Dems Call for National Unity to Ban Guns

Why are we always supposed to "unify" to the left?

Last weekend's atrocity in a movie theater, where a psychology student gassed and shot dozens of innocent audience members from babies to the elderly, seems to demonstrate that our society is not yet so jaded as to be incapable of horror.  America was quite rightly horrified, so much so that President Obama and Gov. Romney both called for a brief suspension of political partisanship while we all grieve.

If only that were true!  Of course, it isn't; the Left spared not a moment in calling this a time to set partisanship aside and unite behind their longstanding gun-control agenda.  From New York's Mayor Bloomberg to little-known Democrat Congresscritters, statists across the fruited plain leaped upon this tragedy as yet another reason why law-abiding citizens should be deprived of their right to defend themselves.

Never mind the countless examples of would-be mass murderers stopped by an armed citizen.  Never mind the increasing numbers of people who're killed or hurt in victim disarmament zones.  Never mind the clear and obvious link between gun control and crime: the tighter and more draconian the gun-control regulations, as in America's major cities, the more violent crime there is.

Gun control laws are a way to disarm the law-abiding, not to hamper criminals.  Yet again we are seeing an example of Rahm Emanuel's advice to President-elect Barack Obama:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

The Left has tried this, and tried this, and tried this.  Every time there's a notorious murder, the usual suspects come out screaming for gun control.  It's taken the Stupid Party many decades to catch on, but these days conservatives are just as fast out of the gate with the truth - criminals prefer unarmed victims.

What Makes People Become Violent?

There's another truth we seem to be missing here.  It's a fact that accused gunman James Holmes, as his description implies, used guns.  It's also a fact that the atrocities were committed in a theater showing the extremely violent Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises.  Furthermore, it seems to be the case that the perpetrator identified himself with Batman's most famous enemy:

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Friday that the alleged gunman in the attack on a packed theater in Colorado identified himself as Batman’s arch-enemy “The Joker” after he sprayed bullets into a midnight showing of “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises.”

“He had his hair painted red, he said he was ‘The Joker,’ obviously the ‘enemy’ of Batman,” Kelly said at a news conference.

Isn't there an obvious connection here?

“There have been a tremendous number of studies showing that violent movies can indeed increase the likelihood that somebody in the audience will act aggressively,” Leonard Berkowitz, PhD, Professor of Psychology Emeritus, University of Wisconsin, Madison, explained to  “There is considerable research that such an effect could have indeed taken place. Just as people get sexual ideas from watching a sexual movie, other people can get aggressive ideas from watching an aggressive movie. Those members of the of the audience who have some violent tendencies or an aggressive disposition may then be influenced to act upon those ideas.”

Barely two weeks ago, a major research study presented conclusive proof that watching sexual scenes on TV leads teenagers into promiscuity:

Writing in the journal Psychological Science, the researchers said that greater exposure to sexual content in movies at a young age led to a higher peak of sensation-seeking in adolescents.

They said that children who are exposed to sex scenes in movies had longer periods of sensation seeking that lasted much longer than for children who had not, extending for some into their early 20s.

According to study co-author Ross O'Hara, postdoctoral fellow at the University of Missouri, popular films seemed to have a far-reaching influence on sensation-seeking traits in children and teenagers, changing their behaviour to make it more risky.

But the researchers warned that the effect of movie sex scenes was not limited to sensation-seeking, and that teenagers had also reported learning "sexual scripts" from films, which they relied upon as a guide in complicated emotional situations.

Is anyone suggesting that sex scenes should be banned from movie or TV?  Of course not - after all, we have our First Amendment rights!

If the sexual behavior of adolescents is provably affected by the sex scenes they've watched on the screen, it would beggar belief to imagine that watching violence wouldn't have a similar effect.  The shooter himself said that he was inspired by the violent Batman movies he'd watched - he named himself after the villain.  What more do you want?  Yet, again, we don't see people seriously arguing that violent movies, video games, or music should be banned.

The reaction should be exactly the same about guns: we have our Second Amendment rights, and no matter how one evil individual may misuse them, they must never be taken away from everyone else.

If there's one thing all Americans should be able to unite behind, it's the Constitution.  The fact that Democrats never miss an opportunity to attempt to falsely unite everyone against our Constitution tells us all we need to know about them.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Partisanship.
Reader Comments

Can we have a concealed carry section of the theaters? The the liberals can opt in to the no-guns theater, and we nut cases can opt in for the safe theater where no gun toting terrorist would ever go.

July 25, 2012 2:09 PM

Na, that would be eugenics - thinning the herd based on removing stupidity from the race.

July 25, 2012 2:11 PM

Why won't anybody admit that the RKBA has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. The purpose is to protect ourselves when Government won't and PARTICULARLY against government.

James Madison wrote:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflec-tions on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Our founders realized that the best way to control government was by giving citizens the right to shoot back.

Our Founders, remembering that armed colonists were essential to defeat the British, required an armed citizenry to make it easier for citizens to enforce virtue from the bottom up. The American Constitution gives citizens the right and the obligation to arm themselves against government oppression as the American revolutionaries had armed themselves to resist the British:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was explained best a long time ago:

“Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”

England had centuries of experience with armed citizens, there was nothing new in the 2nd amendment. In 1252, Englishmen were required to own a bow and arrows. The Ar-chery Law of 1363 required archery practice on Sundays and for-bade all sport that took up time better spent on war training.

Swiss and Israeli army veterans keep automatic weapons and ammunition in their homes. Americans were expected to arm themselves as the 1252 English law required and were supposed to organize local militia so that they could mobilize to protect them-selves from oppression. The Militia Act of 1792 required Americans to organize into armed companies and to buy their own weapons.

Virtuous governments need not fear armed citizens but non-virtuous governments often disarm their people as in New York City and other crime-ridden, Democrat-governed cities. Vigilant, virtuous citizens can keep elections honest and control government, but it’s not clear whether American voters have enough virtue to enforce virtue on their leaders, by shooting back if necessary.

Time will tell.

July 25, 2012 2:21 PM

The Times doesn't see any problem with violent movies....

Don't Blame the Movie, but Don't Ignore It Either
Art may not cause violence, but art and violence are entwined. Think of Lincoln's assassination.

THE stories emerging from the Aurora, Colo., cineplex shooting are excruciating: the 6-year-old girl who will never grow up; the young men who shielded their girlfriends from the spray of the assault rifle; the killer in court in the grips of some evil unfathomable even to himself. The senselessness of the crime stands in contrast to its setting. The theater, the place where we are supposed to purge our pity and horror, has been converted into a wellspring of horror itself.

We have, mercifully, largely passed the point where we ask whether art causes such disasters. The parochial debates from the ’90s about whether rap and video games led to increases in the murder rate have been firmly, and happily, filed in the dustbin of intellectual history. A new cliché has taken hold, though, one that insists on an absolute separation between violent art and real violence. Only a few hours after the shooting, Indiewire proclaimed: “Don’t blame the movie.” As if an army of cultural warriors was poised over the hill, ready to charge Warner Brothers.

They are right - movies don't kill people, people kill people. Same with guns.

July 27, 2012 6:35 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...