Charlotte Bacon should be celebrating her 7th Birthday today

Charlotte Bacon should be celebrating her 7th Birthday today

Today Charlotte Bacon should be opening gifts.

Stuffed animals surely, which she loved, her favorite being her lamb. In fact she loved anything and everything associated with animals.

After all, Charlotte was going to be Veterinarian one day…she knew this since she was two years old.

She should be getting new clothes—clothes to accommodate the evolving taste and size of a soon to be 7-year-old.  One thing is for sure-they would most certainly be pink , for she was “addicted”-as her loved ones put it, to the color which matched her vibrant personality.

But for Charlotte, there will be no stuffed animals, no pink clothes, no birthday cake, no candles to blow out, no 7th Birthday.

Because she’s dead.

On December 14, 2012, Charlotte was sitting in class, in a place of security, of learning, a place which symbolized  for a six-year-old girl, the excitement and hope of today, and the potential and promise of tomorrow.

And then security turned into danger, hope into panic–life into death. Charlotte was shot and killed by a Bushmaster XM-15 Assault Rifle, by a round which travels at more than 3,000 feet per second.

For Charlotte, today was over-and tomorrow would never come.

Since Charlotte, and 25 others were shot and killed at Newtown 70 days ago, over 2,050 Americans have been killed by Guns. That’s 513 “Benghazis“-nearly 7 a day-in America. That’s nearly equal to the number of Americans killed in the over decade War in Afghanistan.

Including this ten-year-old in Minnesota, this mother and her two children in Denver , these three on the strip in Las Vegas,  this teenager in Brooklyn, these two students in Maryland , this elderly man in Ohio, this mother in Detroit, this heroic Bus Driver in Alabama, this pregnant woman in Cincinnati , this woman who accidentally shot and killed herself in Florida, these four during a shooting spree in California, this toddler in South Carolina, this ex-Navy sniper in Texas, and this 15-year-old majorette in Chicago.

And for what? Why?

Why must Charlotte’s parents, like the loved ones of all those killed by gun violence, suffer today, and tomorrow, and every day for the rest of their lives?

Because the sanctity of the Second Amendment trumps the sanctity of  life? Because we fear our brother more than we love them-more than we love Charlotte-and all the other children and Americans killed by Guns?

Because we value the ambiguous opinions of a dozen or so men who lived over 225 years ago, more than we do the lives of 300 Million Americans today?

Understand, this is not the politicization of death, nor is it an attempt to use a tragedy to push a “liberal” or “progressive” agenda.

This is an attempt to push, to promote, to make real, a basic agenda that is inherent to all of us.

Preserving Life

Simply, Guns are antithetical to this agenda. Their most basic function is to end life–to kill their target.

Targets like Charlotte.

Will Universal Background checks, or bans on Assault Rifles or large clips, wholly eradicate all senseless murder, or loss of life? Of course not, it will no more do that than  common sense laws eliminate all traffic fatalities. But we don’t therefore say -more drunk drivers are the answer, or moreover-“Driver’s licences are an inherent American right which should never be regulated or infringed upon”.

We take steps, as a society, to keep our roads safe, to protect our drivers, to protect the children in the backseat.

We behave in a way which is congruent with our communal agenda:

Preserving Life.

Polls show a majority of Americans recognize the need to do the same with Guns—but Washington Politicians are shackled by fear, fear of casting a controversial vote, fear of losing their next election….

Fear which pales in comparison to that felt by Charlotte in the last moments of her life.

Today we must mourn with Charlotte’s family, we must imagine their pain, while also appreciating and celebrating the value of life, and identifying the steps necessary to preserve it.

Because after all, Charlotte could have been your child, and any of those 2,050 killed since her death could of been you, or your wife or husband, your mother or father.

You.. we, must demand action.

We must demand a vote.

For Charlotte, for the life and future that she, like so many others, senselessly lost, and for all the lives and futures we can save.

“The light of a distant star continues to reach the Earth long after
the star itself is gone.”


Be Good Friends,



Leave a comment
  • America wants to protect its children. The gun industry lobby wants to protect gun collections.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Andy Frye:

    Not true. The gun lobby wants to protect gun rights, and that's what people who pay the gun lobby want. Wayne LaPierre wants armed guards at schools.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Andy Frye:

    Please provide a cite that supports your claim.

  • Would she be more alive if she'd been gunned down by a Glock 7 or a 22 caliber target pistol?
    The final test for ANY action must be, "Would this action have prevented the Newtown tragedy?" If the answer is no, then the action, law or proposal is invalid.

  • In reply to Curmudgeon555:

    W/all due respect-and I appreciate you reading/taking the time to comment, your point is frankly ludicrous. For one it's a myopic argument which fails to see the big picture-which of course is -would these laws save lives---any lives--would they mitigate mass shootings--would they help save/preserve life?. The answer is unquestionably yes. Which brings me to my second point-would 26 people of died if the weapons used were handguns? Would Lanza of been able to do the damage he did-in the time he did, with a 22 caliber pistol? Of course not. The point is limiting casualties, taking the mass out of mass murder.

  • In reply to koolking83:

    No. The answer to that question is no. Virginia Tech is the empirical example of that reality. 32 people were killed with only pistols. Pistols that the shooter would not have been able to purchase, had the state properly submitted paperwork regarding the shooters mental state.

