Bloomberg Announces Water Gun Restrictions

DISCLAIMER: This post is entirely fictitious.

It was a normal summer day in suburban Queens.  Neighbors Timmy Thompson and Georgie Green decided to engage in that great American pastime, the water gun fight. Timmy came armed with a standard air-pressure based water gun, but Georgie came with a NERF Super-Soaker equipped with a Hydro-Pack.  Georgie's equipment gave him a full 100 ounces of water with which to drench Timmy, while poor Timmy had a miserable 5 ounces that required refilling regularly.

During one of these refilling stops, Georgie accidentally hit Timmy in the eye, causing some irritation. Although Timmy insisted he was just fine, his mom made him go to the doctor, where he was required to put Visine Eye Drops in his eye twice a day for a week.

It could have ended there, except for Timmy's mother works in the office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the story of Timmy and Georgie's water gun fight. In his ongoing effort to help protect the health of New Yorkers through government, the Mayor proposed new regulations.

"There is no reason that someone would need a water gun that holds 100 ounces of water or even 30 ounces of water! Therefore, my office is presenting a bill to the City Council limiting the capacity of water weapons to 7 ounces and making the sale of high capacity water projectile weapons illegal."

When asked to comment, Roger Simpson of the National Water Gun Association (NWGA) stated,

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically protects our Right to Bear Arms. It doesn't specify firearms, melee weapons, hand weapons including blade weapons, or even water weapons. All are protected. Americans of all ages have the right to protect themselves against a water attack with whatever size water container they desire from a 2 ounce water pistol to a garden hose and everything in between."

While neither gave an official comment, both President Obama and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo are said to support Bloomberg's bill.

Georgie was quoted as saying, "Seriously dude, it was a water gun fight. Timmy's fine."

Timmy, in response stated, "Georgie's right. I'm fine. My mom totes overreacted. Also, tell Georgie I demand a rematch."


No water guns were harmed in the writing of this post.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Just Pass a Law, Problem Solved!

I think this meme pretty wonderfully sums up the pure lack of logic in the liberal attempts to pass laws to stop gun violence by passing new laws. After the Sandy Hill Elementary Shooting, after the Colorado Shooting, and after pretty much any gun violence, liberal Democrats begin to push for the passing of new gun restrictions. As always they ignore the fact that not only do the criminals involved have no issues committing the crimes of murder and attempted murder, but also that the vast, vast majority of gun crimes do not in fact involve legally obtained guns.

Now let's take the above comparison of marijuana. Whether or not you believe it marijuana should be legalized, it is completely illegal in 26 states, 8 states have decriminalized possesion in small quantities but retained criminalization of sale of large quantities, 7 states have made it legal ONLY with a doctor's prescription, 7 have both medical marijuana and decriminalization laws in place and only 2 have legalized it for recreational use.

Does anyone want to tell me that marijuana use is stopped in the 26 states where it is illegal or that it is only used for medical purposes in the 7 states where it is only legal with a prescription? For that matter, does anyone believe people who want to obtain marijuana are stopped by these laws? OF COURSE NOT!

So why would any rational person believe that gun control laws would stop criminals from obtaining guns to commit crimes? It turns out criminals don't follow laws...only law abiding citizens do.

The answer is: "It wouldn't!" But liberals are convinced that passing a law would make a difference. Liberals want to make a difference, they generally mean well...at least the Neighborhood Liberals do...but the results don't matter.

Yet, to go back to what we said above, how many people smoke marijuana even though it's illegal. And that's not even a violent crime motivated by hate.  Criminals DON'T follow laws. A gun criminal is already committing at least one crime: murder or attempted murder. But, they're apparently going to stop committing that crime which they have planned and premeditated because it's illegal for them to have a particular gun.

The only people who will be stopped from buying guns are law-abiding citizens. You know, the ones who would use those guns for protection. Perhaps those law-abiding citizens would use their legally purchased and licensed guns to stop a murderer?

Bottom line, passing a law only effects law-abiding citizens.  It doesn't effect criminals. Because criminals don't follow laws, by definition.

The 2nd Amendment was NEVER about Hunting, Personal Security

You'd be surprised to find how many liberals believe this...and why wouldn't they? It's what liberal teachers are teaching our children in public schools. I'll bet you this quote never comes up:

Yes, friends, government is not automatically as benevolent and liberals want you and I to believe. Our Founding Fathers knew that. They didn't revolt against Great Britain because they wanted to BE MADE free. They revolted against Great Britain because they were supposed to be ALREADY FREE and those rights were being taken from them. They were fighting to restore their Natural Rights. They were created free and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (I can guarantee you the Founders did not accidentally leave out "the right to Healthcare" or "the right to destroy the unborn child in your womb because it's your body." But I digress.)

