As I noted in my last article, the liberal media and politicians began to cry for stricter gun laws just minutes after learning of the unspeakable tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Before the bodies were cold, Piers Morgan tweeted that the U.S. needs a ban on all handguns. Before knowing how, where or why Adam Lanza obtained these weapons, Soledad O’Brien suggested the federal government should impose a limit on the amount of guns a person can own.

We soon learned on Saturday afternoon that Lanza obtained the guns illegally by stealing them from his mother and altering them after he was denied a purchase at a local gun store. He was denied from buying a gun, because he refused a background check. The law worked.

In an interview Monday with Soledad O’Brien, John Lott said that from 1950 on, and with only one exception, every attack where more than three people have been killed were committed in gun-free zones. He said that killers target these zones to lessen their chances of being deterred. He spoke about the gunman who chose the movie theater in Aurora, a gun-free zone, as opposed to theaters closer to his home.

O’Brien fought back, saying the guns themselves are the similarity in those attacks, and that “a rational person could say that having access to a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle is inappropriate.”

The problem with people like O’Brien arguing for gun control is that she knows nothing about guns. A semi-automatic rifle can do the same amount of damage that any semi-automatic handgun or revolver can do.

But I digress. O’Brien’s goal is not to limit someone’s access to guns. We already know that these guns were stolen and altered and that the existing Connecticut laws worked. What O’Brien and her liberal counterparts, such as Ed Schultz and Piers Morgan want is a ban on most if not all guns. They constantly look to the U.K. and Australia, lamenting the fact that we still have a very pro-gun culture here in the states. They see law-abiding citizens who legally own guns for their protection, and they see them as a barbaric and imminent threat that must be stopped.

It was incredibly careless for Lanza’s mother to keep guns accessible to her mentally disturbed son. It is unknown as of now if she can be held responsible for any of this, but for someone like O’Brien to suggest that these guns breed killers is not only inaccurate, but dangerously ignorant to the original intent of the Bill of Rights.

Screen Shot 2012-12-17 at 2.55.33 PM

No, Piers, but the Founding Fathers were very smart men. They knew that advancing technologies would lend to higher-powered weapons, and I’m sure they knew plenty of mental illness without the medications and diagnoses we have today. But something these media types tend to forget is that the Second Amendment was not created for the sole protection of oneself and one’s family. The Founders also saw a need for citizens to be able to defend themselves or revolt against a powerful, tyrannical regime.

Aside from the First, I can’t think of an amendment Americans hold more dear than the Second. And in the days we live in, when Americans don’t even know if their children will be safe when they send them away on the school bus, trying to take away their access to guns would be a mistake of epic proportions.


35 thoughts on “Knee-jerk liberalism in a 24-hour news cycle

  1. Agreed, 100% The media just couldn’t wait to start telling us how bad we are to have privately owned weapons.

    If you read overseas newspapers, they are banging on about how the US must change their ways, and NOW! But when London burned last year, anyone who defended their property from marauders was arrested. Not a grand jury, not filing a statement–ARRESTED. They do not get it.

    Thanks for being a voice of sanity.

  2. 100% accurate article. We all knew, unfortunately, that this would be another argument as to why we shouldn’t be allowed guns. There are scores of “unstable” people who ALREADY HAVE guns, or access to them. The Liberal media, for once in their pathetic careers, should be focusing on those poor families who lost loved ones. The loss of a child has to be unbearable for those poor people.

  3. The dictatorial elimination/alteration of the 2nd Amendment will be the tipping point where upon American Patriots shall have no other choice but to declare war on a government gone rogue.

  4. Morgan, and so many other liberals, love saying the founding fathers could not have imagined assault weapons and their availability. You know what else they didn’t imagine? Abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, Obamacare, etc. I guess those shouldn’t be allowed either.

  5. Are you not also guilty of knee-jerk pro-gun propaganda?

    The shooting began around 9:40am. At 10:24am, you were already clamoring to protect your guns, spewing fear of Obama in the process. You absolutely used the tragedy to promote your gun propaganda. If that’s not hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.

    I don’t understand you. I don’t understand your position. I just feel tremendous amounts of sorrow for you.

    • I looked up that tweet and the time says 1:30pm. Is that why you didn’t click to expand it before you took the screenshot? Because you feel the need to lie to push your gun-hating agenda? Besides, Piers Morgan (among many others) began crying for more gun control as early as 11:30am. Go ahead and look at Morgan’s time stamps, huh? Posted his first gun control tweet at 11:30am Alex Wagner took to MSNBC at NOON saying that maybe the Democrats can get some political leverage after this shooting to crack down on guns. Toure took to Twitter only 2 hours after the first shot. Mike Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo began as early as 4pm. Really, do you want me to go on?