    We have a long history of prohibitions in the US and every time they're tried, they fail. Even the first assault rifle ban had no effect. In fact, shootings in Chicago during the first federal AWB topped 900.

    If I as an owner thought it would save lives, I would hand my guns to Rahm personally. But it won't. Background checks will help, mental health parity and firearm training will help, a concerted effort to make laws that SEVERELY punish criminals for crimes with guns (i.e. mandatory minimums) will help.

    Bans and prohibitions will, in point of fact, make our society more dangerous, not less.

  • In reply to koolking83:

    Actually, yes, Lanza could have done just as much damage in the same amount of time with a .22 caliber pistol.

    At close range a .22 can kill just as easily as a 9mm, and a modestly skilled person can reload a revolver well before most prospective victims would have gathered their wits sufficiently to flee or try and attack the shooter.

    The AR15 is NOT repeat NOT an assault weapon. It is simply a semi-automatic rifle made to look like a military weapon. But in realty there are many many conventional looking semi-automatic rifles that are just as deadly and wouldn't be affected in any way by the types of bans that are being proposed.

  • fb_avatar

    First off....

    An assault rifle was *NOT* used in the shooting... the gunman left it in the trunk of his car.

    So, let's keep the argument accurate.

    Secondly, there were already laws banning guns from a school zone. I guess that didn't work out so good, huh?

    Thirdly, LAWS dont stop criminals.... that's why they are considered criminals in the first place, law BREAKERS if you will.

    Now, the solution is quite clear...however, Libtarded people just seem to miss the concept. Laws dont stop anything. Period.

    There are laws against speeding...yet, people speed everyday. Millions of people have died in car accidents, including children.

    There are laws against drinking and driving, yet, people do it...everyday. Millions have lost their live because of it too. (including children)

    Bad guys will always get guns, bad guys will always use guns and bad guys will always SELL guns to each other...even the ones that are illegal. Because bad guys always break the law.

    sooooo... Now that we have figured out that LAWS dont stop shootings the next question is... what is the solution?

    Solution #1: Put an armed guard in the schools. If it works for banks armored trucks and the President. It will work for the schools.

    Solution #2: TRAIN the school staff in what to do if a shooter shows up ...I suggest getting out of the building and running for the woods. Cowering in your classroom only makes you a sitting duck.

    Solution #3: Get a direct link to the police dept with "alarm" handles like you have for a fire alarm, placed around the building so, ANYBODY can raise the alarm...just like it is for a fire.

    Solution #4: SHOOT BACK!! "Bad Guys" always pick EASY targets that they know will have little to no resistance. PUT UP A FIGHT! They wont expect that. It will ruin how they "planned it" in their twisted minds. Most often, these events are carefully planned out by the killers and they are EXPECTING you to be compliant. Dont follow THEIR plan, make them follow YOUR plan.

    I hope some of you wake up and figure out the part where, GUNS dont kill ...people do....and they dont always need guns to do it. BE PREPARED! It's the best defense.

  • In reply to Tuff Enuff:

    "An assault rifle was *NOT* used in the shooting... the gunman left it in the trunk of his car"


    Not true

    At all

    "So let's keep the argument accurate"

  • In reply to koolking83:

    They show a video of the cops pulling the assult rifle out of the car. It's like the state farm commercial, you heard it ffro the internet. Next you will be a french model.

  • In reply to Tuff Enuff:

    This is absolutely the best reply that I have ever read about this stuff and every bit is true. We have laws in Chicago and do you think it stops the gang bangers from getting guns. Highest murder rate in the country and the President is from Chicago, yet did nothing to lift a finger for the youth getting gunned down in his city. OK so they are not in the School but they are around it when they get shot. The trouble is everyone thinks they get rid of the machine guns and then everything will be solved.

    There is a video of a gang member that was gunned down on church steps this summer and there were armed police at this funeral with machine guns, where a car drives by with the friend of the gang member with a machine gun in his hand, IN the car, Passing the Police who have machine guns.

    I am pretty sure he did not acquire it legally.
    I am pretty sure he did not have a permit.
    I am pretty sure he was not even old enough to vote.

    The laws that are stating are stupid and I am sure that Biden has a Shotgun company that both he and Obama invested in heavily and they are swaying the market with this to get rich. Typical politics.

  • In reply to Aking9957:

    "The trouble is everyone thinks they get rid of the machine guns and then everything will be solved."

    No--No one thinks that actually.. Absolutely not one person.. Ever. Nobody.

    Rather most reasonable people agree with this position--espoused by Presidents Ford and Carter.... Oh and Reagan, in 1994.
    "While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals"

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to koolking83:

    Reagan owned an AR 15 specially made for him. And he was senile in 1994 with his best friend Jim Brady asking him to do this regarding the letter you cite.

    Next point skippy! But since you get your talking points from Drone King Obama's talking points, I'm sure you've got that Reagan fully automatic AK 47 quote down pat, right?

    You do realize the complete stupidity of what you are saying. The AR 15 rifle is the most common rifle in America. So the crusade to BAN them continues, even though you can still buy and create AUTOMATIC weapons if you have a Class III license, which is a heavily regulated deal and requires extensive background checks.

