Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Anti-gun in Philadelphia

Karen Heller of the Philadelphia Inquirer has written an anti-gun editorial that was printed in the Belleville News Democrat. If you do not recall the name Karen Heller, maybe you will recognize some of her other work for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Karen's works include comparisons of televisions top cooking shows (TV's stovetop show-offs), commentary on the Golden Globes, fashion (In a pique about pink), and fat pets (Kidding ourselves, and now our canines). Yes folks this very experienced and hard hitting writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer has focused her attention upon guns.

By Karen Heller

Any fool can kill a deer. I know, because I've almost done it several times. All that's required is a car driven at a relatively good speed, 30 miles an hour should do it, near a wooded area around dusk or later.

Voila, venison a la Camry.

As for pen-raised fowl, released on exclusive preserves for desk-bound potentates, that doesn't require much skill, either, simply money and will, though it's preferable not to spray deep-pocketed supporters with bird shot.
She starts off with a bang, letting the hunters know that she is not just after "evil black rifles" and high capacity magazines, she is going after the hunters also. In this, I can respect her. Most of the anti's hide their true intent by making the hunters feel safe and dividing gun owners. Karen is upfront and forthright in announcing that we are all targets of her disapproval.

The less "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" rings true in contemporary America, the more the gun culture revs up its high-caliber lobbying and propaganda machine.
The aftermath of Katrina and the threat of domestic terrorism are just two issues that prove the need for The People to have the ability to bear arms and ensure security.

We've made smokers pariah, forcing them out to the street. Alcoholism and drug abuse, once private demons, have become public crusades. Abolishing trans fats is a civic battle legislated by urban councils.

Guns, however, reign supreme. Criticize the need for guns, the obsession with guns, and you're labeled unpatriotic, anti-Constitution or - horrors - a liberal.
This is probably the most disgusting comment of her article. Basically she is saying that since government has stepped out of its boundaries and commenced interfering with individual liberty in these other areas, that government can infringe upon any liberty it wishes. I wonder how Karen would feel if the government decided to infringe upon her freedom to write articles such as this, or to live in the neighborhood she chooses?

Any politician running for higher office has to kiss the long barrel of the NRA and gun fetishists, preferably by praising gun ownership and going hunting - a dwindling passion - to show how authentically American he is.
Ma'am, is it possible that some politicians might understand constitutional law? Is it possible that some politicians may enjoy hunting and other shooting sports? Is it possible that some politicians may actually understand that the purpose of government is to protect freedom and individual liberties, not infringe upon them?

As we head into the new year, let's hold on to the one number that trumps all others: 406.

That's how many people were murdered in Philadelphia last year. And here's where generalizations hold up. Most of the victims were young. Most of them were poor. Most of them were black. Most of them were killed with guns.

Our problems are bigger than guns. But guns are our problem.
So, instead of addressing the problems that are associated with this narrowly defined community, she goes after an inanimate object, guns. Karen has just proven that she is not interested in reducing violent crime, she just does not like guns. If Karen were interested in reducing violent crime, she would be focusing on the violent criminal, not the tool used.

Second Amendment militiamen tirelessly argue that guns don't kill people, people do. But guns kill people far more efficiently than people without them do. Guns allow disturbed people to shoot up Amish schools. And thugs to shoot children in front of city schools. And distraught kids to terrorize suburban schools.

Why aren't local governments as obsessed with guns and crime as they are with partially hydrogenated oils? Why aren't the pious as worried about violence as they are about gay marriage? Where is the PETA for people being senselessly killed? Where are the celebrities clamoring for assistance to make this country a safer place?
We need a crusade for peace at home, too. We need to attack guns and the all-too-powerful lobbyists and manufacturers the way cigarettes came under siege. In the modern world, among "civilized democracies," America is a repository of shame when it comes to gun violence. We're modeling ourselves on antiquated ideals, holding on to values that are firing us back to the Wild West.
Why aren't local governments isolating violent criminals from society with harsh sentences for violent crimes? Why aren't the folks who are worried about my guns insisting that cities break up the violent gangs and get the criminals off of our streets? Where are the celebrities demanding truth in sentencing laws and a end to revolving door justice?

Karen, it has been proven over and over again that attacking the tool will not fix the problem. The problem is that we have allowed a very violent subculture to grow in this country. Breaking that subculture, removing gangs from the inner city, improving inner city schools and really giving the good kids a chance to succeed will go much farther towards reducing violent crime than demonizing a piece of metal, plastic and wood.

David over at The War on Guns led me to this article.


Dan from Niagara said...

I suppose to Karen, non-gun violence is acceptable.

the pistolero said...

What I'd like to know is, how many of those murder victims are dead because of their own bad choices. If I had the opportunity I'd ask the author of this putrid piece directly. Maybe I'm a heartless b*stard, but I am quite sick and tired of creatures like this whining about "too many of those eeevil guns."

tinman said...

Contrary to the belief of many the bill of rights were not written to establish rights they were written to confirm the rights already recognized by a right of existence. The second amendment is at its core confirms that the founders saw it as an impossibility to maintain a free society with a citizenry incapable of defending themselves or their rights through force if necessary. No one that thinks the right to self-defense only exists because of a piece of paper has thought things through. Government big enough to give to you everything you need is also big enough to take it all away. The government can give me nothing it has not already taken from me. The right to self-defense would still exist even without their approval just as the right to speak would still exist even without their approval. What you suggest would be equal to saying that if you cannot prove a need to speak, then we no longer feel obligated to recognize your inherent right to do so. Would you then agree with this? Let us suppose that a serial killer has a knife at the throat one someone you love, there is a gun within your reach there is no phone and no time to do anything except pick the gun up, and save the live of the one, you love. Do you then still adhere with your benevolent and altruistic ideology? Watch them die or act? I am curious. Hope you never find out good that you respect my right to exist as well.