Obama's Disarm the Victim Movement

So now we’re learning that Barack Obama wants to make the sale of high capacity magazines illegal. How nice. Nice --- and easy to expose as completely absurd.

Let’s just use one occurrence to address the dream shared by Dear Ruler and liberals of eliminating these high-capacity magazines in rifles and handguns.

To show the absurdity of this idea, let’s just go back to Loganville, Georgia 11 days ago. Melinda Herman was at home with her two children in this suburban neighborhood. Her husband was at work. Suddenly someone was ringing her doorbell. She was expecting nobody. The doorbell ringing turned into banging on the door. She called her husband. He told her to retreat to a crawlspace off an upstairs bedroom with the 9-year-old twins … and to take her gun … and he called 911.

The banging on the door was a predator – a thug with a lengthy criminal record. He kicked in the door and entered the house. At that point, according to the police, he immediately noticed that someone was at home. The theory is that the predator saw a kid running up the stairs to the safety of his mommy.

Now think about this. At this point the predator knew that someone was home, a child, and that the child’s mother was surely there as well. Was this man dangerous? Oh hell yes he was. If he had not presented a threat to this woman and her children he would have turned and ran as soon as he noticed the house he had broken into was occupied – by children. But he didn’t leave. He didn’t run. He started slamming around the house looking for this woman and her children. Why? To apologize for breaking in? To ask for a drink? Was he going to ask if he could sit a spell and watch Oprah? No. Nuh uh. The ONLY reason he would be looking for the occupants of the house would be to harm them. You have another reason --- let me know. He could have run. He didn’t.

Long story short: He finally hears the woman talking on her cell phone behind the attic door off the bedroom. He turns the knob, opens the door, and is staring down the barrel of a six-shot .38. The woman immediately starts shooting --- she empties the gun --- her husband is on the phone to the police shouting “She’s shooting him! A lot!” But then you can hear him yelling at his wife over the phone “Shoot him again!”

“Shoot him again?” She couldn’t. She had six shots. That was it. She had no more bullets. The predator was still alive. He was alive enough to escape the house begging Melinda not to shoot him again.

So, I ask you … what if there had been two or three thugs breaking into the house that day? What if the other two thugs were in another part of the house and, when they heard the gunshots, came into that room to find their pal on the ground in a pool of his own blood, with Melinda Herman standing over him ---- with an empty gun . What happens to her and her children then?

So another woman – another husband – hears this story and decides that he and his wife will be better able to protect themselves should multiple predators invade their homes. They go out to buy a gun. A Glock 21. A .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol with a double-stack magazine that can hold 14 bullets. That’s a great gun for home defense. Give Obama and the Democrats their way, and Melinda, or any other woman for that matter, will only have a magazine with 7 cartridges in it for their protection. While they’re groping for another magazine – if they even have one – the predators are taking aim. This will not save lives – it will cost lives.

Wait! Not save lives, you say? What about the Sandy Hook tragedy! If that lunatic shooter hadn’t had multiple high-capacity magazines some of those kids would be alive today, right? Nope, sorry. That’s wrong. At the Sandy Hook school there was NOBODY offering any resistance to the shooter. He could slam as many new low-capacity or high-capacity magazines into his guns as he wished. No resistance. Keeps shooting until you run out of targets. If this lunatic had been limited to seven-cartridge magazines he would simply have had to reload more often … with nobody challenging him.

Melinda? Sorry Melinda. You’ve shot the first thug … he’s down. But now his buddies are there and you’re out of bullets. Time to reload? Hardly. It’s time to beg for mercy. Maybe you can throw yourself in front of your kids in an attempt to save their lives. Wouldn’t that Glock with the double-stack magazine come in handy right now? Sorry … Dear Ruler made that illegal.

Well, Melinda … looks like it sucks to be you. Maybe the thugs will show you and your children some mercy. Obama certainly didn’t. The left certainly didn’t. They moved to disarm you. You obeyed the law. The thugs didn’t.

Outlawing high-capacity magazines is nothing less than limiting the ability of victims to defend themselves. Criminals, by definition, will scoff at the law and get whatever magazines they want from their pals in the shadows. Law abiding Americans will reduce their defenses. America under the rule of the left.

While crime and the various benefits of being armed to prevent or combat it are important (and are far more likely to touch our lives), that is not the main issue.

The 2nd Amendment isn’t about fighting ordinary street crime, though there is a significant benefit to having the weapons that the 2nd protects. Ditto for hunting and the shooting sports. No, the 2nd isn’t about anything so trivial - it is about nothing less than our very liberty. Strip the nation of its guns and, yes, you will have a crime wave. But the bigger risk is the crime that could be, and in the last century was too often, committed - dictatorship and genocide. Governments in the 20th Century murdered approximately 100,000,000 people, FAR more than all street criminals the world over. See the chart at: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

Besides, a magazine is just a metal or plastic box containing a spring. If our government is so intrusive as to try to regulate or ban our possession of those items, then I’d say government is out of control and needs to be reigned in by the people. Obviously, the protections of the Constitution alone are not enough, else such power would not have been usurped by those in government. THAT is the reason for the 2nd Amendment - as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

I defy anyone to prove that our present federal government (and even many state governments - how about it, New Yorkers?) has not been “destructive of these ends” of promoting life, liberty and happiness - when it issues edicts opposed by the majority and enforces them with the threat of force, and when it gives away literally hundreds of billions of dollars (under TARP) of taxpayer money despite the near-universal opposition of the people.

