Nope, not much of a Chris Christie fan. But this is one glimmer of hope that a more rational approach to violence can be had (and who would ever have thought the words "rational" and "Chris Christie" would be in the same sentence). Funny how when he hugs Obama the democrats love him, but when he thwarts their citizen control efforts, not so much. In both cases, he is acting on his own conscience (assuming he has one). seems a moderate thing to do. His suggestion that limiting magazine size would not be effective but increasing resources to identify those who commit atrocities makes sense to me as a law-abiding firearm owner and psychologist.
Especially interesting and irrational are the comments by Senate President Steve Sweeney, a Democrat: "This veto sounds like it was geared more for a national audience, rather than crafted for the streets of New Jersey." Actually the comments in Christie's veto echoed some common sense notions - notions that would not have been controversial through most of the history of this nation: People commit violence, not tools, and most of those who commit such violence are ultimately found to have suffered mental health challenges.
Citizen control in NJ has been a fruitless exercise of the left. New Jersey has had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation for many years. Still crime has gone up and the state is home to many of the nation's most dangerous cities. I am sure politicians would prefer that this not be seen as a function of a bad economy, moral failings, bad government, and mismanagement. Much better to blame it on guns. Still crime has risen while gun control has increased, so logic would tell us that crime and mass shootings are not being deterred by blaming tools instead of people.
Of course, it is likely that Sweeney is one of those who believes that the use of guns in crime in NJ would end if only all guns were illegal everywhere else, in all states. But why does crime not spiral out of control in those states where gun ownership is not restricted as it is in NJ? Guns are guns after all - it is not like the ones that get into NJ are somehow more malicious than others - it is the hands that use them. So, is it the people in NJ that are the issue? Is it the policies? Does the likelihood of unarmed prey increase the commission of crimes? Do we really think that because people in NJ cannot create policies that prevent violence, the rest of us should be forced to live at their level?
For those who really think that a federal law outlawing private ownership of handguns in the US (Oh, how they love to point at Australia or Great Britain) would solve this issue or even that further restrictions on gun ownership will solve this issue, I would ask you to look toward our southern border and the war on drugs (remember that those are island nations) . How many tons of illegal drugs and thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border every year? How well are we handling that? If you cannot stop these transgressions of the border, do you really think a national ban in handguns or firearms would not create a black market for firearms coming across that border? At that point, only those who are breaking the law will be armed (which is an apt description of the situation in Mexico right now with the cartel death squads). How well has the war on drugs worked out ion our own country? Do you really think a war on firearms will work out any better?
If you do, might I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and look around?
No comments:
Post a Comment