      I don’t fire, I fire back. I didn’t want to launch into the discussion as soon as I had to, but I’m not going to keep my mouth shut when media big wigs try to take my rights away either. I had an opportunity to defend myself and I did. Get over it.

      P.S. You can feel sorry for me all you want, but it’ll be me who saves your ass while you wait helplessly for the police.

    • At best you waited 4 hours to use this tragedy to go after Obama, when so little was known. It’s a failure of integrity. And it’s hypocrisy.

      And why shouldn’t Piers be outraged?

      • Wait, so it’s OK for Piers to politicize the tragedy TWO hours after it happened, but it’s not OK for me to do the same FOUR hours after? what the hell?

        Piers Morgan called to BAN all handguns just two hours after, before learning anything about the shooter, what weapons he used or how the weapons were obtained. Guess what? THEY WERE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY.

        I was simply defending myself and any other gun-owner who aren’t going to let a tragedy like this strip us of our rights to protect ourselves and our families.

        You’re done here.

  6. One of the things that often gets overlooked in the discussion of the defense of the rights of the American people is the nature of the Bill of Rights. All ten amendments are designed to protect the American people — from their government. The First protects our freedom of speech and religion, it means that the government can’t punish me for what I say or believe. The Second is the same way, in order to protect the people from the tyranny of government “the right of people to keep bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    To Piers who asked “Did the Founding Fathers foresee deranged young men armed with assault weapons & high-capacity magazines shooting up schools?” Not literally, of course. But did they foresee weapons greater than they had known? Yes, I believe they did. The first repeating rifles were being invented about the time that the Constitution was being drafted and were in use when the Bill of Rights were written. Did they foresee violent, tragic death? YES — you have to remember that they lived in violent times. Comparatively, our lives are relatively free from danger and disease. I know that makes the losses more dear, but it doesn’t mean we should stray from the path our Founding Fathers put us on.

    Seek peace.

  7. I need to start off my comment by extending thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.

    The fact is that we can not eliminate evil by passing a law. Feel like jumping on the “let’s ban all guns bandwagon, go ahead, it will be about as effective as prohibition was with alcohol. How’s the war on drugs going? Last I looked there were plenty of laws banning drugs and they are as easy to get now as ever. Any deviant that desires has access to whatever they want, laws or no laws. Guns would be no different. Is the suicide bomber going to stop because someone has banned bombs and bombing? The sad truth is that there is no way to totally prevent a tragedy such as this. I suppose, it is easy to blame the guns for the problem. In my opinion, a gun could have been part of the solution…..

    I am a law abiding citizen that owns guns and has a permit to carry one. I hope to never have to use it to defend myself or in defense of another. One thing I can say for certain, I will not hesitate if it ever becomes necessary. I do not expect everyone to agree with my views but I think I speak for the majority when I say that one “laser assisted” bullet between the eyes of that scum from this law abiding citizen would have been a much better outcome. It ends the same for him. Perhaps some of the children would still be with us today.

    Thank you Jessica for another thoughtful piece.

  8. Hogwash,

    Limiting one’s access to less than, say, 25 guns and prohibiting the sale or
    possession of Bushmaster-type weapons designed for no other purpose than
    killing large numbers of people quickly, does not imply the government is trying
    to take our Second Amendment rights away. It’s just using the brains that the good lord gave us. BTW, yes, I have a license to carry.

    And can someone tell me why an owner with a large collection of guns needs to
    purchase more than one per week additional? (OK, make a collector exception).
    Just asinine considering what’s been going on in the world . . .

    Guns DO kill people. It’s what they are designed to do . . .

    • Hogwash man,

      Your self proclaimed “reasoned” piece does indeed speak volumes. Particularly your attack on Jessica.

      Seems to me her point was about the knee-jerk reaction by the media to “ban” guns. Not really sure what your point is. “Guns Do kill people.” Really? After 10’s of thousands of shots thru mine, no one has died. It’s not the guns.

      • Even you have to admit it would be difficult to shoot someone without one . . .

        9mm and above weapons are not designed for the firing range . They are designed to kill people, quickly and efficiently. Semi automatic weapons
        are designed to be even more efficient.