    But logic is "hard" for leftists. Seriously, is this what the educational system has spawned??

  • In reply to Tuff Enuff:

    And btw--the faulty and lazy argument "criminals will always get guns regardless" - does not, if erroneously taken for valid, justify making it easier for them to do so.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tuff Enuff:

    Finally. Someone who gets it!

  • fb_avatar

    Kids are murdered at schools because antigun people forced politicans to ban guns at schools.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Brick Barns:

    Amen. But the leftists are utterly silent about that. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country. THE STRICTEST. And yet nothing is ever said about this. 1 person was killed in 2011 by a rifle. ONE. But yet all the other schoolchildren in Chicago were killed by handguns.

    But the author apparently doesn't care about black children, or foreign born children.

    Such racism is appalling.

  • In reply to Robin Schaum:

    Hey, just curious- how's crime doing in New York City? And the gun laws there---are they any less strict than Chicago?? The problem in Chicago is extremely complicated, and as such "solving" it will be as well. Gun laws alone are not and never will be the answer. The overwhelming majority of Guns in Chicago which come from out of state, enforcement of laws, proper prosecution/punishment, the economy, the poverty, the segregation of the city, broken families--there's countless factors in play-and yes, it's unspeakably tragic.

  • In reply to koolking83:

    But again, the issues in Chicago have NOTHING to do with the validity of such common sense measures as -universal background checks, limiting the size of magazine clips, and yes, a ban on assault weapons.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to koolking83:

    Ruh roh, the little guy is spouting off again. Stay focused on basketball skippy, switching hands to dribble is clearly the upper level of your intellect.

    Research project: Where did the term "assault weapon" come from? Define an "assault weapon".

    But facts are "hard." What happened to true liberals, that actually cared about civil rights? The same group that labels cops as pigs and racists now ONLY WANTS THE COPS TO HAVE THESE guns.

    Here's a question skippy? If these so-called "assault weapons" are weapons of war, then why do the cops pick them as their weapons.

    Just face it. You have no arguments. No points. Nothing. All you can do is stand on the graves of dead children. And dead white children of course. Because dead black children have been the result in Chicago for years and yet this "common sense" violation of our civil rights never came up before eh?

    Shameful. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. would be proud. How many millions of corpses must leftists cause?

  • fb_avatar

    If we are going to talk about all the people killed by guns since Newtown 70 days ago. How about all the people killed in car accidents. In 2009 in the 70 days since Newtown , 92 people were killed in car accidents EACH day for a total of 6,483 people dead or 240 Newtowns in the last 70 days. And only 2050 people killed by guns. So which is more likely to kill you? You are 3 times more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.
    With 240 million cars and about 300 million guns in the USA, it is time to ban cars as they are more deadly than guns. So what about it mister President, time to end the death caused by cars in America and ban all cars from American roads. With over 3 Newtons every day caused by cars, it is time for all the killing to stop. We must ban cars. When will all the needless killing end?
    Mr. President ..........Ban the the children.......

  • "Understand, this is not the politicization of death, nor is it an attempt to use a tragedy to push a "liberal" or "progressive" agenda."

    Sorry, but it it is an attempt to use a tragedy to push liberal agenda. The only reason why this is even being talked about at the moment is because of Sandy Hook. The president and congress were too scared to go after the NRA during his first four years of office.

    I agree that more strict laws should be in place, but let's not BS people and say that a tragedy isn't being used to push an agenda.

  • fb_avatar

    The author needs to do a little research and stop trying to gain fame and support for an assault weapons ban by perpetrating falsehoods of the sandy hook shooting.Your story holds no water as it has been ripped apart by almost all who read the copy and paste dribble of an early investigation of which we know now was total B.S.

  • In reply to Scotttt:

    You Scott, like the author of that shamelessly inaccurate blog post, should imagine for just a second, telling your crazy, fantasy conspiracy theory, to a parent who lost a child at Sandy Hook. I generally don't get angry at comments, but have a little respect---if not for reality, at least for the parents/loved ones of those lost. Stay classy pal.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to koolking83:

    What is your honest opinion of this nbc video posted on youtube?

  • fb_avatar


    Why are leftists like yourself always so stupid? Why do you have to stand on the graves of children? You should be ashamed of yourself, truly ashamed.

    If the lives of children are so precious to you, perhaps you should first be concerned about Drone King Obama and the over 200 children that have been murdered as collateral damage.

    Or, more to the point here in the US, what about banning alcohol. Getting drunk is not a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. How many little Charlotte Bacon's are abused every day by their alchoholic fathers? How many little Charlotte Bacon's die in DUI accidents?

    But you have no response. Because you have no argument. And you have no point.

    There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". That was an invented term coined by a group that wants to ban all guns because they thought the American public was too stupid to know the difference. Apparently their faith in your stupidity was wellplaced.

    Here's the deal skippy. I'll agree to have a conversation on guns when the politicians disband their armed guards, as well as the banks, the courts, and pretty much every other elite.

    How dare you stand on the graves of children? How dare you indeed. The blood of Charlotte Bacon is on your head. Look in the mirror and know that. Those who advocate more gun control are the same idiots who created "gun free" zones where mass murderers love to go - every mass shooting/attack, except one, has occurred in a so-called "gun free zones".

