Tag Archives: Carolyn McCarthy

Individual Liberties and the Slippery Slope

Ah, the “slippery slope” metaphor.  Over-used, sometimes misused and rarely is it effectively used – I hope I don’t manage to make those same mistakes.

Individual liberties were of prime concern to the founding fathers.  The Constitution makes it difficult for the government to infringe upon the rights of the individual and progressives find this incredibly frustrating.

So what is a progressive liberal to do?  Grit their teeth – nah, might ruin that new retainer Mom and Dad got ‘em.  Whine and complain?  Sure, but that’s pretty much a constant noise the rest of us have now tuned out – much like MSNBC.  No, they chip away at the offending freedom until there is nothing left.  This practice has been used as long as there have been those that would strip away a liberty from one citizen in the name of safety, security, or well-being of another.  More correctly, they take the liberties of a group of Americans in the name of the greater good – that’s not Marxist..

Examples of this practice are easy to find.   The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.  Progressives know that any attempt to repeal that amendment would meet the kind of resistance that would destroy their little movement.  Instead, they have attempted to dismantle the right slowly, through regulation.  They outlawed high-capacity mags where they could, the assault weapons ban, a recent attempt to outlaw lead for fishing and shooting – it’s a constant assault.

The liberals are also attacking smoking.  I don’t smoke cigarettes, but the attack on another’s freedom are too much to bare.  Certainly, I don’t need anyone blowing smoke in my face, that’s my right, but recently, there are boards in North Carlina trying to get smoking outlawed in open air parks and greenways.  For Pete’s sake, if someone wants to smoke in the wide open space of a park, certainly I can find my own clean air.  Sure, the libdergarderners make the argument that smoking causes cancer and that society pays the price.  I say, only because of the terrible regulation of the insurance industry.  If rates weren’t so tightly controlled, smokers would pay through the nose for insurance – an outcome of their own choice to smoke.  My rates would be unaffected.  If the government is so concerned, they could do the same with Medicare.

The real question is at what point will most Americans realize that the next freedom to go might just be one they like.  The whole chip-away strategy goes after a total goal – let’s say the eradication of guns in America.  What is done is to segment the kinds of gun owners and take rights from each group in a successive manner.  First, those that really like high-capacity mags.  The occasional target shooter or hunter may not ever buy a high capacity mag and could easily just let this regulation go by without putting the fear of re-election into the Representatives.  Next would be those that like semi-automatic rifles with clips (detachable magazines).  An article on about.com demonstrates the skewed definition of an assault rifle as it was put in the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban (AWB):

In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles, those characteristics included:

  • Telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Bayonet mount
  • Grenade launcher
  • Flash suppressor

A pistol grip and flash suppressor could easily be found on a competition gun (which would have clip).  But most hunters and shotgun sports enthusiasts might let this go.  Now we have dolts like Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) would limit the size of ammunition magazines.  What would be next?  In 2009 McCarthy wanted to ban on anything that remotely resembles a military rifle.  That definition won’t get misused by the courts or regulators at all ..

So you may not be a smoker or a gun enthusiast, but what happens when  a freedom you appreciate comes under fire because someone in the government doesn’t like it?  If you don’t stand up for the rights of gun owners, smokers, the religious, etc – who will stand up for you when your favorite liberty gets stepped-on?  You cannot pick and choose, defend every liberty offered by the Constitution or be willing to lose them all.

Progressives Politicize Tuscon Massacre to Strip Liberties

Progressives are pointing to Arizona and using it is an example as to why Americans have far too many liberties – we might just hurt ourselves.

A New York Times article demonstrates how the left is using the horrific tragedy in Arizona to push Progressive agenda items: gun control.

..[Arizona’s] gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit.

Loughner was committed and delusional.  He was going to kill people even if he didn’t have a gun.  Since he seems to have committed himself to the act, regardless of the consequences, he may have just stolen a car or delivery truck and driven it through the crowd and right on top of Rep. Giffords, after having plowed through tens of people.  He could have made a bomb similar to that of  Timothy McVeigh’s using fertilizer and diesel fuel.  Jared Lee Could have killed just as many people so many different ways that no set of laws or regulations on the method were going to prevent it from happening.

