The Isla Vista murders occurred on May 23, 2014, near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara in Isla Vista, California.  The spree started when a mentally unstable narcissistic virgin named Elliot Rodger stabbed to death his two roommates and a visitor in his apartment. He then continued with a series of shootings which resulted in two women being murdered outside a sorority house and one man being killed inside a deli.  Rodger wounded thirteen others through a combination of vehicular attacks and drive-by shootings aimed at pedestrians.  He engaged in gunfire with Santa Barbara deputies during the killing spree and after the second exchange of gunfire with deputies he shot himself whereupon his vehicle crashed.

OPPORTUNISTIC RESPONSES BY THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY

Richard Martinez, the father of Christopher Martinez, the final victim who was shot inside a deli that Elliot Rodger strafed with gunfire from his vehicle, stated that he intended to “capitalize on [his] 15 minutes of fame” granted by the death of his son to angrily blame “craven politicians and the NRA”; asserting “You don’t need three handguns with 400 rounds (of ammunition). That’s crazy. It’s a matter of proportion.”  As if loosing a child to a acts of lunatic entitles him to punish everyone else by demanding we be deprived of our liberties.

Like flies drawn to a pile of shit, the civilian disarmament crowd rushed to see who could be first to frame the Isla Vista killings as somehow caused by a lack of gun control. The problem was that Isla Vista is in California, a state well-known as the gun grabber’s wet dream for pointless anti-gun laws.  Laws that employ new-speak terms like ‘sensible’ ‘common-sense’ ‘gun sense’ and ‘gun safety’.  Not to be deterred they ignored the failings of the current gun control laws and doubled down on calls for more pointless restrictions and regulations.

The Brady Campaign, an old hat at never passing up the chance to dance on the half cold bodies of the dead, issued a statement from their President, Dan Gross, which asserted “Americans are dying every day because of the corporate gun lobby and the politicians it has in its pocket.”  A statement which pretends the millions of law-abiding gun owners who voted those pro-gun politicians into office do not actually exist nor lobby their representative to fight those who attack the 2nd Amendment.

Shannon Watts, the rookie Michael Bloomberg puppet and ‘founder’ of Moms Demand Action, argued that because two of the six California victims were women, “The fact is, women are the target of far too many shootings in America. The story that desperately needs to be told is that the majority of mass shootings in this country are in fact domestic violence incidents.” A somewhat illogical argument as the two female victims had not had any kind of relationship with Elliot Rodger which would be needed to classify their killings as ‘domestic’.

In yet another attention grabbing open letter from the father of a child killed by another mentally disturbed individual at Sandy Hook, Mark Barden asserted that Richard Martinez was now a member of a “family born from the horrible circumstance of losing a child to gun violence”.  Notice how the labeling obfuscates blame and takes attention from the actual killers and places the focus on the GUN VIOLENCE.  Barden apparently places the parents of the three men stabbed to death into a separate, less important family.  After all, those parents cannot help him advance his anti-gun agenda, so who gives a shit where they go.

At least one anti-gun opinion writer at the L.A. Times was honest enough to come out and admit the ultimate goal of the civilian disarmament lobby. In a refreshingly honest piece the author, Scott Martelle, says flat-out that he would “ban [firearms], with a carve-out for hunting weapons.” In his draconian system even the hunters he would ‘allow’ to own firearms would be required to pass a mandatory government training course, obtain a hunting license, which the hunter would then need to register the firearm in the first place.  In Martelle’s gun-control utopia, the resale of firearms would be monitored by big brother to preclude ‘unqualified’ people. Want to pick up a couple of boxes of ammo for that new hunting gun you finally obtained?  Well, since you’re practically a criminal for just owning the damn thing, Martelle would also like that ammo “tracked much like we do sales of pseudoephedrine (an ingredient in meth).” Martelle goes on to describe his authoritarian fantasy further but you get the general idea.  More or less exactly what every 2nd Amendment advocate has known for years but have been labeled paranoid for actually expressing

The one thing all of these people have in common is their shamelessly dishonest attempt to shift the blame from the actual killer toward ONE of the three weapons (knife, gun, car) he used to kill and maim his victims.

HOW GUN-CONTROL FAILED TO PROTECT ANYONE

To understand the utter failure of California gun control laws let’s review exactly what the law requires of just handguns, as this was the type firearm used.

  1. Handgun purchases require a Handgun Safety Certificate and proof of residency.
  2. Approved application to the California Department of Justice prior to purchase. [Only good for 10 days following approval]
  3. 10 day waiting period for delivery of any firearm.
  4. All handgun serial numbers and sales must be registered with the state’s Automated Firearms System.
  5. Handguns must be transported unloaded and in a locked container other than the glove compartment or utility box in a motor vehicle.
  6. It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any [magazine holding more than 10 rounds]
  7. Firearms Carry Permits at the discretion of County sheriff or local Police Chief. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s policy is "no-issue".

