Something Must Be Done!

“Something must be done,” is the first step in the political process. Shouted by ignorant voters, who find some problem they don’t like. Not even considering complexity, nuance, grey areas, or unintended consequences, this low-information sentiment is latched on to by politicians eager to assert their power: “This is something, so therefore it must be done!”

It is in this vein that the Sun Heard says, “Enough is enough, we must get guns under control!” The article starts off with examples of a criminal element out of control, and inevitably arrives here:

We don’t want to take firearms from responsible gun owners, but it’s hard to imagine any of these people fit that description.

Ah yes, it’s just that easy. The central premise of gun control is that criminals obey gun control laws. If only we had this law or that, none of these bad things would happen. If this were so, California would be a crime free paradise, rather than having a violent crime rate higher than the national average, and higher than it’s neighboring states that lack California’s strict gun control laws:

“What is alarming to the police is that they have no power to ascertain the potential criminal background of an armed individual until a crime is committed, and by then it is too late,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, an advocacy group.

That’s typically how it works Ladd, even with permits, because the police can’t stop someone without reasonable suspicion the person is committing a crime. That’s the law. There is no earthly reason in this day in age when police have laptops in their cruisers, that they can’t determine whether someone is eligible to possess a firearm in a few minutes, if it comes to an actual stop. Permits are entirely unnecessary.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. MAIG Mayor Makes Ridiculous Argument Against HR822
  2. Another Case of Brady Deceit
  3. Ladd Debates, and Almost Succeeds

9 thoughts on “Something Must Be Done!”

  2. The same idiots also scream that there are to many criminals in jail and they should be set free. Go figure.

    1. The wrong criminals in jail; and the wrong people have guns. That they can’t figure out why these are related…

    1. Conversely, anyone who, under color of authority, deprives someone of their constitutional rights is a defacto criminal and should be dealt with accordingly.

      1. +1. And following their rules, anyone who might do so should be arrested too. Do a few of these and the leftists might rediscover civil liberties.

      2. Nope. According to Ladd, anyone who, under color of authority, deprives someone of their constitutional rights is a defacto community hero and should be honored and heralded until the end of time for their laudable efforts to end the “dangerous insurrectionists”.

        You, of course, are correct. But Ladd gets the free publicity and air-time, thanks to the complicit media.

    2. Just like the book/movie Catch-22.

      Ladd has his circular logic or reasoning, but I use those terms loosely when dealing with touchy/feely liberals.

      If you want a firearm you should be prevented from getting one because you wanted one. Only in liberal minds does this make sense.

      BTW, Ladd probably has a penis so we should lock him up now because he is a latent rapist. He has hands so he might strangle someone so we have to end his murderous strangling career before it starts. God, progressives are so stupid.

  4. The central premise of gun control is that criminals obey gun control laws. If only we had this law or that, none of these bad things would happen.

    I said a long time ago (and was made a “quote of the day” by Linoge at Walls of the City):

    The philosophy of “gun control” revolves around two primary assumptions:
    a) That “average”, good, law-abiding people can’t be trusted to obey laws (therefore, they must be disarmed for their own safety); and
    b) That criminals and the mentally ill can [be so trusted] (the whole “Just One More Law” thing).
    “Gun control” fails in practice because its primary assumptions are completely and utterly ridiculous.

    I still stand by that. When the starting premise is that the whole segment of the population that currently obeys laws suddenly won’t, while the whole other segment of the population that doesn’t currently obey laws suddenly will, any conclusion should automatically, at the very least, be considered suspect.

    But, it fits “The Narrative”, and so the mainstream media outlets just eat it up without even pausing to consider the logic (or lack thereof) before them.

Comments are closed.