Have no fear though, it is far beyond the ability of a true progressive to let any crisis go to waste.  Politico is reporting that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) is getting a Federal gun and ammunition control bill ready for presentation to the house on Monday (emphasis mine).

Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunitionused by the 22-year-old assailant.

While crazy people with guns is certainly not desirable, the government is not going to be able to prevent these tragedies.  It never has been and never will be able to.  Even in complete police states, the evil-doers get guns and bombs and still kill huge numbers of innocent bystanders.

The Politico post continues with a total politicization of the event:

Another vocal supporter for gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures

uh, Jared didn’t use an assault weapon – or will their be a new class of assault weapon? .. this is about Mr. Quigley’s agenda.

If attacking the second amendment wasn’t enough, Rep. Robert Brady is going after free speech.

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

I can’t wait to see the definition of “threatening”.

I hope this is taken the right way.  I in no way condone the horrific acts allegedly committed by Jared Lee Loughner.  I have the families of the deceased and injured in my thoughts and prayers, but this is not the time to push a progressive agenda.

Tuscon Massacre and The Delusional Left

Keith Olbermann, the Washington Post, Sheriff Dupnik and the rest of the radical left are once again wrong – borderline delusional in-fact.  Olbermann and WaPo blame “political rhetoric” for Jared’s lapse of sanity.  Sheriff Dupnik said that it was due to a bigotry and prejudice.  None of those could possibly be further from the truth.

Jared Loughner was, and probably still is, off his rocker.  He believed that the government was controlling people through grammar.  In all of his ramblings, there was no particular party that he attacked – no popular ideology that he seemed to back – just mind control, some anarchist ramblings and his ideas on currency.

Jared did seem concerned that the U.S. dollar was not backed by a precious metal.  Around that, some debate could be had.  He also was working to foster his own currency .. that’s where it goes from discussion to delusion.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s statements were more hurtful than helpful.

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” said the sheriff. “And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

This does not appear to be a hate crime or anything motivated by race or prejudice.  The only one talking as if this tragedy was racially or hate-motivated is Sheriff Dupnik.  Political aspirations there Dupester?

Of course, it wouldn’t be a liberal pile-on without The New York Times. With an editorial entitled “Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona”, the old grey lady is just what she used to be.

..it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.

Apparently, the all-knowing editor doesn’t believe this “see how terrible the Conservatives are” speech is adding to the anger that he or she so much derides.  Where is the blame for those that “demonize” the wealthy, wall street bankers, the religious right, the anti-abortionists?  Why are those angry folks not to blame?  What about those that would force government-run health care, FCC take-over of the internet, or the destruction of California’s agricultural center down the throats of a disapproving majority?  They aren’t part of the anger?

The editorial is an example of the imaginary problem it purports to solve.  The anger from the right is a response to the oppressive “we know what’s better for you” attitude from the left.  It is the typical oppression vs. liberty struggle that has gone on far longer than the history of this nation, but that is not the real problem.

John M. Roll, Christina Taylor Green, Gabe Zimmerman, Phylis Schneck and Pamela Simon did not die because of Jared Lee Loughner’s alignment to or agreement with either progressive liberalism or Conservatism.  They were not attacked because of weak or strong borders, abortion, government spending nor military activity.  They died because a crazy man decided he was going to kill some people, damned the consequences.  Once someone is committed to doing something regardless of the consequences, laws cannot stop them.  Laws are about consequences – if you do a thing, here is the penalty.  If someone cares not about the penalty, the law is ineffective.  There are many things which the government cannot prevent – this was one of them.

No information has surfaced that says that Jared was an avid watcher/listener of Beck, Rush, O’Reilly, Levin or any other Conservative talk show.  Why does the Times editor make that accusation?  In fact, Jared seems to have been driven to this over his disdain for supposed government-run mind control using grammar as the method. That is hardly a tea party plank and I am fairly certain that neither Palin, Bush nor Sean Hannity have made that claim.  I am certain that any sane Conservative would dismiss that theory out-of-hand.

Blaming Conservatives for this tragedy is a despicable attempt by a few left-wingers to further their own causes.  If liberals need to know where to find fault, they can place the blame  squarely on the shoulders of Jared Lee Loughner.  He committed a terrible act and will face trail for it.  Blaming anything or anyone else is in itself .. a great delusion.