Just as everyone with actual common sense – as opposed to the gun grabber newspeak — has explained since these sorts of laws were enacted, not one of these laws prevented Elliot Rodger from obtaining his pistols and carrying out his plans. Rodger patiently jumped through every pointless hoop to acquire his three pistols in the preceding months. He then compensated for the 10 round mag limit by merely purchasing multiple magazines. Sheriff Bill Brown’s lauded policy of not issuing carry permits did nothing to prevent the shooter from carrying his pistols in public, if anything his policy all but guaranteed that Elliot Rodger would encounter no resistance prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

HOW TO ACTUALLY PREVENT VIOLENT CRIME IN GENERAL

Of the utter nonsense contained within the pages of the manifesto written by Rodger prior to his rampage, he actually provided the world with the solution to stopping those like him.

"It came to a point where I had to set a date for the Day of Retribution. I originally considered doing it on the Halloween of 2013. That is when the entire town erupts in raucous partying. There would literally be thousands of people crowded together who I could kill with ease, and the goal was to kill everyone in Isla Vista, to utterly destroy that wretched town. But then, after seeing footage of previous Halloween events on YouTube, I saw that there were too many cops walking around. It would be too risky. One gunshot from a cop will end everything."  (PAGE 118) – My Twisted World – ‘The Story of Elliot Rodger’ By: Elliot Rodger

And so we find that the one thing Rodger feared was not punishment for breaking the law, it was being prematurely stopped by armed police.  I’m going to state a simple fact that makes gun grabbers shriek in outrage every time it is stated. The only thing that stops and deters malevolent individuals from the unlawful use of force and violence on the innocent is for the innocent to use force and violence themselves.

Take your pick from any of the recent mass shooters, such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, they cannot be reasoned with, they have no other rule but force and violence and as such deserve to be treated as any other predatory animal that might kill people if those people were to fall under their power.

Gun grabbers enjoy employing the word reasonable; what is more reasonable and just than that someone should have a right to use force and violence against someone who threatens their life with force and violence? It is a fundamental law of nature, that although human life should be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred.  And so we find that anyone may employ force and violence even so far as to kill those who are actively attempting to murder innocent people for the same reason that he/she may kill a predatory animal.

The answer is not MORE pointless government regulations.  The clear answer is to lift the current prohibitions on people being able to defend themselves, to employ force against those who have decided to prey on their own species.  Gun grabbers love to use the term GUN VIOLENCE, if only they would stop focusing so much on the damn ‘GUN’ and take steps to enable people to stop the ‘VIOLENCE’ in whatever form it may take.  Stop preventing the good citizens who wish to carry a firearm from obtaining their permits.   Until enough people in California are able to get past their irrational hatred of inanimate objects and realize the real issue is the person who wields the weapon, nut jobs will continue to succeed at lashing out and harming defenseless people.

by | Categories: John Tremblay, Musing | Comments Off on Isla Vista: The Great Gun Control Failure

by | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on Elitist Antigun Hypocrocy Debunked Once Again

The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the three self-evident natural rights which exist in a state of nature. (not to be confused with legal rights which exist and are defined within the context of a civil society)

  1. The right to Life.
  2. The right to Liberty.
  3. The right to Property (fruits of your labor)

Question: What meaning do rights have if they may be violated or suppressed by another person’s use or threatened use of force and violence? The answer is they have none.  Now because we live in a civil society we have courts of law and officers of the court whose job it is to enforce laws and bring fugitives to justice.  Even though we pool each of our individual authority to use force to the civil authorities, this does not mean the individual has surrendered that authority.  The civil authorities cannot be everywhere at all times and circumstances do arise which require members of a society to reclaim that individual authority to use deadly force if it be needed to halt the use of unlawful force against them or another innocent person.

In the eloquent words of John Locke, “I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.”

Sir. William Blackstone commented that “Self defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.” (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765)

“A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For no man can transfer, or lay down his right, to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment.” … “The right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no Covenant [the agreement between individuals to form a government, and the laws enacted thereby] be relinquished.” – THOMAS HOBBES (“Leviathan”, 1651)

It is a matter of established fact that the personal firearm is the most effective tool for preserved the safety of the innocent.  If it were not then those who hold power within government would not surround themselves with them 24 hours a day.  “…for ’tis a wise and true Saying, that One Sword often keeps another in the Scabbard.  The Way to secure Peace is to be prepared for War. They that are on their Guard, and appear ready to receive their Adversaries, are in much less Danger of being attack’d, than the supine, secure and negligent.”Benjamin Franklin

by | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on The Origin of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms