. The vice president’s interviews with mental health advocates, NRA reps, video gamers and Hollywood-types struck me as solid basis for comprehensive review.

Based on outcomes, however, the VP’s broad discussions only served as a smokescreen for advancing the left’s one supreme interest: gun control and erosion of the Second Amendment.

Reducing "gun violence" forms the alleged purpose of the proposed series of executive actions and legislation. But not one single item nor all taken together could have prevented any recent mass shooting. "Controlling" the access which law-abiding citizens have to guns has not worked historically to reduce crime. Both Chicago and DC’s stringent gun control measures have only led to soaring violent crime rates.

The most recent spasm of gun control hysteria has two virtues for liberals: Doing something, anything, in the name of gun control helps them feel better about themselves — like pointlessly posting “Gun Free Zone” signs on school grounds. These proposals also serve to strip citizens of constitutionally-protected, personal freedoms, always a goal of Big State advocates.

The liberal dream of a docile, unarmed and government-dependent citizenry must seem just within the president’s grasp.

Leonard Hoy, Greenwood

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

The liberal dream

The claim that regulating gun ownership is the same as taking away a person's guns or his manhood or his second amendment rights is a straw man aimed at deflecting the truth that we have a real problem in this country with our rate of gun deaths and aimed at fueling paranoia, the hallmark of precisely the people who should not have access to guns. There is no serious legislative proposal that would outlaw gun ownership for law abiding citizens. What we do actually have is a real problem with people getting shot in schools, movie theaters, malls, churches, their beds, the campaign trail, military bases and colleges in outrageous numbers. To say that a person's right to secretly buy and sell guns takes precedence over seriously attempting to solve this problem is just plain poor citizenship. It is also taking the side of the gun manufacturers and the NRA who are just protecting their ability to make blood money selling guns to drug cartels and inner city gun bangers without having it be traced back to them. Saying that the solution is for everybody to pack a gun is a non-solution. So is saying that the proposed gun laws won't work because current gun laws are not working without mentioning that we also have as many laws intended to make sure current laws cannot be enforced particularly those aimed at regulating the ATF. And there is no mention of countries that have put serious regulations in force which have worked. In fact no other civillized country has the carnage we have except for places like Somalia. The liberal dream is for all of us to have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised to us.

Jason Theriault's picture

NAILED IT

It is also taking the side of the gun manufacturers and the NRA who are just protecting their ability to make blood money selling guns to drug cartels and inner city gun bangers without having it be traced back to them.

That's it, right there. Also, I know of many people who use guns responsibly, and they tell me if you go to a gun show or store, all the high capacity magazines and ARs are either sold out or the price has tripled. The hysteria has pushed up gun and gun accessory sales significantly, benefiting the gun industry.

Jason Theriault's picture

This is dumb.

So more background checks are bad? Listen, you're so blinded by your conservative marching orders that anything the President proposes you will dismiss and ignore. Obama did want to expand security officers in schools that wanted them. Isn't that exactly what the NRA wanted? And the background checks, which the NRA has been for and against depending on the administration, what's wrong with that?

If you approached this sanely, you would see that the parts you're really worried about have to go through congress. So an assault weapons ban and ban on clip size won't be happening in this congress.

So take a deep breath, and regain your senses. If you can't approach this reasonably, you're opinion will be ignored.

RONALD RIML's picture

God, Lenny.....

You should be writing Porn........

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Be a good liberal solder

Be a good liberal solder Ronald. Lenny is correct. Given that most gun deaths involve handguns, these proposals will do little to nothing.

RONALD RIML's picture

Mark - It's so much more difficult to commit suicide

With a rifle. I trust that thought never crossed your mind.

And the percentage of gun-deaths that are suicides??

Guess, little man.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yet you miss the takeaway.

Yet you miss the takeaway. The takeway is that a large majority of gun deaths do not involve assualt weapons. Hence, more restrictions on assault weapons will not put a dent in the number of gun deaths.

That is the entire point of my message.

RONALD RIML's picture

So??

Where have I been banging the AWB Drum??

As you can't keep up, you need to take notes - Mark.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Some where

Some where around sixty percent of suicides are caused by guns. Some one sincerly wanting out of this life will find a way to accomplish it ( apparently forty percent find other ways). Please don't come back with they can change their minds if they use drugs etc. Those that change their minds are seeking help with their problems, which is not a bad thing at all. But if they really meant to do it they would take the drugs etc and wait for the result without telling anyone.