    To close, an assault rifle didn't kill this precious child, a deranged madmen did.

    And you have the blood of this child on your hands as well.

  • In reply to Robin Schaum:

    Thanks for taking the time to share some ad hominem/straw man/red herring arguments!

    For the record you have no idea on my feelings regarding drones...or alcohol..or any other issue save for the one in question.

    "I'll agree to have a conversation on guns when the politicians disband their armed guards, as well as the banks, the courts, and pretty much every other elite."

    Thanks for outlining what it'll take for Robin Schaum to have a conversation about guns. Because yes-if the President of the United States, and Federal Buildings are protected by Guns, Robin Schaum deserves to be as well!

    See that's the thing--your positions are a reflection of--are rooted in, an archaic, blind, misguided distrust of government, in paranoia, in undiagnosed persecutory delusions.


  • fb_avatar

    Ah, the leftist comes back with nothing. Not one statement, not one rebuttal, nothing. I know, facts and logic are "hard" for you guys.

    But keep standing on the graves of children. You miserable filth of a human being.

  • In reply to Robin Schaum:

    "Or, more to the point here in the US, what about banning alcohol. Getting drunk is not a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. How many little Charlotte Bacon's are abused every day by their alchoholic fathers? How many little Charlotte Bacon's die in DUI accidents?"

    No one is talking about banning guns, just making stricter gun laws. Don't worry, the big bad government isn't going to come into your house and steal your precious guns. And your DUI analogy makes no sense. You do realize that there are laws in place to make the roads safer, right? Why not come up with gun laws to do the same? Drunk driving laws don't guarantee our safety, but it sure makes the roads safer.

    For someone who complains about the "leftist" not using any logic or facts, you seem to lack logical and coherent thoughts in your original post. You compared the killing of civilians in drone attacks to the Sandy Hook tragedy. If you're going to use logic to respond to this post, I would suggest you not compare a war zone filled with terrorists out to destroy the US with a preschool filled with children. Unless you think (using your analogy) that having children killed is just collateral damage for guaranteeing our right to arm ourselves with the best machinery possible.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to xtrmntr:

    Another leftist to the rescue!! Seriously, was it lead paint chips that leads to your inability to make a coherent argument.

    Now facts are hard for you guys, so stay on target, stay on target.

    Drone King Obama is talking about banning certain types of weapons, so you're a complete and total liar.

    To your next "foolish" point, your gun banning "laws" would not make anything safer, period. Of course you have no response to that.

    Consider this, Australia has had a total gun ban pretty much for twenty years (approx.). In that time they have had roughly two mass shootings. Texas is the same population roughly as Australia. In that same amount of time Texas has had roughly two mass shootings (I'm not counting the Islamic terrorist Nidal Hassan).


    A leftist is a piece of garbage. A true liberal used to care about civil rights and protecting the individual against the government.

    Even your hero Shotgun Joe Biden said that none of these laws would prevent a madmen.

    Even Michael Moore, who extensively studied Columbine, said it wasn't the guns, it wasn't the video games, and it wasn't Marilyn Manson. He wasn't sure what happened, but one possibility was examining the psychotropic drugs they were on.

    BUT YOU HEAR NOTHING ABOUT THAT. This constant drumbeat to trench our explicit civil rights is beyond offensive. And using pictures of dead children to do it is reprehensible.

    Here endeth the lesson.

  • In reply to Robin Schaum:

    Robin, this is the same sophisticated gent who refers to Wayne LaPierre as an A-hole, as well as saying "I don’t give a sh-t if that’s what you think, and while I humbly suspect the Founding Fathers would have disagreed with you as well, I don’t give a sh-t about their opinion either." Yes, because a 30 year-old lefty who majored in Psych is much more worldly than the combined experience and wisdom of the men who birthed our great nation.

    But I imagine he gives a sh-t about the first amendment so he can keep shooting his unhinged mouth off on the internet.

    Just rename the blog to Left-Handed Dribble and get it over with already.

  • In reply to Chenjesu:

    Sophisticated?---Robin compared me to Adolf Hitler and said I have the blood of murdered children on my hands for suggesting we....wait for it...HAVE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN PURCHASES.

    As far as me saying Wayne LaPierre is an asshole, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole.

    With respect to the Founding Fathers, unlike you and those of your ilk, I do not blindly worship them, I do not treat them as divine, omniscient,and surely not omnibenevolent figures--and I'd bet decedents of slaves and Native Americans would probably agree with me.

    Nor do I discount their enlightened leadership, their timeless vision and ideals (most)--their ability to overcome extraordinary odds-to put it lightly-to successfully be the architects of what would become the most powerful nation on earth.

    NUANCE....I take a nuanced, analytical approach, to them, to guns, to most issues. The ability to do that my friend, to take that approach to issues, to not see everything as either black or white, is what makes one sophisticated.

  • fb_avatar

    Hitler took the guns away from the Jews, then he did away with the Jews, Obama wants to take the guns away from the whites, so he can do away with the whites


  • Koolking83:

    In your response to Robin, I don't think you get the point. So I'll come back and finish it out. Please read this carefully, because if you are a liberal and care about minority rights and the individual, you will come to the same conclusion as fellow liberals like myself, although I really view myself as libertarian.

