Snowflakes in Hell

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat writing in the Toledo Blade, writes:

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Dan, buddy. If it ever comes to that I’m turning in my ammunition first. I suspect many of my fellow countryman would too. We have a term for the society you envision. It’s called a police state.

There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.

Yeah, because the people murdering each other in America are hunters. Not drug dealing gang members. Seriously Dan, how do you call yourself a proud American? Perhaps you’d find Russia, China or some other police state more to your liking.

And how is it that the Toledo Blade thought this was a serious enough editorial as to publish it? Is the Toledo Blade advocating bringing a police state to America? Looks like it to me.

UPDATE: Looks like David found this turd’s article too.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh too.

This is what happens when I post something before checking other blogs :)

The Senate’s token Dinosaur, Frank Lautenberg, who was well on his way toward fossilization when the NJ Democrats brought him back to life to run in place of Robert Torricelli, is pushing more gun control again. This time, adding the terrorist watch list to NICS:

The Justice Department proposed legislation on Thursday that would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.The measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, would give the attorney general authority to deny a firearm purchase if the buyer was found “to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.”

Suspects on federal watch lists can now legally buy firearms in the United States if background checks do not turn up any standard prohibitions for gun buyers, which include felony convictions, illegal immigration status or involuntary commitments for mental illness.

So Bush’s Justice Department is proposing this? More evidence that Bush is a turd when it comes to this issue. The problem with this legislation is that you’re depriving someone of their constitutional rights administratively, without any due process. Lautenberg isn’t treating gun ownership as a right here, he’s treating it as a privilege that’s granted or revoked at the whim of a federal bureaucrat.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the process took time because it involved delicate issues, including “the protection of sensitive information upon which terrorist watch listings are based, as well as due process safeguards that afford the affected individual an appropriate opportunity to challenge the denial after it is made.”

We call this “prior restraint” and it usually doesn’t fly when it comes to constitutional rights. It’s time to remind the Justice Department, and Frank Lautenberg of another part of the constitution they seem to have forgotten:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sorry, some government bureaucrat deciding you belong on a list does not qualify as due process in anyone’s dictionary. Frank Lautenberg should retire. Clearly he’s forgotten the oath he took to uphold the passage stated above.

Hat tip to The Ten Ring

Ahab reminds gun owners of something pretty important:

I carry a gun. I would guess that a pretty big chunk of my readers also have carry permits in the states of their residence. What I find extremely disturbing about the story itself is the media’s reaction. Despite the fact that the DA and the police have decided that the CCW holder was within his legal rights, there is all sorts of outcry from the dead criminal’s family. The news story linked tries to portray the dead criminal as some sort of choirboy, gunned down in the prime of life or some nonsense.

When did we start having sympathy for perpetrators of violent crime? Why is it okay to demonize someone who acted in defense of his own life in the face of violent aggression? To me, this story and the way it’s playing in the media serves as a warning to those that choose to go about armed: even if the law says that you did no wrong you can expect to be crucified in the press. Doubly so if your attacker was a youth, or if he’s a minority and you’re not, or if you shoot your attacker “several” times.

It is unfortunate to me that in this day and age, we would rather have sympathy for a young man that died reaping precisely what he had sown than express our concern for the man who has to bear that death on hisconscience for the rest of his life.

It bothers me too.  I saw this a few days ago on The Volokh Conspiracy.  There is a sentiment among some, perhaps many, in the population, that because robbers don’t usually kill their victims, that this man who was carrying a firearm to defend himself was not justified in using deadly force to stop his attacker.

I don’t subscribe to this warped sense of morality, needless to say.  When someone comes up to me and points a gun at me, what he’s telling me is:

“I value that money or object I want from you more than I value your life; your life is worth no more than whatever you might have in your wallet.”

When someone crosses the line into lowering the value of another human life to that degree, I see no reason why other people should feel any particular reason to value that person’s life at any higher level.   Whether the robber intends to shoot his victim or not, pointing a loaded deadly weapon at another human being in an inherently dangerous act.  When you decide to engage in that kind of behavior, you devalue your own life by devaluing the lives of others.  It matters little to me that this youth was fifteen.  He was old enough to pick up a gun and go try to rob people.  If he’s old enough to make that choice, he’s old enough to pay the price with his life for having made it.

I would not feel very good if I were in a position where I had to shoot a teenager in self-defense.  I suspect that Mr. Wells will also have a tough time dealing with it.  Most decent people can’t kill another human being without suffering significant psychological consequences.   I feel bad for the family of the robber, but their child suffered the consequences of his choices in life.  It’s not fair or proper to put the blame on Mr. Wells, who was merely defending himself.

Bitter beat me to the story about State Representative Jewell Williams recieving a death threat from someone near Allentown. I sincerely hope that they find the guy and get him off the streets. This is not someone we need on our side. Here’s the story:

For protection, State Rep. Jewell Williams packs a .38-caliber revolver in his North Philadelphia district and while traveling to Harrisburg.But a threatening e-mail he received yesterday has him considering a further precaution: dusting off an old bulletproof vest stored for the last seven years in his closet.

The e-mail, sent by a man Williams identified as a resident of Allentown, said Williams should be shot while in the Capitol. …

“Now that I hear this attitude of people recommending lynching, I’ll probably be wearing my gun more and possibly wearing my bulletproof vest, because we now think we’re being threatened,” Williams, a former police officer, said yesterday at a news conference calling for tighter gun laws.

Jewell Williams is a grade A bozo, and hypocrite for calling for tougher gun laws that would disarm you and me while he himself is carrying a firearm for self-protection. Who elects people who think like this?

But threatening Williams is reprehensible. I support William’s right to carry a firearm to defend himself. I really do wish he’d support mine. One bit of advise for Representative Williams, though. Body armor has a limited shelf life, I think along the lines of five years. If that vest has been sitting in the closet for a while, it’s probably better to buy some new gear. The old stuff will probably still stop a bullet, according to its rating, but it’s not a good idea to take chances if the vest is beyond the manufacturers expiration date. Get a new one!