        What the hell are we doing putting these weapons in the hands of God only
        knows who, and then letting them walk around our parks, colleges and
        campgrounds with them tucked in their belts? The world has turned upside
        down when decent, law abiding folks are routinely exposed to the threat
        posed by these weapon carriers . . .

        Everyone says they’re only for defensive purposes, of course, but how do unarmed folks know those guidelines will be adhered to? So more and more people carry for ‘defensive purposes’ and everyone waits for the fireworks to begin.

        See the very reasoned piece below by Cameron Anderson. He makes one of the best arguments I’ve heard against the Second Amendment in today’s society!

        I say again “Guns DO kill people, it’s what they are designed to do”.

  9. Very instructive that my reasoned but opposing piece somehow didn’t make it onto this page. Speaks volumes about Jessica Chasmar . . .

    • Hey how about the fact that I have a JOB and my main goal in life is not to post your stupid comments. I don’t delete comments. Ever. Look before you shoot, comrade. Speaks volumes about PAUL…

      Now I do really want to delete your comments, but I’ll let you make an ass of yourself all on your own.

      • Jessica,

        Actually a friend forwarded your article. I don’t have a clue who you are,
        nor do I really care. I am, however, interested in learning more about the
        point of view that you appear to represent.

        Why don’t you try focusing on my comments instead of being a jerk after I
        said sorry and acknowledged my error (below)?

        These tactics don’t work with me anyhow.
        Delete away. Not going to hurt my blog . . .


    • Oh, I’m sorry, was that an apology? ‘Cause it sure looked to me like it was you bitching about it taking me so long to approve your comment.I’m not sure what tactics you’re talking about. A don’t fire, I only fire back. Someone insults me, I fire back.

      Now that we got that out of our systems, “Bushmaster-type weapons” are merely semi-automatics. They don’t do any more damage than a semi-automatic handgun, they’re just harder to conceal.

      Shooting is a sport. Collecting is a sport. I know several people who frequent gun ranges weekly, if not several days a week. Nobody I know, including myself, anticipates being able to use a gun against a person, unless their lives are in immediate danger. We buy them as a defense weapon, not an offense one.

      Liberals love to legislate, legislate, legislate. Their mindset is to legislate all the bad stuff away. Every new piece of legislation chips away just a little bit more at our freedoms. We need less legislation, not more.

      “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benny Franklin

      Watch these two videos: http://times247.com/articles/piers-to-gun-advocate-you-shame-your-country



      Two brilliant men that I align with on guns, who explain better than I ever could. Hope that answers your question.

      • So you would have me believe that Larry Pratt’s ideas – arming teachers in the classroom, and more guns everywhere, are the answer to assaults like the one in Connecticut?

        Surely you know, just as well as I, that professional law enforcement personnel
        are routinely killed when they are surprised by a violent (read gun) attack. If these professionals, who practice responding to threats such as these over and over again, don’t stand a chance in an unanticipated encounter, what makes you,
        or anyone else, think a teacher would be better able to handle such a threat?
        Or any other civilian?

        This is wishful thinking at best, deliberate deceit at worst. The answer to
        out-of-control guns is NOT more guns!!! It’s LESS guns. And fewer semi-automatics and high capacity clips. Pratt stated “This isn’t the Old West” in his interview. Then we should stop acting as though it were.

        You state above that shooting is a sport. Well, I can routinely shoot 2-3″
        groups at 15 to 50 yards with my Model 19. (Well, when I’m shooting seriously, and with premium combat loads). How often do I need to hit the range and practice what I already have down cold.? I’m guessing you shoot as, or nearly
        as, well. Why would you need to practice more than a couple of times a year.? Your 3x per week friends surely shoot a lot better than I do.

        You don’t see anything peculiar in their obsessive need to have a gun in their hands? These are the reasonable people we should all trust to have their weapons purely for defensive purposes?

        Gimme a break . . .

  10. > Second Amendment was not created for the sole protection of oneself and one’s family. The Founders also saw a need for citizens to be able to defend themselves or revolt against a powerful, tyrannical regime.

    Smalls arms, whether they be assault rifles or pea shooters, will come nowhere near giving you a fighting chance against the U.S. military. Yet, there is no argument at all that civilians should be granted access to the sort of weapons that would render your gun collection (no matter how impressive it may be) utterly irrelevant should our government became a “tyrannical regime.” Apache helicopters, F-16s, and Abrams tanks have no place in private hands.