    You were compared to HItler, and Stalin, and Mao, because these dictators use the faces of beautiful children to justify the most ridiculous and unjust laws. Because all of our emotions and hearts go out to poor kids that suffer such monstrosity. But if a law made sense, it would be debated without emotion and with the facts at hand. FACTS. LOGIC. Not idiotic emotion that makes no sense simply because we want to DO SOMETHING. There will always be madmen. In the 1930s, a guy blew up an elementary school with dynamite. Literally the day before Sandy Hook, some crazy attacked 22 kids and stabbed them in China. Attacks over the recent years in China have escalated with a crazy amount of stabbings, in two instances 8 and 10 little kids were killed. Keep in mind: China has no damn guns and these things still occur.

    You do not have the blood of children on your hands for supporting universal background checks (although that could turn into the blood of millions - something I'll get to later). The reason that you have the blood of children on your hands is that you support current gun control laws and want to make them even more draconian. The current gun laws ARE THE PROBLEM. You and people like you have created these magical "gun free" zones where unicorns play and madmen do nothing BUT HUNT UNARMED CHILDREN AND TEACHERS. It is your support for gun free zones that puts the blood of those kids on your hands.

    And what does Wayne Lapierre suggest as a potential solution? Armed guards at schools to protect kids. Hmmm. Sound familiar? Bill Clinton suggested the same thing with his "cops" program. But the leftist liars in the media, the stalinists, attack Lapierre up and down saying he's "nuts" "crazy" "out of his mind" a "gun nut". Well I ask you, who is insane? Bill Clinton? Banks? Politicians? All have armed guards to protect them and their money. And yet us, the working class, our kids have NOTHING but fucking rape whistles and desks to huddle under as some maniac comes to shoot them.

    HOW DARE YOU PREVENT WORKING CLASS AMERICANS FROM PROTECTING THEIR KIDS? And how dare you attack a man who does nothing but protect our individual rights and simply wants us to be able to protect ourselves and our families?

    You called Lapierre an asshole. I don't know why. But there is no support for that statement. If I said Koolking83 was a child molester, that does not make it true. There needs to be support. And I find it troubling that so-called liberals attack an organization that is founded on protecting our civil rights, it's the same thing as going after Martin Luther King, or the abolitionists, or the ACLU on free speech. True liberals were always there to protect us from government overreach.

    With regard to your comment on the Founding Fathers. I agree with your point that they did not float down from heaven. But I think we can both agree that after a revolution, it is an amazing thing that these men got together and EXPRESSLY LIMITED THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT in the Constitution. That literally has never happened before in human history.

    But your logical disconnect continues as you state: "I'd bet decedents of slaves and Native Americans would probably agree with me." But don't you see, gun control for hundreds of years was on its face COMPLETELY RACIST. They did not want the slaves or blacks or the Indians to have guns because they could completely control them. In Alabama they denied Dr. King the right to carry a gun because he was black. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was in part a response to the Black Panther movement and the riots in the cities. In the 50s, the NRA helped civil rights workers defend their families and homes by granting them charters. See the book, Negroes With Guns. Shouldn't it scare us now that they are seeking to disarm us all?

    Respectfully, you are not taking a "nuanced, analytical" approach to this. You are posting the picture of a dead child and asking us to support your call to infringe one of our basic civil rights that we possess as a free people.

    And there is not one statistic that can be cited, not one, that supports this. There is not one reasonable argument for more gun control. not one. I'm always willing to listen, but I've studied the issue intensely and have not seen one justification, it really is astonishing how there are no facts on the "control" side of this argument. The term "assault weapon" is A MADE UP TERM from a group that WANTS TO BAN ALL GUNS and they used it because THESE WEAPONS "LOOK SCARY" AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS TOO STUPID TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!!!!

    That is a shocking fact. There is absolutely no reason for a magazine limit nor a "assault weapon" ban. The so-called "assault weapons" function IN EXACTLY THE SAME way as other rifles that would not be banned. THIS IS INCRIMENTALISM. The slow eating away of our rights, the frog sits in the pot and it is just too late when he knows its over and he is boiling.

    And finally with your response to "universal background checks". This is dangerous for the very reason that it would give the government complete authority to monitor all firearm sales. If you think this is some kooky, conspiracy theory, consider the following quotation:

    "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."

    This is Lenin. And they did exactly that. Because of a registry, they knew who had the guns and they went and took them. Then they slaughtered tens of millions of their own people, many ethnic minorities.

    This happened AGAIN when the Nazis took over European countries. They had REGISTRIES so they knew who had the weapons and the people were disarmed en masse. How many more Jews, homosexuals, artists, and other minorities would be alive today if they had a chance to at least fight back ala the Warsaw Ghetto, which started with just a few handguns.

    The Swiss people have access to full functional, REAL assault weapons in their homes. The government gives ammunition to the people. That is one reason the Nazis did not invade Switzerland. Yet their murder rate is one of the lowest in Europe. Or compare the states that border Canadian provinces. All of these states have almost non-existent gun control laws, and yet their murder rates are well below the Canadian ones, even though Canada has strict gun control. Or South Africa - almost no guns. Or Mexico - almost no guns. And the UK's violent crime rate is through the roof and gun crime is rampant since they confiscated all the guns.

    As Michael Moore said after his analysis of Columbine, IT'S NOT THE GUNS. And that's Moore saying that.

