Politics
It’s been nearly 5 years since the shootings at Virginia Tech on 4/16/07. I had planned on writing a post on this topic for a simple reason.

There was a shooting at a California medical university today; I can’t help but remember 4/16, how it unfolded and what came afterward. Let me first state that my heart goes out to everyone in that community right now. Parents dreading a phone call from the police, friends frantically calling around to see who picks up. It’s a nightmare.

But something bothers me, the fact that some will politicize this incident to get their agenda out. They sure as hell did it in ’07. Now that the Trayvon story has run away from the media and the racial narrative has started to fall apart, I had wondered if they were going to shift the debate to “Gun control”. Today’s high profile shooting makes it much more likely. Those who want more of it claim they want a “debate”, but what they want is to lecture others. Consider this a rebuttal.

First:  I would like to inform people: This shooting could not have happened! Why?
1) Murder is strictly regulated by the state and federal government! “Murder/death/killing” is illegal. 
2) The state of California has some of, if not the most- draconian gun laws in the country. This includes an “assault weapons” ban, standard capacity “high capacity” magazine ban, and in many counties of California one cannot legally carry a gun for self defense.
3) It is illegal to bring a gun on a school campus, it’s a gun free zone! Someone should have told the shooter they were not allowed to bring their gun on the grounds!
4) We live in a society of laws, and there’s no place for vigilante-ism, we have police forces. The victims should have simply called the police, 7 people are dead, apparently they did not call the police. Or the response time must have been delayed by budgetary cutbacks in police pensions.
5) This incident is proof that more laws are not only necessary, but will be more effective, and that you’re a knuckle dragging caveman if you disagree.

For those who laughed with the above, realize that these are the “alternatives often presented by those who purport themselves to be our intellectual superiors in this debate. (Point worthy of mention: If anything this shooting in California should be a referendum on those laws that were passed in this “progressive” state that did not prevent this incident, and not a referendum on law abiding citizens!)

Say, want to meet one of the people who you will likely be seeing a lot of very soon? New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy, proponent of most anything gun ban related. Here she is being challenged by a TV host as to purely cosmetic feature that she wishes to ban on legally sold guns. He asks her a real barn burner question- not what it’s made out of, not what it weighs, or what its purpose on the gun is… he asks her, what it is. Piece of cake for an expert like her right? After all she wants to ban them! Let’s go to the video tape:

Her “shoulder thing that goes up” answer was the source of great mockery on the web.

This woman is the primary proponent of gun legislation on the national scene and she does not even know what she’s asking for. She and her cohorts later did their best to ram their feet completely down their own throats when they claimed people were buying .50caliber heat seeking bullets (No, that doesn’t exist, nor can you find it in a gunshop) and that she wanted to ban the sale of .50 caliber rifles because of this. A friend of mine in the armed forces joked, “Wait, the M82 shoots HEAT SEEKING rounds? I better tell my buddies! Why bother lugging these scopes around if the bullets aim themselves! Why carry stinger missiles if these heat seeking babies can shoot down helicopters and planes? I better thank McCarthy for alerting me to the existence of these bullets, as I’m just a lowly combat arms soldier that doesn’t know what he’s using!” This woman not only has no idea what she’s talking about, she has no problem lying outright to others either.

To clarify further on “Assault weapons”: These guns are not the ones criminals often choose to commit crimes. Off the top of my head, RIFLES in total, all of them, accounted for close to 1% of the weapons used after being illegally obtained (not in a gun store) by criminals in the commission of crimes. Of that 1% number, assault weapons were a smaller fraction. When writing the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994  They more or less held up pictures of guns at the time, and picked what looked scary for their ban list. I’m not kidding. Several states have such bans, they did not impact crime, however it has turned otherwise law abiding citizens into possible felons for possession of guns that have certain cosmetic features.

I love the hoopla about high capacity MAGAZINE (do not call it a “clip) bans. So, let me get this straight… There’s no discussion about how to stop “active shooters”, or how people can defend themselves, the discussion is instead* about, “how can this person who is already breaking several laws kill less people.” (I’m shocked they haven’t brought up violent music and video games already!) Really, this discussion when boiled down is one about “how can this shooter kill less people, or the same amount of people in a slightly slower fashion.” The magazine capacity ban is so disgusting and illogical that I almost didn’t want to dignify it with a rebuttal. My opinion is that the problem here is not what people are being shot with, how many people should die in what time frame, what those guns look like (a l’a the cosmetic bans in the AWB legislation), but the fact that innocent people get shot. Clearly, I must be an “NRA lobbyist” to think such independent thoughts.

