XDA

Nanny, proud ex-Mayor Bloomberg announced he'll send $50 million to the 50 states to set up a network of grass roots organizations to infringe on the People's rights to keep and bear firearms. (I don't think that's how grass roots organizations actually get started). As part of the fawning media support for Bloomberg's once more unto the breech comes this hummer of an article by ex-State Senator John Morse, who is the only Colorado State Senator ever recalled from office in Colorado. The irony is that he's still supporting the legislation infringing on the People's right to keep and bear firearms, the same legislation that got him recalled. Let's look at some of his piece. Big start:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg this week announced new funding and a new organization to level the political playing field against the gun lobby. The rest of us need to do our part and stand up to stop the madness the gun lobby engenders.

The "madness" he refers to is our gun nut's enforcing the 2nd Amendment against the government's tyrannical attempt to make it meaningless. Oh, and lobbying is also a protected, actually mentioned, 1st Amendment right. Don't recalled Democrats ever read the Constitution? And this funding from NY, is that the outside money Governor Hickenlooper said we Coloradoans should and do dislike? Just asking.

We heard and continue to hear arguments that people have the unimpeachable right to own these weapons and walk down the street, though most admit those rights stop when someone else starts shooting people. Of course there is no such absolute "right". All rights that exist under our constitution have limitations. (Emphasis added).

I have no idea why someone else starting to commit the crimes of assault and murder would have any effect on the application of the 2nd Amendment to me. This is incomprehensible. I want a gun for self defense and defense of others most when someone else starts shooting people. I don't admit this, because it's nonsense. But more troubling is the idea Morse, our former State Senate leader, has about the Bill of Rights. The rights are not grants by the government to individuals to do certain things, albeit without fear of government repercussion. Our rights are God given and cannot ever be repealed by a legitimate government of the People. Rather, the rights actually enumerated are absolute prohibitions on government action. The Government cannot, for example, ever prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of the press. There are no exceptions. There is at times difficulty applying these prohibitions to the complex behaviors of individuals, but that's not a limitation on the ban of certain government action, it's merely the exercise of an ordered liberty. The left in America seems to think that the Constitution, as amended, is something to overcome, not cherish. What's up with that?

Is forcing someone to reload their gun after cranking out 15 rounds a limit we can’t tolerate? Is allowing children precious seconds to escape a shooter just too inconvenient for rabbit hunters who don’t want to have to reload? Is requiring a background check to provide a measure of assurance that you are not a criminal or mentally ill before permitting you to purchase a gun unreasonable?

I have some questions: Is the 16th victim so much more precious to the government's actual desire to save lives than the first 15? Are you serious that the government infringement on magazine sizes is justified by the rank speculation that maybe it will give children "precious seconds" to escape a mass murder (in a gun free zone)? Because that's a really piss poor-way to protect children--only after 15 have been shot. How about protecting children from mass murderers with good people well trained with guns? Just a fleeting idea. Also, there already were background checks for purchasing guns, all federal firearm licencees (that is, all gun dealers) must use the background checks before any transfer of a gun, all sales at or initiated at gun shows must use the background check. What Morse is talking about here is having to do a background check to lend a gun to a friend for a weekend target shoot or to give one to your son. That's a real infringement in my book. If I don't know my son is mentally ill, it's extremely unlikely the government will.

If a 20-year-old man were to walk down the street in the middle of downtown Colorado Springs, my hometown, wearing black pants, black shoes and a black shirt overlaid with a shooting vest loaded with four 20-round magazines, three 30-round magazines, and a 15- and an 18-round magazine, carrying a Bushmaster XM15-E2S (a variation of the US military’s standard M-16) loaded with another 30-round magazine, along with a fully loaded Glock 10mm semi-automatic pistol in a holster strapped to his right thigh and a fully loaded 9mm Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol in a holster strapped to his right hip – all in plain view – he would break no Colorado law.

Well, not exactly. First, the M-16 is generally fully automatic and is, in every model, a Class III firearm which can only be owned after a super background check and usually permission of the local police chief or sheriff to own them. Since the 1934 restrictions on full auto ownership only one legal machine gun has ever been used in a violent crime (by a police officer, great!). I'd call that an effective program. So don't conflate M-16s with semi-auto weapons. M-16s are not and have never been a danger to the populace and semi-auto rifles are very rarely used in crimes either. Many more people are punched or kicked to death each year than are shot to death by any rifle, of which auto loaders are a smaller sub-set and the AR-15 types are an even smaller sub-set. The whole point of the stupid, unconstitutional laws Morse helped pass was to make having any magazine over 15 rounds illegal. That several million 30 round box magazines exist for the AR-15 et al. and are legal to own if you owned them before the law went into effect, makes the prohibition kinda worthless. We'll get to why such a ban is absolutely worthless for other reasons below.

Before 1 July 2013 he could have also bought every item described above in the state of Colorado without so much as a background check – because of legislation I championed and help pass – he no longer can. In Colorado today, you must get a background check before buying a firearm: That is the only restriction we imposed. In most states, to this day, that hypothetical man can legally buy all that firepower without a background check by simply going to a gun show or visiting the trunk of some entrepreneur’s car and paying whatever price is asked.

You could have bought 30 round magazines without a background check forever, background checks only apply to guns. Morse did not create background checks for 30 rounders after July 1, 2013, he banned their sale. You always had to pass a background check for any firearm purchase at a gun store or gun show. That might not be every single gun transfer but I guarantee you it's almost all of them. The law Morse seems to be so proud of didn't just apply to sales; it's a lie to say the new law did only that. The irony of this piece is that Morse reveals what is fundamentally wrong with the legislation. Only the law abiding will follow it. Criminals will always sell you the gun or magazine you want if you have the money and sufficient desire to own that gun or magazine, the law be damned. The people who obey stupid, unconstitutional gun laws, generally don't go on to shoot up children in some gun free zone. So the law is completely ineffective to prevent what Morse seems to believe it will prevent. Incoherent laws that serve no rational purpose are unconstitutional for that reason alone.


Morse refers to the Sandy Hook School shooting (of course) and then writes this confession.

When prevention fails, these incidents rarely end without devastating destruction. We can’t hope to prevent violence by noticing someone armed to the teeth entering a school, a theater or a mall. We can't arm everyone and hope to deter planned violent attacks or end them sooner and with fewer casualties. Even with the presence of an armed guard, like we had at Columbine High School, our attempts to stop these attacks will be muted since suicide is often the shooter’s intent.

You don't have to "arm everyone" in order to deter gun violence, one trained person with a concealed carry permit is sufficient, as incident after incident proves. What might be helpful is not creating gun free zones, that infringe on our right to bear arms and stupidly advertise where insane shooters will not be opposed by a good person with a gun. But he is absolutely right that nothing the government can do will stop or even deter an insane person eager to commit mass murder and willing to self-execute if he faces any armed opposition. So the purpose of the legislation Morse is so proud of was to fail totally to prevent the mass murders he mentions? Good reason.

The vast majority of Americans agree that we need responsible regulation of guns, but unfortunately, the few with arsenals in their basements are too loud and most politicians can’t think through the noise.

Notice the contempt for free speech? Some gun owners "are too loud" (shut up, he explained). He asserts that their exercise of one of the things the 1st Amendment protects keeps politicians from thinking straight. Really? I humbly submit that it is not the "noise" of differing opinions preventing Morse and his ilk from thinking well. My only exhibit for that submission is this deceptive, pathetic apology (in the classical sense) for his worthless, Constitution-infringing laws. Common sense, ironically, is not even in the same zip code as this propaganda.

Labels: John Morse; Gun Control Propaganda