    Frankly, the ACLU and the NRA should be fighting this together. What is most troubling is that because of draconian gun laws in a lot of cities, minorities in high crime areas can't even defend themselves against the criminals. Civil rights should be equal, no matter geographic location, color, or creed.

    Gun registration equals confiscation. It has happened in every first world country that has done it. See the UK and Australia. Gun registration also does NOTHING to prevent crimes. NOTHING. That is a fact. That is why I oppose universal background checks. Proper estimates are that roughly 8% of firearms transfers are done privately, through family, friends and residents of the same state. Talk to any prosecutor or police officer, almost no legal guns are used in crime, literally none, except for domestic cases.

    As far as the random semiautomatic rifle ban and a magazine that holds more then 10 rounds, not only is that plainly unconstitutional under Heller but it makes no sense. Rifles are used in almost NO CRIMES/MURDERS. In Chicago, 1 person in 2011 was killed with a rifle. And a further point, how does it make sense for the cops to be armed to the teeth with all these guns, and yet we as private citizens, who face the same dangers everyday, somehow can't be trusted with them.

    The only thing that I would support would be to try and make sure that states' mental health records are opened up to the NICS background check, to make sure those who have been adjudicated incompetent (aka the crazies) aren't able to buy guns. But do you know who has fought that for years, that's right, the ACLU.

    In conclusion, true liberals should join the NRA immediately, or the Second Amendment Foundation if the NRA is too political for you. Gun control is just people control. THEY ARE TURNING US ALL INTO CRIMINALS for doing nothing WRONG... We need to wake up, get rid of the labels, and fight this. For God's sake, a guy just got charged with a felony in Florida for releasing helium balloons into the air (google Anthony Brasfield).

    It is time for the citizens to take back this government. It is time for us to regain freedom. THEY HAVE RUN US INTO THE GROUND. And if we object, they find some bullshit law to charge us with, the cops, prosecutors, they can't be touched but we must all suffer as we work to pay their salaries. And liberals have been coopted into this statism just on a party basis.

    We have lost our right to a jury trial. To a lawyer. (See NDAA). To a speedy trial. Against unreasonable searches and seizures (the never ending drone campaign/and the secret wiretapping court). And they are coming for freedom of speech (make a funny video about Islam, off to jail for a year - yes I know it was a probation violation, but give me a break).

    Aaron Swartz, a genius liberator, hung himself after he was persecuted by this government. Somebody does a drug deal in a motel that a family has owned for generations and has no knowledge of, we're the government, you forfeit your property to us. War on drugs. Prohibition. Vice squads.


    Can we rally around that, if nothing else. Thanks for reading.

  • In reply to Prescient11:


    As I said in my e-mail to you, I truly appreciate you taking the time to respond in such a thoughtful, detailed, and civil way--ideally we can disagree without being disagreeable.

    Allow me to simply say this--and respectfully this should go without saying--the fact that a position or belief was held by Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Satan, or John Edwards, or whatever despicable person you wish to choose--does not therefore invalidate the position or law in question. The fact that a position--or law, was used by said individuals in a self-interested, reprehensible, and ultimately harmful and tragic fashion, does not in and of itself, make the law or position inherently invalid or disadvantageous --or simply "bad”. And yet-while this is obvious, you make this fallacious, illogical argument (reductio ad Hitlerum!) repeatedly (see your citing of Stalin).

    To quickly touch on your larger point-which is we are entitled to--and need "arms", so as to (potentially) defend ourselves--the citizens--against our tyrannical Government, hell-bent on taking our rights freedoms, guns,children,i-phones etc---then why, why do you not push for our right to anti-tank guns, or rocket launchers, or bombs---or nuclear weapons? Those are the weapons our military, our government have at their disposal?

    "And finally with your response to “universal background checks”. This is dangerous for the very reason that it would give the government complete authority to monitor all firearm sales"

    This is exactly what the Government does with DRIVERS! We "screen" applicants for driver’s licenses! Are you against that as well? The fact that a power or regulation has been abused--or misused in the past, does not delegitimize the regulation in question!

    I'll respond more soon friend--gotta run, but again I appreciate you taking the time to comment and share your strongly held views on this contentious matter.


  • KoolKing:

    Thanks for the email and it is always good to have a decent discussion regardless of point of view. Be glad to chat on subjects whenever the mood strikes you. The truth will set us all free. Before addressing your specific points here, however, I want to state at the outset that I am very troubled by politics in the recent past.

    It seems to me that the "machine" is pitting Americans against each other by using labels (tea party/commie, whatever). Rage Against the Machine is one of my favorite bands. But what is the machine? The machine is government, which tells us what we can do in all forms. Whether its drug laws, or sodomy laws, or Bloomberg telling us we can't order a 2 liter of coke with our pizzas, WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF THEIRS. I am very afraid that our individual rights and ability to live our lives free of government interference is being eroded on the "right" and the "left" and even those are false narratives.

    The way I view it, it is us, the free American citizen vs. the establishment, whether that be in Republican or Democrat clothing. Bush was awful on certain civil rights (even he would have signed a new "assault weapons" ban, think hard on that), and then we've got Obama who not only has continued these policies but expanded them to far greater power.

