GE Rant: Sen. Bob Menedez’ (D-NJ) OpEd arguing why New Jersey’s unconstituional gun laws need to go national | APP
GE Rant Warning (long): I am loathe, loathe to wade into the morass of the 2nd Amendment discussion because so many of you are smarter and more well informed than I. But as the top of my head is about to come off, I will keep this brief and – likely – unintelligible.
In my opinion Senators Mendenez, Lautenberg, Schumer and their ilk are morally bankrupt, deluded or simple. These men are career pols, public parasites and – at heart – each is a collectivist and authoritarian in my view. They value and defend only their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, yours and mine is a problem to be managed for the ‘common good.’
Schumer may, from time to time, visit his wife Iris Weinshall for lunch in the Bronx (she’s on CUNY’s public teat. Tt’s a family thing) … but we are assured he is driven only to the good section. Lautenberg leaves New Jersey spends his weekends and summers in Martha’s Vineyard where – to the best of my knowledge – the Crips and MS-13 have yet to gain a foothold. Menendez seems to have his staffers writing disjunct, illogical falsehoods about his states gun control laws, while he and his security detail are likely off on a summer trip sponsored by the AFL-CIO or the Bankers Association. Menendez opines:
It could have happened here in New Jersey. We knew this as we learned of the horrible gun violence that erupted in Aurora, Colo., July 20.
We had seen similar circumstances before: people doing what they normally would do in places where the danger of being gunned down would seem virtually nonexistent.
We saw it on a summer night in 2007 at a Newark schoolyard where a group a friends hanging out just a few days before starting college were brutally murdered execution-style. The glow of South Orange’s gaslights was just a short drive away.
We saw it the following year at a YMCA in the suburban community of Montclair when a man “snapped” — as he would later tell a jury — and fired six bullets into his estranged wife, near the pool where children, including their son, learned to swim.
We saw it in the small town of Verona, where two criminals’ string of robberies in 2009 did not end until a 29-year-old gas station attendant lay dead.
None of these murderous crimes committed in New Jersey involved a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds of ammunition in seconds — unlike the horror that was unleashed in that Aurora movie theater.
New Jersey’s laws banning such weapons have kept some of the most tragic stories in our news media from becoming that much more horrible.
Wait, what? Did you really say that Bob? How about the body count in Camden or Newark in that same time period? Those stories are pretty tragic and not one of the gun laws or unconstitutional restrictions that you are about to champion had made one bit of difference to the hoards of criminals in those two fine towns, nor to the decedents. But I’ll give you your head. Please, continue.
What other victims might there have been if the firepower at the Aurora killer’s disposal was available to those who pulled the triggers in crimes committed closer to home?
Hypothesis clothed as conclusion Bob. Might we not ask how many fewer victims there might have been had concealed (or open) carry of handguns was not functionally prohibited in the great state of New Jersey? There likely are more data to support my hypothesis than yours. Go on.
Call it a small victory for New Jersey’s common-sense gun laws. Our laws have been ranked the nation’s second-best by the Brady Campaign, the gun-control advocacy organization named after President Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady, who was severely wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt.
Call it a small victory? I understand than in an election year you and your cohort are tempted to call all sorts of pigs ‘Irene’, but they are still merely pigs Bob. The auto-correlative logic of citing support by the most reactionary and irrational gun-control group in the US as evidence of the rationality and soundness of your argument is fallacious.
The Brady Campaign ranked gun laws in Virginia — where a 2007 shooting left 32 college students dead — the nation’s lowest.
If we hope to keep the kind of deadly violence from happening again, New Jersey’s gun laws need to go national. And, at this point, it ought to be an easy sell.
Your staffers should fact check before they author your Op-Eds: It turns out that the VA tech crime perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho was conducted with guns, magazines and ammo that he easily would have been able to purchase in New Jersey at that time, and at the present: Cho passed the background checks; Cho had no criminal history. The 10-round magazines he used were NJ-legal; the Glock and Walther-guns were NJ-legal, and the hollow point bullets were NJ-legal to purchase (though are an additional violation after they are used in a crime.)
Why would any responsible public official in New Jersey, or anywhere, oppose requiring childproof locks on guns or full background checks on people who want to buy a weapon?
Why would a public official oppose a ban on assault weapons, regulations on the sale of high-capacity clips or how many bullets any one person can buy?
When the safety of the vast majority of people — including children — is at stake, there can be no reason for being against these sensible gun-control measures.