The labels they like to throw around have the duality of being both preposterous and inane. “Gun control”, as if it’s guns that are the problem, is their word of choice- when millions of them in the hands of the law abiding killed no one yesterday. Shockingly, millions of knives managed to stab no one either. “Common sense measures” is more of the left and gun ban proponents using big words as currency in debate. See it implies that these things they’re asking for are sensical, and that those who oppose them are not. It’s rubbish, and yet again, more of the rhetorical masturbation exercise that’s the calling card of their ideology.

This is part 1 of this series, I have quite a lot to say, and I’m just getting warmed up.

Politics
In this episode of media madness….

First off let me state Joe Oliver gets this year’s award for “greatest friend of all time”. Watch it, especially around 3:30ish.

My personal take is that you’re looking at a man that’s conflicted, and helpless to stop what’s going on. He understands the anger, but, I believe, knows what they’re angry at isn’t so.

-Unfortunately Oliver stepped into the liberal-media-narrative-echo-chamber in progress.
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell called his genuineness into question in harsh terms. If you’d like to see more on the “Joe the plumber” treatment he’s been getting, and seeing scrutiny no left leaning activist would ever see from them, read here, or go to Youtube.com and type in “Joe Oliver”. Read the titles and the captions, it’ll tell the story.

-Reuters is indecisive on what Zimmerman’s race is (Fox news’s fault, for sure.)

-An MSNBC host melts down when Piers Morgan of CNN takes him to task. (Good on Piers!)
Note: Toure is the same “race-baiter” who insinuated the tea party was racially motivated, and was going to start perpetrating violence. He said this after watching a video that MSNBC cropped of a man carrying a rifle at a protest, a man that was in fact African American.

-Stereotypes continued: Hoody wearing honor students kill 1, wound 5 in Chicago, in Bobby Rush (Democrat) s district. Bobby Rush, (former Black Panther) is the guy who showed up to Congress wearing a hoody to “make a statement” the other day:

In fact 13 people were shot in Chicago. Given the fact that Illinois has banned concealed carry weapons by law abiding citizens, it was not possible for one of these shootings to have been carried out by another “Zimmerman”. (If something like this did happen somewhere in the US, now the media has “proof” that guns and self defense laws are the “debil”, and this whole thing would flare up again, as the mastersofscience/mastersofempiricism/experts/totallyobjectivetruthfinders in the media go apes**t with their cherry picked narrative. )
See, clearly more stringent gun laws would have saved those people! Even though Chicago has some of the “toughest” (for law abiding citizens) gun laws in the country…
Well maybe we should make murder illegal to prevent this from happening in the future!
Wait… I think it’s already illegal… I’ll get back to you after research.

-Roseanne Barr tweeted Zimmerman’s address.
-Spike Lee apologized for his tweet. Elderly couple still getting death threats.

-CNN brings in “Experts” to analyze the tape, in which they conclude Trayvon was the one screaming on the tape. I do not believe said experts have ever heard Zimmerman or Trayvon speak none the less scream, nor where they present at the scene that night. I’m also pretty sure they have

-NBC doctored/edited the 9-11 tape,  and must have been “by accident”. They’re “investigating” it now.
In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
In a fuller version of the tape he says: ““This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”  911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?”  Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

-ABC’s grainy video tape, showing a Zimmerman that “doesn’t look that hurt” (which means of course Trayvon could not have been assaulting Zimmerman, regardless of the amount of witnesses police paperwork etc had stated) is debunked. How? A high resolution videotape comes out.
I’d only watch about a minute of it, after that it’s MSNBC doing its usual herp and derp.
More tape here: http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/new-videos-show-zimmermans-gashed-head-and-broken-face
In technical terms, “his nose looks f**ked.”

-Joe Biden opened his mouth again: “It’s important that people be put in a position where their Second Amendment rights are protected, but that they also don’t, as a consequence of the laws, unintendedly put themselves in harm’s way … The idea that there’s this overwhelming additional security in the ownership and carrying concealed and deadly weapons… I think it’s the premise, not the constitutional right, but the premise that it makes people safer is one that I’m not so sure of.”
Apparently he also wants a debate on bill of rights “gun control”. Hopefully this is a debate in which both sides are allowed to participate.