Given the District of Columbia’s long, storied, and successful history with "gun control", and given that it is illegal to possess an "assault weapon" in D.C., that you cannot legally transport loaded firearms in D.C., that it is illegal to discharge a firearm in D.C., that it is illegal to shoot at the White House, and that it is illegal to attempt the assassination of the President, obviously this whole White House shooting story is nothing more than a complete fabrication designed to boost news ratings.
In reality, this shooting incident constitutes nothing more than yet another failure of "gun control", and yet another indication that "just one more law" will mean absolutely nothing to people who are intent on law-breaking. I am 100% certain that I missed a couple laws in my above attempt to document all of the ways the shooter behaved in an illegal fashion, and if none of those laws were sufficient to stem his murderous – if impotent – intent, then what makes you honestly believe that One More Law (TM) will make the slightest bit of difference in the world? To be certain, we do need some of those laws – attempting to murder anyone is wrong, no matter the target, and randomly discharging firearms in a metropolitan area, especially with malicious intent, should also be a punishable offense. However, what sets those laws apart from the rest? The notion of a "victim".
By their very nature, most firearm-related laws are victimless – who is the victim of me owning an "assault weapon" inside the confines of D.C., Kalifornistan, or any of the other states that have such laws? Who is detrimentally affected by that ownership? Who am I harming? The correct answer to all of those questions is, "Not a soul." However, if I were to take a firearm – any firearm at all, not just an "assault weapon" – and use it to assault, batter, injure, murder, threaten, or intimidate another person… well, then we have a victim, someone who I am specifically, directly detrimentally affecting, and that is where laws should come into play. Punish those who harm others, and leave the rest of us happily alone.
Unfortunately, that fine distinction is lost on the vast majority of "gun control" extremists, and like so many compulsive-obsessives out there, they tend to react… poorly… when faced with something outside of their comprehension, rather like @jessecbrooks did in the below conversation:
@jessecbrooks: I guess since our 2nd amend rights grant us ability to own militaristic weaponry, I reserve the right to obtain a nuclear bomb
@jessecbrooks: Your failed attempts at intelletcualism are laughable and no rifle in the world can make up for your erectile disfunction.
(Note: the quotes in the screencaps are out of order… I have no idea why Twitter puts one response above one that was written before it. The text shows the accurate timeline.)
Congratulations, @jessecbrooks, you successfully went from zero to Markley’s Law in five tweets or less, and made the Quote of the Day in the process! I think that might be something of a new record. I will certainly not deny that I needled him, especially once it became obvious that he was interested in nothing more than childish namecalling and temper-tantrum-throwing (And, really, how can you pass up trolling someone who plays the "I’m smarter than you are!" card while simultaneously misspelling and misusing words?), but why are so many anti-rights cultists obsessed with other men’s genitalia? In addition to being rather rude, it verges on the "damned creepy" pretty darned quick.
Looking past this bigot’s bullyish attempt to dominate the conversation by dictating my talking points to me before I ever had the chance to express them, let us see if we can address his "concerns" in a forum that allows more than 140 characters per exchange.
To begin with, the news has not made this information public yet, but I would be very, very surprised if the firearm the shooter used was an actual, honest-to-God "assault rifle"; such devices are capable of fully-automatic fire, are regulated by the National Firearms Act, and are registered to their extensively-background-checked owners. Current indications are that he used an AK-47 clone, which would make it an "assault weapon", as meaningless as that phrase is.
Otherwise, no, "gun control"’s failures are not my fault. Its failures are solely and exclusively the combined fault of those who break the laws (i.e. "criminals") and those who seek to arbitrarily and capriciously infringe upon the individual rights of all people simply because some people cannot behave. Laws that seek to control the actions of men are invariably doomed to failure, because of that nasty little bugger "free will"; on the other hand, laws that punish those who harm others will only "fail" insofar as the offenders manage to escape punishment. By way of a prime example, consider England – an island with some of the strongest "gun control" laws in the world. You would think such a microcosm would be a wondrous world of unending "gun control" successes, when the reality is, not so much: that country’s firearm-related crime rate has grown seven times faster than its population. If "gun control" was a "success", it should have diminished, or at least remained constant.
That failure is hardly the fault of those who believe in self-defense (especially because such folks are disappointingly in the minority over there).
In this specific instance, none of the "gun control" laws in force in D.C. were able to stop this obvious nutbag from perpetrating his nutbaggery, and @jessecbrooks would have us believe that failure is our fault? Uhm, what? I did not make him go crazy. I did not encourage him to shoot the President. I did not put the gun in his hands. And the illegal arms trade throughout the world more than adequately shows us that absolutely nothing could have stopped any of that. Oh, it may have made it more inconvenient for the shooter, but since when has that stopped criminals?
Furthermore, he says "ANY weapon" like it is a bad thing, but note how he does not adequately provide an explanation as to why certain weapons are acceptable for civilian consumption, while others are not. History has proven to us that politicians have no mind for determining such things (need I remind you of the "shoulder thing that goes up"), and I would just as soon not allow them to do so. However, in the follow-up tweet, he goes straight for the hyperbole, and attempts to conflate "firearms" with a "nuclear bomb"; honestly, that reach is so heinously idiotic, I am not even going to bother addressing it.
That follow-up tweet also includes a pretty standard "gun control" extremist reading comprehension failure in that the Second Amendment "grants" nothing; it protects a pre-existing right. Hell, it even says that: "… the right of the people … shall not be infringed." Note how it does not say, "… this Amendment grants the people the right to…" or something similar. Let me tell you, being accused of "attempts at intelletcualism" (sic) by someone who does not even grasp that simple distinction is high-larious.
Moving on, the phrase "militaristic weaponry" amuses me. Would @jessecbrooks freak out over this firearm? After all, it is nothing more than a bolt-action rifle with an integral, non-removable magazine, like so many "hunting" rifles throughout the world. Of course, it, or many of its millions of brothers, was also used by the Russian and Finnish armies to kill Nazis, Finns, and Russians. On the other hand, would he flip about this firearm, pretty much the most prevalent hunting rifle in America? If not, then would he mind my owning this variant?
In reality, not only is a firearm’s use in a military completely irrelevant to its effectiveness, lethality, or current use by its owner, but "militaristic weaponry" is exactly what the Second Amendment was designed to protect – after all, remember that the Founding Fathers wanted to be able to call upon the armed citizens of America for national defense if the situation should ever come up. What good would such a body of people be with outdated, unstandardized, and irregular arms? Who would want to command such a force, much less try to integrate it into the military? Simply put, the Second Amendment was never about hunting; it was always about defense, both of your own person and of our country.
In other words, @jessecbrooks failed at every turn, and when he realized I simply was not going to play the debate by his rules, he reverted to the same bullying tactics that probably served him so very well on the kindergarten playgrounds of his youth. I wish I could say his reprehensible behavior was something of an except for "gun control" extremists, but you and I both know that would be a lie.
His behavior is, however, a prime example of why "gun control", as a cause, rather than a policy, continues to fail at every available opportunity: rather than even consider the possibility of a dissenting opinion, @jessecbrooks launched straight into personal attacks, logical fallacies, augmentative thuggery, specious assumptions, and proving Markley’s Law true. With most people supporting it being like him, how could "gun control" turn into anything other than a fringe movement?