    Liberals used to say that the government had no right to get between a woman and her doctor. Fast forward to today, now the Democrat party has put the federal government between EVERY PERSON and their doctor. And death panels (I know, I know) are right there (as recently admitted by Paul Krugman - who is NO Sarah Palin). And who gets fucked, we do. The insurance companies are on the inside track and we just get screwed again. It is noble to want to provide health care to everyone, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This will result in a huge fucking up of healthcare and us regular Americans get screwed again.

    It is a scary time indeed. Whether you're a liberal, libertarian, or small government conservative, those three exact groups need to be coalescing together to tell the federal government to GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR LIVES. Personally, I would really like to see any prison time at all levels of government for mere use or possession of marijuana immediately rolled back. This would be a huge help in hopefully putting fathers back in their kids lives in community neighborhoods and stopping the horrific convict cycle a lot of these groups go through. But I digress.

    The reason I am so anti-gun control is two fold. 1) Just look at the evidence. Time and again minorities and minority groups were SLAUGHTERED to the point of genocide by "governments". And what was these governments first tool: gun control. That fact, standing alone, should give all of us pause who care about individual and minority rights. 2) Gun control does nothing to help with crime. If anything, it increases crime fairly dramatically. At best, one could argue it's neutral. But just remember the UK and Australia - rapes went through the roof; 50% of ALL burglaries in these countries are "hot burglaries" meaning they occur when residents are home. Only 10% of burglaries are hot burglaries in the US. In these countries the burglars don't care because there is no defense.

    Even Piers Morgan, who is no liberal btw and was run out of the UK (I really find his schtick beyond shameful) talked about his home being burgled multiple times and how he felt like a fascist when that occurred. Now imagine if he was home and had to protect small children. Imagine if he was a woman.

    To your point that just because a policy was liked by Hitler, Stalin or Mao, does not mean that every policy they had was bad. I wholeheartedly agree. Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover. I have many friends that are vegetarian and love animals, two things I think are very commendable.

    So we have a balancing act.

    On the one hand, we have seen that a universal background check, which could in theory become a universal gun registry and government control of all firearms transactions, might be some benign sort of database if we had someone like GWB or Obama in the White House, wouldn't be too concerned about that. But on the other hand, if some power hungry maniac were to be elected 20 years down the road and invoke emergency powers after some type of 9/11 event (see PATRIOT ACT), then a registry or such records could be used to disarm the entire populace. This actually happened after Katrina, there is video of 4 or 5 cops literally throwing a little 80 year old lady up against the wall in her house and punching her, because she was showing the cops that she had enough food and was ok, and was armed if looters showed up with a revolver that she had in her hand (not brandished in any threatening way). I want to puke watching that video. But yeah, only the fucking cops should have guns....

    And this is no conjecture, it actually WAS USED in fairly recent history by tyrants and fascists to do EXACTLY THAT. Even in countries that were just invaded, these records were used to take everyone's firearms. The result, millions upon millions upon millions of minorities slaughtered. These results weigh very heavily on the scale in one direction. In modern times, such records/registries have been used to DISARM THE ENTIRE POPULACE when guns come under scrutiny, just like a Sandy Hook event. (Australia/UK). So this weighs very very heavily on the scale.

    In other words, although such registries/records could be completely benign, there is a clear and present danger that they can be used for mass confiscation and wholesale slaughter of millions of people. This has been proven in recent history. So such records have a very very distinct and proven tendency to be abused and have resulted in untold horrors.

    On the other side of the scale is stopping criminals/crazies from having weapons that they shouldn't have. And the evidence on this is that the use of LEGAL GUNS by CRIMINALS is zilch, zero, and gun registries do NOTHING TO SOLVE CRIMES. Canada just gave up on their "registry" because 1) people refused to comply; 2) it was expensive; and 3) it had no purpose.

    So given that we have potential holocausts/genocide versus no real benefit to having universal background checks or registries, that to me seems to be an easy one. And since roughly 90% of all gun sales go through an FFL, the few exceptions to friends, family and in-state residents are the distinct minority. And in IL each party still must have a FOID card so there is that additional step as well.

    Turning to your point about cars, you are correct. But the entire reason the government is able to do that is because DRIVING on public roads is a PRIVILEGE. If you are on private lands no licenses/tags etc. are needed. And just look at what they have done with this. Let's say you smoke weed (not saying you do). By driving on the road you consent to A BLOOD TEST. In some states the cops can literally take your blood, AGAINST YOUR CONSENT, to see if you're drunk or high. No big deal, says you? Bullshit. Almost all of these states have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy. Practically this means that if you smoked weed two days ago, and are totally sober and have a horrible accident where somebody dies, YOU ARE A FELON AND GOING TO SPEND SIGNIFICANT TIME IN JAIL because you were DUI based on the THC in your hair or blood even though you were stone cold sober.

    Think it can't happen. It literally just did in MN. Although this was a trace of meth. Bad car wreck, they take the guy's blood. He had taken some speed I believe 3 days earlier. The state's OWN EXPERT testified that based on the level of intoxicant (which was pretty much nonexistent) there was no way the guy was impaired. Didn't matter. Strict liability and the guy is doing significant time in jail.

    I write that to show you just how scary it can be, forced blood draws, etc., when the government gets control over behaviour just because it is a privilege.