    If, then, the Second Amendment is intended to allow us such a defense then it appears to be a laughable anachronism. It represents an almost quaint notion considering the vast strength and sophistication of our modern armed forces.

    However, this is not to deny the seriousness of the concern that a powerful, tyrannical regime could impose itself on a comparatively defenseless population.

    Do you therefore favor a dramatic dismantling, defunding, and disarming of our armed forces such that civilian small arms could again represent a credible threat to our own government?

    This is a point I never hear gun advocates make, and that’s interesting because without it the central premise of the 2nd Amendment, as they describe it, is drawn into considerable doubt.

    What is the point of allowing the proliferation of these weapons throughout our society if they don’t actually offer the anti-government protection they are supposed to?

      • “The well thought out opinion” that you are referring to starts with a backhanded admission that the 2nd amendment was in part created for the purpose of the protection of oneself and one’s family. It then makes the point that small arms can’t defeat our military and that this should somehow lead me to possibly favor disarming our military. What the hell kind of logic is that?

      • DF, I started out by quoting the original post and taking its premises to their logical conclusion. If the Second Amendment implies some right to revolution, a right not to sports equipment or simple personal protection but to the capacity for overthrowing a tyrannical regime should it emerge, then it follows that Second Amendment advocates should be concerned not only with gun rights but with the overwhelming destructive power of the military they would be faced with in such a conflict.

        Perhaps you don’t believe that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve our ability to revolt against our own government. If so, then this isn’t really a problem for you, but I think giving up that premise draws into question whether or not the possession of lethal weapons can be considered a “right” at all.

  11. The problem with hyper-sensitivity is that those who are pros at dishing “it” out…can be rather amateurish when receiving “it” .
    : /

    • look I can copy and paste too!

      “so what? you’re just going to copy and paste the same comment and put it on all my blog posts? You crossed a line with me. Implying that because I’m witty I can’t get laid? Or that I can get laid because I’m not witty? Who knows. Whatever you were trying to say was creepy and weird. Then you posted some low-brow, knuckle-dragging sex joke on MY PERSONAL PAGE. gross. creepy. had to pull the plug.

      My facebook page is MINE. it is not a democracy, it’s a dictatorship. Don’t get it twisted.

      I am a pro at creepy, weird, even nonsensical language, but when i say “stop” i mean it. your comments were not witty, enlightening or funny. Sorry you’re all butthurt about it and had to take to my blog, but a simple apology would have fixed your situation immediately.”

  12. I am terribly sorry that I offended you : (
    I would agree that your fb page is not a democracy, but that is your prerogative. I have tried to steer a few conservative and witty female fb friends your way, but they all complain that you delete all of their posts and comments. Again, your prerogative….
    As for me and my comment(s), I am sorry that I hit a nerve with you. I thought you would appreciate a quote(any quote) from Florence King, as she was once a conservative and witty columnist for the National Review. In all fairness Jessica, you didn’t give me a chance to apologize(even though I have seen much worse written by you and many of your fans)…by promptly deleting me and blocking me from facebook. I have a feeling that it would( and has) take a lot more than what just transpired for you to get so upset and defensive….so maybe this has been long comming ??? At any rate, do whatever you gotta do. I do not derive any pleassure from upsetting someone to where it stimulates this much drama. I AM sorry, and I DO apologize for my words, actions, and apparent lack of class. If we ever meet again on fb, I can asure you that it will not happen again. There are many fb “friends” of mine who are just better off staying off of my wall, and vice-versa. It’s just not worth it. I hope you have a safe but fun New Year’s Eve, and a very fruitful year in 2013 !!! God Bless : )

    • I appreciate your apology. I’m sure if we knew each other in real life, none of this would have happened, but it takes on an entirely different tone when something like that is said from a stranger. Context counts.

      I’ve never in my LIFE deleted a comment unless it is overtly racist or sexually explicit. And I have NEVER, regardless of nature, have deleted a comment from a woman. If your friends posted anything of that nature, then yes, they deserved to get deleted. If they didn’t post anything like that, then they are LYING TO YOU. Also, sometimes FB marks things as spam if there are a lot of capital letters in a post. Implying that I can’t take a hit because I don’t want disgusting shit on my page is insulting. Just look at some of the things on my blog. My restraint is astounding.

  13. Great article continue to fight the good fight. How many times do lawful citizion have to pay the price for a few nut jobs, if you give in on any of your freedoms and liberties, for the common good you will suffer

  14. Pingback: Gotta Love a Liebster « Sustainably Single Parenting

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s