Betty Davies's picture

You missed the point

You noted that people who take an overdose of pills, then "change their minds are seeking help with their problems,,, if they really meant to do it they would take the drugs etc and wait for the result without telling anyone."

Imagine two people who feel awful and have decided "I can't go on!"

#1 Swallows lots of pills. Soon, the horror of realizing he's about to feel terribly ill and then die hits him. He tries to throw up the pills, or calls for help. Or maybe he does neither, but a friend happens by and calls 911.

#2 Shoots himself in the head. Period. No opportunity for second thoughts, no chance to think "better seek help!" You can't say "Oopsie" and retract a bullet back into the weapon and call 911.

Well, actually there is sometimes a chance for second thoughts, but under dire circumstances. Years ago when my work took me into hospitals I saw the following:

**a man whose hand shook at the moment of pulling the trigger. He missed his brain, just blew off his nose. Nothing left but two holes. Nothing to reconstruct. His face was bandaged except for those two holes, since if these were covered he'd suffocate.

**a man whose gunshot to the head wasn't fatal. He merely blinded himself in one eye and wound up with brain damage and partial paralysis.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

One can make the argument

One can make the argument from jumping off a tall building, bridge, or overpass. What if the structure was just not high enough to finish the intended action and the person is disabled, blind, or brain dead.

At some point, we need to realize that suicide is just part of the human condition albeit tragic and do our best to intervene early.

That is, we cannot line the world with bubble wrap metaphorically speaking just in case someone has second thoughts about executing an action of self-destruction.

RONALD RIML's picture

Guns make it so much easier

Though I remember a particular suicide I investigated - a retired Judge - who hanged himself. Years before he had been shot several times in the stomach with a .45, and claimed it was a 'suicide' attempt. When the Coroner arrived to unstring him, he examined the body for the old gunshot wounds. THAT story just didn't quite wash.

Another interesting one was a fellow sitting at the top of the stairs - half his jaw blown away - still alive. Single-shot 12 gauge by his side. No spent shell casing in the chamber. Turns out he'd 'flinched' - tried to reload - ejected the spent cartridge under a dresser in the adjacent bedroom, dropped the new cartridge down the stairs where it went behind the refrigerator - he slumped over, and while doing so - snapped the action back in place.

He eventually survived - but we couldn't rule out a second party until we'd put all the pieces (other than the jaw) together.

RONALD RIML's picture

So Lenny knows about you, Mark....

And those special spasms you get from your guns. And how you must salivate....

Jeff Johnson's picture

You're an ass.

You know, Riml, you're an ass.

God forbid that someone has a logical, well though out opinion that differs from yours.
Your pseudo-intellectual reaction is to go for the obvious personal insult... and just the fact that you go for the cheap reaction of someone orgasming over their firearms shows your true intellect.

Yes, Grandpa... I know. Shame on me for pointing out the obvious to an idiot.

Jeff Johnson's picture

Warning accepted

I apologize for the use of the word 'ass', but not the sentiment. Riml's superiority issues allow him to believe that he may belittle and name-call instead of reinforce his argument. I simply called him out. My prediction is that there will be little to no change.

RONALD RIML's picture

I nearly always reference my arguments - with links/references.

That's how debate is handled in the real - and academic worlds. Not bar-rooms.

Yet I find that I often get 'Disagrees' - with absolutely nothing to back that up. So in turn, I decided to become a disagreeable old Sum'Bitch - Name calling curmudgeon.

That certainly got your attention.

Now perhaps you and certain un-named others should rise to the standard of referencing their posts with substantiating references and links. It's not a matter of 'Superiority' but rather pride in the manner one presents their position, and the authority with which it is considered.

If one wishes to disagree - make their point - and back it up. Simply clicking a button is childish.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

One has to learn to ignore

One has to learn to ignore the Kudos. You cannot force anyone to responsd with text. That is beyond your control. Perhaps you should not take out your frustration on those who take the time to respond - let the Kudos go for it is what it is.

RONALD RIML's picture

It's a rough job, Jeff - but someone has to do it.

I used to be paid good money to be a Dickhead. Now I volunteer my time out of the goodness of my heart.

And your excuse......? And Mark's???

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Show me the facts!

Show me the facts!

RONALD RIML's picture

Show you the 'Facts?' You can't handle the Facts!!

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...