Baltimore Sun Editorial Full Of Fallacies
Apr 1, 2013 Political
A Baltimore Sun editorial addressing the ongoing gun grab in the People’s Republik of Maryland is interesting in that it is full of fallacies about what gun control can do. It is no secret that the Sun is a propaganda publication for the Democrat Party in Maryland. Most of the Sun staff is privately paid stenographers for the Democrats. But the naive discussion presented in the editorial is beyond ridiculous. Of course, thinking people do not believe most of what is in the Sun (the Sports page is the exception) but then again, the Sun is aimed at low information voters who continue to vote for stupidity and loss of freedom.
The Sun editorial starts out right out of the box by claiming; “…the effort in Congress to enact any meaningful legislation to address gun violence appears increasingly at risk.”
The statement that Congress doing anything is at risk is true but the fallacy is anything meaningful. What legislation could be passed that would have stopped the shootings at Newtown? I will point out later why nothing will.
The reality is that we have thousands of gun laws on the books. We do not enforce them and liberals turn a blind eye to the reality that the gun is not the problem, the criminal is. The Sun plays into this myth that gun laws (“meaningful” or otherwise) do nothing to stop criminals.
How would any new gun law stop people from getting guns when most crimes committed with guns are committed by people who are not allowed to have them?
[note]Our government illegally provided thousands of guns to criminals in Mexico.[/note]
The Sun is hedging its bets that the Democrat controlled legislature in Maryland and the Communist governor will pass meaningful gun control to stop the violence like the violence that happened in Newtown.
Keep in mind that the shooter was not allowed to have guns, none of the guns were owned by him, he murdered his mother and stole her guns and then he took them to a gun free zone known as a school and used them to murder people which, wait for it, is against the law (which I assume the Sun staff knows).
The shooter broke many laws to murder so what would stop him from breaking some new gun law? The answer to this question escapes the Sun writers. It also escapes them that it is against the law to murder people and yet, murders occur. And they occur with more than just firearms.
The Sun continues by telling us about a provision that would require people who purchase a handgun to register with the police and submit fingerprints. The Sun naively believes that this will end straw purchases. I can only surmise that the Sun thinks that this will keep criminals from getting guns because criminals will not register and submit fingerprints so they won’t buy guns. The first issue is that a straw purchase involves someone who is legally allowed to buy a gun doing so and then selling it to a person who is not. This is already illegal so what would stop a person who is allowed to buy a gun from submitting to the requirements and then selling the gun. It is obvious that criminals do not obey the law so it is unlikely this will stop the problem.
The only thing it will do is create a database of people with guns for later confiscation.
The Sun is also deluded in its thinking with regard to registration. The Sun likes the idea because it erroneously concludes that this requirement will make it harder for criminals to get guns. Criminals do not obtain guns legally and they do not register the guns they have.
It is tough to believe that there are actually people who think that some requirement will force criminals to comply.
It is illegal to buy, sell or use heroin but people do all the time. Do the laws against this prevent people from breaking those laws? Certainly not! Criminals do not obey the law.
How many of the people on the Sun staff have ever gotten a speeding or parking ticket? Did the laws against speeding or parking illegally prevent them from doing so?
The crimes committed in this country with guns will not be solved by any laws because we already have plenty of laws against using guns illegally and people still break the law. I know I harp on that but the writers at the Sun are fairly dense so repetition is important.
And to get back to another point, it is against the law to murder people. That has not stopped people from murdering.
One last point. If the writers at the Sun think these laws will stop the criminals and make it harder to get guns then perhaps they should look at the early part of last century and the subject of prohibition.
People were able to obtain alcohol during prohibition just as criminals today will get guns no matter how tightly they are controlled or how restrictive the laws are.
The Sun concludes by pointing out that passage of a meaningful gun law in Maryland is deserved because it will make us safer.
Newtown has tough restrictions on guns. How did that work out?
But, but, all you have to do is call 911 and they will send a guy with a gun.
In Newtown the police were called within one minute of the first shot fired through the glass. All the victims were murdered within five minutes. The police arrived after everyone, including the shooter, was dead.
Any person at the school who was allowed to carry a gun would have had a better chance of stopping the shooter than the act of calling 911.