Don't get me wrong, personal security makes the Right to Bear Arms further necessary. While major cities and even smaller towns had some law enforcement, just like today the sheriff couldn't stop a robbery at the sight unless he happened to be on site at the time.  Despite what liberals in their Happy Imagination Hats believe, you can't call the police if someone is trying to assault you, at least in most cases.

However, the reason for the Second Amendment, was, is and always will be is to ensure that the citizens of the United States are capable of remove our government if the government ever becomes tyrannical. 

(I AM NOT suggesting that such a revolt is currently necessary, nor should this post be construed as a call for such a revolution. Anyone who takes this post to mean we should revolt is wrong.)

It turns out the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that our nation could stand up against our own government if it was ever necessary. So far, in the over 230 years of this nation's history, such a revolution has not been necessary -- but only a fool would assume that it is 100% impossible for such a need to arise in the future.

Therefore, if the United States government has a particular firearm, citizens DO in fact "need" to be able to purchase the same firearms, just in case we need to remove a future tyrannical government.  Whether we would need an M16 rifle for hunting deer or bear is irrelevant. We would need that if we ever needed to overthrow a tyrannical government (which would absolutely have those weapons, because duh).

Liberals have either missed the point of the Second Amendment or are willfully ignoring it. The Second Amendment is about protection from tyranny from within. Plain and simple.

Mr. President, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seriously, Mr. President, what part of this do you not understand?

Why do I say this? Oh, I don't know, probably because the President and large quantities of American liberals, of both the Neighborhood and Activist variety, seem to think the 2nd Amendment says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the President and Congress deem this less necessary because reasons."

Except it doesn't say that. It says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that would be the end of this Amendment. That other stuff above isn't in there.)

So perhaps it's time once again to give a Constitutional History lesson to our President, the Constitutional Law professor.

THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD.

(That was the sound of me banging my head against my desk in frustration that such an explanation is necessary.)

Some of you, including our President, have been laboring under the assumption that the Second Amendment was in place to ensure that Americans had the ability to protect their homesteads against wolves, or thieves, or for use in hunting, or some other such thing in the early days of our nation before widespread police protection.  It also wasn't just about the ability of the people to have a "Well-regulated Militia," which is now unnecessary because we have a standing military.

It wasn't.

Actually, if you look back on the founding of our nation, you will find that our nation was founded because the Founders overthrew a tyrannical government that was taking away our rights. While we hope the ballot box and a free press (however biased and clearly stilted to the side of liberalism) should make this need unnecessary, the moment a free people find themselves being oppressed by a tyrannical government, we have the God-given right to overthrow that government.  

(I am not advocating such a revolution at this time, by the way, I am simply teaching a history lesson on the reason for the Second Amendment.)

If history has shown us anything it is this: An armed government with an unarmed populace leads to tyranny. When the National Socialist Party (aka Nazi Party) took over Germany, one of the first things Adolf Hitler did was take away all guns (save for the Gestapo and the Military, of course). He wasn't the only one. Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung in Communist China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Saddam Hussein in Iraq...I can continue for pages...all removed guns from their citizens hands, while keeping them for themselves.

There was a reason why our Founding Fathers put the Right to Bear Arms in the Constitution. It wasn't to protect hunters rights and it wasn't just to protect citizens against invaders of their homes. It was to protect us from a tyrannical government. 

Any government that wants to limit that right makes me very scared. I'm especially scared when a President wants to do that, because unlike the Supreme Court and Congress, the Executive Branch's power is largely centered on one person.

To answer the question that is repeatedly asked, Why do we need "assault rifles" or "high capacity magazines?" Because the government has them. If we ever need to overthrow that government (and I am not suggesting we need to at this time) we need to be able to defend ourselves on equal footing.

So perhaps, Mr. President, former Constitutional Law professor, that might just be the reason the Founding Fathers said, and I again quote,

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Period. End of discussion.

Current Gun Control Laws Didn't Stop Newtown Shooting

The President and the Democratic Party are trying very hard to create new gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings last month. Because Adam Lanza used a legally obtained gun, right?

Oh wait, he didn't. He used stolen guns that were obtained illegally.

Actually, Lanza was stopped from purchasing guns legally by in-place gun control laws. He committed multiple gun crimes before , stealing his mother's guns (4 counts), unlawful carrying of a pistol without a permit, carrying those guns into a gun-free zone, carrying them without a carry permit, I can go on and on. In total he broke 41 laws in perpetrating his crime. That includes 27 counts of First Degree Murder. Of the remaining fourteen laws he broke, thirteen were gun-control laws.