Yes Bob its all for the children. We know that you love our kids more than we do, and we know that State must take primary responsibility for the kids first, and then all of us, and that we must surrender every last shred of autonomy and self-responsibility to the political class’s ‘Grand Plan for Life, the Universe and Everything.’
As a U.S. senator, I take my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States with the utmost solemnity and purpose — and that includes upholding the Second Amendment. It is a standing affirmation of the American individual’s right to defend against tyranny.
Bob, did a different staffer write that paragraph?
But an absolute and unbridled application of the Second Amendment subjects most Americans to a different kind of tyranny — one that is based on the fear that we are simply not safe when we leave the house, when we go to the movies, when we live our lives.
Many folks do live in fear… of criminals, of the police, of the state, of the boogeyman, the UN, alien invasion… You unfortunately can do nothing to legislate away someone’s feelings and emotions. Talk to the liberal, Obama voting democrats in Camden, or Newark, or the South Side of Chicago and ask them how well the unbelievably restrictive gun laws extant in those areas have worked to remove or reduce the level of fear they feel.
As strongly as I believe we should all have access to the medications we need, I support the regulation of some over-the-counter drugs when they have been found to include an ingredient that, when used in bulk, helps to make crystal meth. The customer who legitimately needs the product is still served, while the criminal is hindered.
55 gallons drums of pseudepehdrine or acetone are enumerated by nothing in the Bill of Rights Bob… what does this have to do with changing gun laws?
That is the same principle behind reasonable federal gun safety laws. To limit the number of bullets a person can buy — or the number of rounds he can fire in one second — interferes with no American’s legitimate needs or constitutional liberties.
Yes it does Bob… the framers clearly seem to have understood the nearly boundless coercive potential of the State and of tyrants. The framers seem to have intended that the right to self defense includes a right of defense against such tyrannical state power. In the mid 18th century, it was reasonable for the framers to have assumed that an armed citizenry would be a power to check (and balance… remember the concept Bob?) the coercive potential of the State given the nominal parity of an armed militia.
Now, thanks to those of a controlling, statist stripe the State has the power to: Use drones against us; strip search us at airports; cavity search us if we are incarcerated for a speeding ticket; take our kids away from us with nothing more than an accusation; conduct non-consented searches with high-tech gadgets such as radars, lasers; track us with RFID devices in our documents; use facial recognition software in the same way; is allowed to have dogs ‘jump’ into our cars to sniff out contraband; force to pay a labyrinth of taxes, fees, penalties; tell us how and where we may dispose of private property and… uses our tax money to implement this tyranny against us. Thus, I conclude the tyranny and lack of freedom is real or nearly so.
Further, the State’s security apparatus – domestic and military used domestically (posse comitatus anyone) – is now so advanced, so well armed, so sophisticated and so pervasive in scope that domestic resistance against domestic tyranny, as the framers had envisioned, is well nigh impossible or insane. The military hardware and software trotted out on the NatGeo Channel is almost certainly nothing like what might really be used by the State.
To that end Bob there are only two (2) reasonable responses to the facts given your stated devotion to the Second Amendment of the US Bill of Rights:
- Disarm the State, and potential tyrants to a level nominally equivalent to that of the armed citizenry, or;
- Remove all unconstitutional impediments to the citizen’s right to bear arms.
Logically, that is where the argument ends up. Sorry.
There are likely other issues at work in the Aurora tragedy, including mental illness and the need for greater recognition and treatment of symptoms that may provide warning signs before a tragic incident occurs.
But those other dynamics should not be excuses for failing to take common-sense and long-overdue action on gun safety.
We must decide, as a nation, whether we will finally end atrocities that we have seen in Columbine, Tucson, Virginia Tech and Aurora.
No one should receive a death sentence for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Aurora was a crime, and our hearts ache for those that lost their lives, health or sanity due to the actions one (1) criminal person.
Truly tragic, though, is the lock-step predictability with which this sort of nonsense Op-Ed / electioneering garbage gets written every time there is an exceptional crime, outrage or – in the words of Rahm Emanuel – a crisis. Each time the Statists, Progressives, Whatevers use terrible but functionally non-preventable events to advance political and social arguments that always have a common conclusion: Diminution or elimination our personal power and personal rights at the hands of a centrally-planning State that then doles out freedom and resources at it chooses, and from which you policy proponents see yourselves as insulated and unaffected.
I am tired of that, I am tired of this and I am tired of you.