In the past only law abiding people followed the laws and criminals were unaffected. Any new gun laws will only affect those inclined to follow them.
The reality though, is that many people have already stated that they will not comply with any new gun laws in Maryland.
The state will make law abiding people criminals who will eventually vote with their feet. The right to own a firearm is protected by the Constitution and the reason is to prevent the kind of tyranny the Maryland governor and his sock puppets are imposing.
It is to prevent the kind of tyranny the Sun endorses.
For allegedly educated people the Sun staff seems to have trouble with the concept that criminals do not obey the law and the definition of the word infringe…
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: baltimore sun, criminals, fallacy, gun control, lies, myths
Give Me Liberty…
Nov 26, 2010 Political
…Or give me death.
Immortal words from a speech given by Patrick Henry (published after his death).
Interestingly, there are many people today who choose something other than liberty and they make no bones about it. Jules Witcover, writing in the Baltimore Sun, has produced a piece in which he describes the enhanced security procedures of the TSA as a sacrifice for the security of our nation. Witcover equates this sacrifice to the sacrifices made by the people who fought or supported WW II and to a lesser extent Vietnam.
Witcover describes sacrifices made by people during those tumultuous periods of our history and then goes on to say that those who are squeamish about making sacrifices now can stay home on Thanksgiving and watch football (not a bad idea regardless).
But what Witcover fails to see is the distinction between personal sacrifice as in doing without or collecting for the war effort and the sacrifice of liberty.
During WW II Americans did without quite a bit in order to support the war effort. Food was rationed and people collected rubber and scrap metal to help the war effort. Americans bought savings bonds to support the effort. These are all admirable things and none of them involved sacrificing LIBERTY.
The enhanced screening done by the TSA is an invasion of privacy and an affront to our rights. We have a right to travel by air (as codified in the United States Code) and we have a right not to be searched without probable cause. The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution protects us against such invasions.
Witcover thinks that we should ignore our rights and acquiesce to the government because, to him, it is no big deal to have this disregard of our rights in the name of security. It is, as he points out, a sacrifice that we should make.
Americans are not dismissing the need for security at our airports though one could argue that the procedures in place are hit and miss and that anyone with ill intent could easily breach security. The issue with the enhanced procedures, as I see it, is not about security but about control (the process is a great example of the Overton Window). There are other non intrusive methods available that have proven more effective. The Israelis use a method of profiling that screens passengers and weeds them out to those who pose no threat and those who might. Those who might are given a more thorough look while those who are not are sent on their way.
The Israelis have not had problems with terrorists getting on their planes.
My message to Mr. Witcover and others who think like him is that we should never, ever give up our liberty in the name of security. We are not the enemy and we are not the threat. Those who are can be better identified and dealt with without subjecting the rest of us to intrusive searches.
We are Americans and we have rights and we should never abandon those rights in the name of security.
As Ben Franklin stated; “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Those, like Witcover, who would give up their liberty in order to have the temporary security on an airplane deserve neither liberty or security.
What do you say we actually work on targeting those who would do us harm and leave the non invasive screening for those who value their liberty?
Mr. Witcover, it is admirable to sacrifice during times of trouble and past generations have shown what sacrifice is but they did so without sacrificing their liberty. While one could argue that this generation is sacrificing little in the way of supporting the war effort, that should not be an excuse to demand that people sacrifice their liberty.
America is the land of the free because it is the home of the brave and that includes the brave people who stand up to tyranny from their own government. It includes those who refuse to allow their rights to be violated in the name of security.
I wonder where Mr. Witcover would stand if the government decided, in the name of security, that all articles from journalists had to got through the government to be censored. Jules, would you be willing to sacrifice in that instance or do you only value some rights?
The entire text attributed to Patrick Henry is as follows:
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Substitute the word security for peace in the quote and you will have my answer to Mr. Witcover’s request for sacrifice.
I don’t plan on dying anytime soon and I certainly don’t plan on giving up my liberty.
Remember, the only way you can lose your rights is to give them away.
And if that is the kind of sacrifice you want then you can count me out…
You can contact Mr. Witcover at juleswitcover@comcast.net
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: baltimore sun, ben franklin, jules witcover, lies, overton window, patrick henry, rights, sacrifice