There were thirteen gun control laws that were ALREADY IN PLACE that Adam Lanza broke in perpetrating his horrible crime. Please, do tell me how a fourteenth law would've helped? More importantly, please tell me all about how criminals follow laws.

Yet the President wants to ram through more gun control legislation in the wake of this horrific event. Will it stop criminals like Adam Lanza? I mean, he didn't mind breaking the existing thirteen gun control laws that were in place before his crime.

The only people who will be stopped from carrying weapons with new Gun Control laws are the law abiding citizens. In other words, the innocent victims will now be at a disadvantage. The criminals will still get illegal weapons. It's been said that as little as 5% of gun crimes are committed using legally obtained guns. If this is true, (or even if the 5% number isn't perfect, it is indeed a fact that the majority of gun crimes use illegal guns) then the only answer is for the law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.

Remember, both Adam Lanza in Newtown, CT and James Eagan Holmes, the alleged perpetrator of the Aurora, CO shootings this past summer, were breaking existing gun control laws in perpetrating or allegedly perpetrating, respectively, their crimes. If the current laws aren't working, why would new ones work?

So what is the solution?

The question we should be asking after this year's recent rash of shootings is, in my opinion, how can we ensure that law abiding citizens are able to protect themselves and others when a crazed gunman comes in to perpetrate such a crime. In Aurora, CO, why wasn't there a law abiding citizen able to stop James Eagan Holmes (allegedly)?  When the shooting occurred, I had discussed seeing Dark Knight Rises with a good friend who has a concealed carry permit the day after the Aurora Shooting.  Let's call him Joe (because that's his name).  I remember thinking, while everyone was worried about copycats at future showings of Dark Knight Rises, "If that happens at my showing, I'll be with a law-abiding, trained citizen who can DO SOMETHING about the crime in progress."

The bottom line is this: Gun Control laws only keep the law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It doesn't stop the criminals.  They sure didn't stop Adam Lanza. 

Newtown Shooting SHOULD NOT Be a Political Football

Yet the Left begins it's cry again for more gun control. The attitude repeated is "if we had just had Law X in place, this never would've happened!" It's a sad but true fact that the American Left will use any crisis to push their agenda, up to and including circumventing the Second Amendment.

Nobody has a better answer for this attitude than our old pal Condescending Wonka:

While a bit crass, this meme is 100% correct. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of this horrific crime, clearly had no respect for laws. After all, murder has been illegal in the United States since before it was a nation. Actually, it's illegal in every Western country. Yet this man chose to commit this crime.

The fact is, while the exact statistics are hard to pin down, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed not with a legally purchased weapon but an ILLEGALLY purchased weapon or an unregistered gun. Take for example Aurora, CO, the site of this summer's shooting at a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." This town had some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. It did not stop the criminal. What it did stop was the law abiding citizens in that theater from having their own weapons for defense.

Yet some on the Left want to use this event to once again press their agenda of making the 2nd Amendment weaker and weaker. As always, the Left is happy to find rights that are somehow written between the lines of the Constitution (see: "Right to Privacy") but if a right is actually written IN BLACK AND WHITE then clearly the founders didn't really mean it the way it's clearly written. 

The bottom line is this tragic event should not ever be a political football. It should not be used by the Left to continually push their agenda. The reality is passing new gun laws will only take defense weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals will find ways to get their guns. Or, perhaps they'll just use another weapon to perpetrate their crimes. Either way, these new laws won't help stop any gun violence.

I conclude with this little ditty, courtesy of our founding fathers:

Emphasis Added

After CO Massacre, We Do Not Need More Gun Control

As a matter of fact, my friends, we need less. Now I know there are both Neighborhood and Activist Liberals alike are taken aback...after all, didn't guns cause this problem? No. James Holmes, the alleged shooter, caused this problem.

What could have made it less of a tragedy, however, would have been a law-abiding citizen with a legal, licensed, concealed gun in that theater who could have dropped Holmes before more people were hurt or killed. That would have made a difference.
I saw two images online recently that perfectly stated the ridiculousness of gun control laws stopping gun violence:

The second cartoon is what I sometimes think liberals believe actually happens. Criminals totally follow laws, right? Oh, and guns are only obtained legally, right?  Ridiculous.

The fact is that gun control laws in the vast majority of cases only hinders law abiding citizens from purchasing guns. Am I saying that if the gun control laws in Colorado weren't some of the strictest in the nation that somebody would've clearly had a firearm and would've disarmed Holmes as he (allegedly) started firing shots on innocents? No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that if there was a law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and carrying a legal concealed firearm that there would likely have been a significantly less casualties. Because when the criminals have guns, the best defense is for the law abiding citizens to be able to respond in kind.