The gun grabbers STILL don't get it.

As I was looking at the latest fiscal ceiling battle a couple of years back, I stumbled across this observation:

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them...

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

More:

This, then, is the reality.

The reality is that Bill Clinton balanced nothing: Congress balanced the budget on his watch.

Correspondingly, Barak Obama has spent nothing: Congress is responsible for spending us into the brink of bankruptcy.

So now, because of the Navy Yard shootings, the gun grabbers have predictably slithered out from under their rocks to renew their efforts to disarm the law-abiding public so we can be at the mercy of both criminals... and government.  They're confusing the public with "bright shiny object" politics to get people to confuse motion, with action.  (Not unlike our congresswoman on the CRC, come to think of it.)

In short, we have gun crime because government allows it.

We have mass shootings because government allows it.

We have almost every societal ill at every level, because government lacks the will to address the problems... since our government has morphed into an organ that does not solve problems... as much as they've become the basis for so many problems that now confront us.

The concept of, for example, punishing those of us who follow the gun laws in a moronic effort to reduce the numbers of people who use guns illegally...

... well, that's right up there with smacking one dog when the other dog pees on the furniture.

The same clowns now clamoring for increased gun control over this episode cannot point to any single or combined numbers of things on the gun grabber agenda that they could have done to have stopped it.

They don't care, of course: the words of their fringe-left gun-crime capitol leader Rahm immediately come to mind: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

If we want to end or almost end gun crimes, then we must have the will do so.

Earlier this year, I wrote:

In short, if you use a weapon illegally in Singapore for almost anything criminal, you're liable to be executed for it.  Sentences are, essentially, automatic.

"Arms," as a definition, could also include knives and other weapons besides guns: garrotes, screwdrivers, blow torches, ice picks, chain saws.... you name it, the law could be used broadly enough to cover anyone who would use any instrument of any kind of criminal harm to another.... or anyone who knowingly assists them in the act to include selling them the weapons in question.

Kind of removes the incentive.  Kind of reduces the upside potential.

As a nation, our crime rate continues to drop overall. Well, unless you live in the "gun free" zone of the City of Chicago.

Imagine what would likely happen to even Chicago's homicide rate if laws like these were enacted around the country.

What I never forget is that the plummeting crime rate seems to be in direct proportion to the implementation of more "Three Strikes" laws.

To that end, I would advocate an American interpretation of Singapore's gun laws that would result in the life sentence of anyone carrying a weapon during a crime, and the execution of anyone who uses a weapon, in any way, to commit a crime.

Further, I advocate the reduction of the "Three Strikes" law to a "TWO Strikes" law.

EVERYONE knows the difference between right and wrong.  Everyone should be entitled one "mistake."

But only one.

I would call the weapons violations laws "One and Done,"  And I would call the Three Strikes changes what they are: "Two Strikes and You're Out."

Democrat heads would explode all over the country.  Naturally, leftists would oppose this sort of thing.  It's "racist," you see.

I don't care if it is: oddly enough, a gun doesn't give a rat's ass what color the finger on its trigger is.

But regardless of color, under this law, if you're going to use a gun to commit a crime, you are GOING to get hurt.

This law, enacted, would have the benefit of shifting attention from the increasing regulation of those of us who follow the law, to those who actually BREAK the law.

An approach that might work well in dealing with illegal aliens, come to think of it.

That said, like so many other things in our lives, they are there, or not there, because of government.

...

Likewise, gun violence continues to be a problem because government continues to look in the wrong direction: they continue to punish the law abiding for the acts of the law breaking.  And it's the same thing with gun violence.

The gun-grabbers toy around the edges, making a lot of moves that accomplish nothing, doing their best, apparently, to keep the focus off those who need it the most.

The impact of laws such as this would be immediate.  Politically, the left would freak and then have to defend their efforts to derail such a move.  They would be forced to either hop on to the train or get run over by it.

That, by itself would be a thing of beauty, politically.  But if saving lives is the goal, I have yet to see anything from anyone that would do more, faster, and I would love it if someone had a better idea.

The clown who did the shooting at the Navy Yard apparently started with a shotgun, and took the weapons of the security elements he attacked.

Nothing these people now advocate would have changed any of this... because they lack the will that, IMHO, they must have to do what must be done.

And, of course, if anyone has any better ideas, I'd love to hear them.