Maybe Not

The Marine Corps Times suggests that vets should pursue 'more secure' gun laws.

Maybe. Whose security? What is being secured? What is being secured? Liberty, or something else?


Ymar Sakar said...

Ft Hood was secured by that kind of stuff. So was naval yard + recruiting offices.

One wonders what they think they are protecting... since they have a hard time even protecting themselves. Turning into the Praetorian and palace guards.

raven said...

What I am wondering is what the chain of command is for this guy to write this, and the Marine Times to print it? This is not coincidental to the D-ommunists push for gun confiscation.
The fact the writer is going to Columbia speaks for itself.
I could not get the comments to load, I suspect (and hope) there were not too many in concordance with his views.

E Hines said...

We have a more secure gun law. The 2nd Amendment just wants more security provided by the rest of us.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

Raven, an astute conclusion based upon the available data points. It's something those who are paranoid or security conscious would notice, probably first. But paranoia and individual situational awareness has fallen away as popular culture has over taken the other cultures.

I remember Webb writing something about John Kerry as well, when the Swift Boats got Kerry into trouble. Probably pulled a favor from Webb or vice a versa, for that one.

The Leftist alliance hasn't had much inroads in the veteran community ever since Nixon kicked them out of it, mostly by removing conscription. But there are always personal relationships and networks to fall back to.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

If they find a gun control law that reduces crime, I will start to listen. Until then, it's just moral preening.

raven said...

They don't WANT to reduce crime. "Crime" is the excuse for repression, so they want to increase the number of "criminals", so they can persecute their political enemies. Make enough laws, direct them to your enemies interests, and selective enforcement becomes the tool.

That is what all the surveillance state is all about- it is not to collect data and intercept terrorists- it is to store data for retroactive use against political enemies- then every word, email, blog post, photo, business deal, bank statement is peeled like an onion, looking for something, anything, to use against them.

Ayn Rand said something on this, that the blanketing of laws was meant to provide for lots of repression, and was it D'Tocqueville that said something about smothering under a blanket of law?

MikeD said...

What raven said, plus the fact that gun violence is down again (and has in fact been declining since the 1980s), media obfuscation not withstanding. To say "we have a gun violence problem in this country" is to willfully ignore that trend, and to use it to demand further restrictions on the rights of the law abiding is unconscionable.

I prefer to take the Chesterton position that the gate is over there for a reason, and clearly we're trending in the right direction, so why don't we just leave the gate where it is and not risk making things worse.