    Back to the distinction between privilege and right. Can the government force newspapers to buy libel insurance in order to print their newspapers?? And there are 20,000 gun laws, the industry is by no means UNDER-REGULATED in any respect. No one is saying that there can't be certain laws on the books with firearms. There are plenty! But what we are saying is that you can't ban entire classes of weapons for cosmetic purposes, which is what this so-called assault weapons ban is. That's how pathetic the entire thing is.

    People who support the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights get their backs up because it is precisely this kind of incrimentalism that creeps in. Bit by bit by bit. It's happened time and again in every society.

    So that turns to what kind of weapons a citizen reasonably has the right to. First, to get rid of a serious misconception, fully automatic weapons are not banned. They are very restricted. You need a Class III weapons license and serious background checks. You can acquire significant explosives, modify new weapons to fully automatic or buy old automatic guns if you have that license (the ban on new automatic weapons was the result of some legislative trick in the late 1980s, again, not a shining example of "debating the issues").

    Anti-tank guns are used in exactly zero crimes and I'm not even sure what you mean by that. .50 cal guns literally have NEVER BEEN USED IN ONE CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES. There might have been one, but it was by some deranged cop. Again, do we want cops to have all of the guns.

    Bombs and nuclear weapons are not firearms so no, citizens don't get those. Rocket launchers are a distinct unit in the military and not your average weapon so I believe that those would be off limits too, although I am pretty sure you can get your hands on one if you have a Type III class license.

    But we are talking about semiautomatic weapons. And the most popular style rifle and most commonly owned rifle in the United States, the AR 15. This is not brand spanking new technology. In 1870, Winchester came out with a rifle where a guy could shoot over 130 rounds in JUST ONE MINUTE, and this was without a standard 30 round magazine.

    I don't know how the court will come down on rocket launchers, but trying to completely ban Americans from owning the most popular rifle in the country ain't gonna do it. And putting aside that fact, there is absolutely no justification for it. Knives are involved in 5 times more murders than rifles. What happens with these madmen and kids makes you want to puke, I was so shocked and jarred by the entire thing for days. But the Supreme Court has made clear that our individual rights are not determined by body counts.

    In what I think was a very deep reflective thought, they pointed out that the right to a speedy trial, the right to Miranda warnings, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, etc., all allowed otherwise guilty and psychotic murderers and criminals to go free. But our rights are not determined by body counts.

    As Lord Blackstone, the definitive author of the foundation of English and thus American law, it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer.

    So in a very long-winded way, I think that responds to each of your questions/points and gets to the bottom of the philosophy. But as crazy as it sounds, gun control is the one area where, approaching it with a totally open mind and knowledge of all the facts, there really is not one damn argument that makes any sense on the "control" side of things.

    As I said earlier, the only thing I would entertain is making sure mental health adjudications by courts are available to the NCIS for background checks, as the root cause of these problems is madmen, plain and simple.

    And I know you're not going to like it but truthfully, the only way to defend against some wacko, is to have somebody armed at the school to fight back.

    The average number of people shot in a mass shooting where the cops are the first ones to show up with guns is roughly 13. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting where the first response is from an armed citizen: 3.

    We should trust each other and respect each other. Whether its guns, dynamite, knives, cars, poison gas (Japan subway), propane gas (Columbine, bombs didn't go off but that was the original plan and if it had worked 500 people would have died then) or boxcutters, these are merely tools in the nutjobs hands.

    We shouldn't hand the psychos one more crucial advantage by having to wait for 11 minutes (average 911 response time) before we can defend ourselves and our children.

    Thanks for reading.

  • Oh, and with regard to the magazine size issue, there potentially could be a legal argument for banning 100 round magazines or super high capacity magazines, but again it is of doubtful constitutionality or utility. The guy at Va Tech went nuts with the standard handgun magazines.

    But seven round or even ten round magazines are laughable. The average home invasion involves three perps!! You want to bet your life or your families' life that you are going to be a good shot and people just don't give up when they were shot. In Georgia just recently a woman protected her two twin daughters, shot a guy 5 times with a 38 revolver (missed the sixth time) and then she ran out of the house with the kids. Point blank range a lot of rounds in the face. Was the guy dead? Nope. He got out of the house he invaded and drove away. (now he was in bad shape and didn't make it to the hospital conscious, but what if he just stabbed the woman and her two girls to death before leaving because he was pissed about getting shot).

    standard magazines for many handguns go up to 17 rounds. I don't even know of a handgun that has a 7 round magazine, maybe the walther ppk? And the 30 round magazine is simply a standard size magazine that places like walmart sells via catalog.

    So because these magazines are in common usage and there is really no good reason to ban them and there is a damn good reason not to, at least up to roughly 30 rounds I don't think can be banned.

    And finally, just to show you the logical disconnect, in Heller D.C. told the Supreme Court that it was ok to ban handguns, because they allowed semiauto rifles. After saying the handgun ban was no good, DC banned semiauto rifles. Before the court of appeals, D.C. now argues that it's ok if they ban pretty much every semiauto rilfe (under the guise of an "assault weapons" ban) because people can have handguns now.

    Talk about logical disconnects....

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Recent posts

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • @offhand_dribble

  • Subscribe to Offhanded Dribble

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: