Ten Years After Columbine, It’s Easier to Bear Arms

…
In the decade since, massacres perpetrated by deranged gunmen have continued – including the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre in which Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people and wounded many others. But something odd has occurred. Whatever momentum the Columbine killings gave to gun control has long since petered out.
…
But efforts like Woods’ are up against powerful headwinds – and not just because of the powerful gun lobby that often strangles gun-control laws. Americans in general have cooled significantly to the idea of restricting gun rights. A poll released last week by CNN showed that support for stricter gun laws was at an all-time low, with just 39% of respondents in favor. Eight years ago that number was 54%.

The author blathers on about how this makes no sense at all, and that people who oppose gun control are obviously confused. However, while gun control advocates like this author continue along in their willful ignorance, a growing number of people are recognizing two important facts:

1. Crazed gunmen almost always strike where the lawful population has been disarmed (schools, etc), reducing their ability to fight back;
2. When a shooting starts, seconds count. A personally carried pistol is one second away, whereas police are hundreds and hundreds of seconds away. Further even if the police show up within 300 seconds, they might sit outside with their thumbs up their butts for another 3600 seconds before moving inside.

We can talk about getting help and treatment for those who carry out these attacks, and that’s all well and good. But we must also face reality: when the shooting starts, the single best thing to do is to fight back, and the best tool for the job is a personally-carried gun.

Those of us who oppose new gun control and advocate the private carry of arms see reality. It’s the gun-control crowd that is confused.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

…

“Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,” the warning said. “Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez.”

So, what you’re saying is that automatic weapons and grenades are available on the US market? Damn, and all this time I thought I couldn’t own those. I guess I’d better get down to Big 5 and pick up a Stoner & Pineapple special!

If that hasn’t gotten your blood pressure high enough yet, check out this additional ABC buffoonery. Amazingly, even when something is illegal (straw purchases, smuggling, possessing firearms in Mexico, trafficking and using drugs, etc. ad nauseum), people still do it. According to ABC, that is somehow my fault.

Ret. Gen. Clark: McCain lacks command experience

Sun Jun 29, 10:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON – Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate now supporting Barack Obama, said Sunday John McCain’s military service does not automatically qualify him to be commander in chief.

Underscoring during a national television appearance a position he has been expressing for several weeks, Clark said performing heroic military service is not a substitute for gaining command experience.

So, Mr. Clark, does your candidate have “command experience”?

An advisor, Daniel Kurtzer, to Barack Obama says that Obama didn’t realize what he was saying to AIPAC when he used the term ”undivided” in reference to Jerusalem.

Holy crap, that’s just bad.

War bill helps Iraqis, may ignore Katrina victims

NEW ORLEANS – A long way from Iraq and the war debate in Washington, Herman Moore sat outside a tent in a downtown New Orleans homeless camp, trying to make sense of a proposal that helps Iraqi war refugees but will likely exclude Hurricane Katrina victims.

First of all, am I detecting just a hint of bias in this headline and first paragraph?

Second of all, this is a war spending bill. Why should a war spending bill contain spending unrelated to the war? Domestic spending in this bill can be described in one word: Pork.

But then, what do I know? I’m just an Typical White Person.