Magazine bans are not about crime, they are about imposing a tyranny upon the people. Without even rough equivalence in the equipment available to the ordinary citizen to that of the ordinary soldier, the government is free to do as it pleases. Read the words of Judge Alex Kozinski on this subject:

“”It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us.”

“The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out.”

“All too many of the great tragedies of history—Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations.”

“Many could have been avoided or mitigated had the perpetrators known that their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece”

“If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.”

“The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.” http://earthhopenetwork.net/The_Right_to_Bear_Arms_Second_Amendment_of_the_Constitution.htm

"...what if there had been two or three thugs breaking into the house that day? What if the other two thugs were in another part of the house and, when they heard the gunshots, came into that room to find their pal on the ground in a pool of his own blood, with Melinda Herman standing over him ---- with an empty gun . What happens to her and her children then?"

The above needs to be repeated over and over again. Predators often run in duos and packs. A six shot revolver not enough. I will not give up my multi-round 9mm magazine.

Our invasion protocol:
1. Go to a room that has a lock on the door. In the case of a night invasion, that would be the bedroom. I would never go hunting for them in the dark of night even though I have a brilliant light and laser on my shotgun barrel and a laser on my sidearm. That's for trained personnel to go room to room;
2. Wife calls 9/11 and tells them, "we have an intruder and in fear for our lives". She says nothing more so as not to alert the intruder of our location, but leaves the line open;
3. She makes herself as small as possible while hunkering behind anything;
4. I squat with my weapon facing the door;
5. We let them take whatever they want and hopefully leave;
6. If they try to gain entrance to our locked place, I say out loud, "Take what you want and leave. If you attempt entrance I have a weapon pointed at you and will defend our lives". Again, for future LEO records since the line is still open.
7. No racking for affect. Stupid idea;
8. If required to shoot, well, 00 aught will go through most interior doors which are hollow. 9mm will definitely go through. Not sure I would do that...probably wait for an attempted force entry.
9. Hopefully, take them out and if not dead, DO NOT FIRE AS THEY RUN AWAY!;
10. Remain in place until the police arrive. Once we're sure they are in the house, I lay the weapon down crouch in front of the wife with my hands up.

Your plan may be different, but since I live in California, I don't want to face a trial for shooting someone in the back or side, even if still in our home. Read up on your State self-defense laws.

"That’s why the cowboys on TV in the 50’s had a holster on each hip."

That's a joke, right? If not, that was for Hollywood effect. How many people do you know that are ambidextrous? One, two, at the very most three? I doubt any. I've been around some 63 years and have never met an ambidextrous person.

Still, the dual sidearms were impressive back in the TV days of the Lone Ranger and Roy Rodgers, with all their shiny glitter on their holsters and belts (as if nothing ever got dirty or rusted) .

The only true gunman who carried 2 pistols that I know of was James Butler Hickok (Wild Bill). There are photos with his two revolvers facing backward, as many did at the time. The low slung holster of the Paladin series and movies are a myth. Most carried their sidearms high for easier reach, as do modern LEO's. Some right-handed wore their pistols on left side facing backward for a cross pull.

Also, the confrontation at Lot 42 (behind the OK Corral)on the next street over from Allen Street is the least of the story between the Earps, Clantons, McLaurys, and the other "cowboys". The "Vengence Ride" was a much bigger deal.

Here are the quentissential books on the Earp/Clanton/McLaury dispute in Tombstone:
Inventing Wyatt Earp by Allen Barra
Wyatt Earp; The Life Behind the Legend by Casey Tefertiller.
Both are an inch thick and include court documents, the writings of two papers of the time, and first hand witness accounts. That's why the Earps were acquitted in the inquiry. While I think Barra's book is more precise and documented, Tefertiller includes some other facts, but basically comes to the same conclusion.

Bottom line: The Clantons, McLaurys, and other "cowboys" (no such term before they called themselves such) were western gangsters that crossed the Mexican border to steal cattle to make their ranches profitable. That is why some (including one newspaper) in Tombstone supported the "cowboys" for their ill-gotten enterprise that helped grow a silver mining town. Another newspaper supported the Earps for their cause of taming the town. It was a not just a LEO showdown, but political also.

Last point: Did you know that many of the town were tired of the "cowboys" and asked the Earps if they wanted help to disarm them when they were heading to Lot 42? Documents show the town's people were ready to form a vigilante backup. The town Marshall, Virgil Earp, said no. He didn't want others to be harmed. Virgil simply wanted to disarm the "cowboys", since it was town law, not to mention Ike Clanton and others had been threatening the Earps for sometime.

The Earps were the good guys anyway you cut it, even if Wyatt Earp was kicked out of Kansas City by the City Council for using his Colt to wrap people upside the head too many times - his modus operandi. Bat Matterson was a friend in those days and tended to agree with Wyatt's methods, but the City Council got too many complaints about the skinny pale Earp enforcing the law with his methods. Read the books above. You'll be surprised how complicated the entire saga is before leading up to the shootout at Lot 42.

The "Vengence Ride" was a whole different matter and glad to see it in both "Tombstone" and "Wyatt Earp" movies. Until then, it was never addressed. Sorry to say (not really), but I love the good guys avenging the righteous. Curly Bill did kill town Marshall White (the inquiry let him go because of no witness). The "cowboys" did destroy Virgils arm as in Tombstone; they also shot Morgan in the back some months later, not the same night as in the movie. Wish, we had more rightous vigilantes nowadays. End rant.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.