Laws Are for Little People

From Mark Steyn, at National Review (at Memeorandum):

A week ago on NBC’s Meet the Press, David Gregory brandished on screen a high-capacity magazine. To most media experts, a “high-capacity magazine” means an ad-stuffed double issue of Vanity Fair with the triple-page perfume-scented pullouts. But apparently in America’s gun-nut gun culture of gun-crazed gun kooks, it’s something else entirely, and it was this latter kind that Mr. Gregory produced in order to taunt Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. As the poster child for America’s gun-crazed gun-kook gun culture, Mr. LaPierre would probably have been more scared by the host waving around a headily perfumed Vanity Fair. But that was merely NBC’s first miscalculation. It seems a high-capacity magazine is illegal in the District of Columbia, and the flagrant breach of D.C. gun laws is now under investigation by the police.

It's classic Steyn. More at the link.

And commenting is AoSHQ:

Does Howard Kurtz embrace that understanding of gun laws? Does Glenn Thrush? Do the various other know-nothings in the media -- who know both nothing about law and nothing about guns, but opine with great force and velocity on gun laws -- embrace this conception of gun laws, that gun laws should never target simple possession but only possession during the commission of a crime or possession with intent to commit a crime?

If not -- if they are less the right-wing gun nut than Ted Nugent (and even the Nuge might find this position too "extremist" for his taste -- then they are duty-bound to demand David Gregory's prosecution, as they would demand that any other Citizen Not On Television would be prosecuted.

They are endeavoring to explicitly create a High Caste with greater privileges than the lower castes, and immunities to the laws the lower castes suffer under, and that is a blood anathema to any real American -- and will be treated as such.

Also at Althouse, Ed Driscoll, Jawa Report, and Twitchy.

Reason's New Los Angeles Headquarters

This is interesting.

I'd like to go to one of those Reason parties. See: "Check out Reason's New LA Headquarters!"

And a sample from the magazine, featuring Jacob Sullum, "The Rioter’s Veto: Can violence in the Middle East justify censorship in the United States?"

That's also the left's veto. So far the only person arrested or jailed following the Benghazi scandal is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the director of "Innocence of Muslims."

'There are circumstances in which I think I’d advocate for someone’s firing, even for things they said...'

Well, it's no surprise, but this idiot progressive Bijan Parsia, in the comments at Loomis' latest Lumberjack ball-buster, advocates getting conservative academics fired for speech with which he disagrees:

Did Erik call, in any meaningful way, for anyone to be jailed for political advocacy? Are a few tweets sufficient? What actions were the tweets either intended or likely to trigger?

Contrariwise, people didn’t just tweet back: “I hope you get fired.” Or “I think you should be fired”. Or “You don’t deserve to be a professor.” They did things like call the FBI and the University (indeed, they called Erik’s ultimate boss). There were people calling for that as well (e.g., in this comment).

I don’t know that there were any direct calls for Erik’s firing from blog proprietors and there were a round of posts (e.g., Instapundit’s) saying that Erik wasn’t making threats, etc.

Given e.g., Malkin’s history, I’m not so convinced that the intended effect of all this wasn’t exactly what happened.

Now, with the possible exception of the call to the FBI (really?!) and some arguably defamatory statements, none of this is illegal. Nor, I think, should it be. There are circumstances in which I think I’d advocate for someone’s firing, even for things they said. I want those to be relatively rare, of course. Probably even exceedingly rare. I prefer them to be cases where there is a direct job connection.

An interesting case is Brad Delong’s explorations as to whether John Yoo’s tenure should be revoked.

(Personally, I think even if the case is reasonable, it wouldn’t be worth pursuing because of the potential backlash and precedent.)

Look, there's one standard for free speech. You're either for it or you're against it. Professor Parsia (yeah, a professor; follow the link at his login creditials) would like John Yoo's tenure revoked. He cites Brad DeLong. I don't care to follow the links, although I'm pretty sure what the outrage is. Hint: think "enhanced interrogations."

These people are authoritarian tools, progressive tools. I made the case against such hypocritical idiots yesterday: "Smirking Spectator? Guilty as Charged."

And Robert Stacy McCain has an update on Loomis the Lumberjack: "‘Candyass Blogger’ Update: Free Speech Absolutists Who Banned Mr. Althouse UPDATE: ‘These Are Historical Dildos’."

Hey, speaking of the "Candyass Blogger," remember this? "Althouse Slams Robert 'Porn Guy' Farley!" Douchebag.

Gun Sales Surge After Newtown

At the Jackson Clarion Ledger, "Gun sales spike, armored backpacks promoted after Newtown shootings."

And from CNN last night, an interesting segment:

More at Bloomberg, "Guns Out of Stock at Wal-Mart as Magazine Prices Surge on." (At Memeorandum.)

Mental Illness and the Gun Control Debate

A thought-provoking essay from Robert Leider, at the Wall Street Journal, "Breaking the Gun Control Stalemate."

Read it at the link.

It doesn't make sense for gun control proposals to ignore the history of mental illness in all the recent shooting massacres. If progressives go after guns without mental health reforms, they'll have no credibility. And mind you, I'm being charitable as it is. I'm taking the president at his word, and Senators Feinstein and Schumer. Democrats will go for a big play on firearms. Of course, confiscating guns is what the left's program is all about. They don't give a s*** about the mentally ill except as a hammer to beat opponents. Once they get their legislation going it'll be all about screwing the "evil" gun lobby.

But again, I think Leider's piece is interesting. I just doubt far-left partisans will be as rational about things.

Shameful Media Coverage of the Newtown Massacre

A Matt Lewis commentary, at The Week, "The media should be ashamed of its Connecticut coverage":

...transparent society demands reporting newsworthy incidents — and this definitely qualifies. But it should be done responsibly. And that is not what we have witnessed. We have instead a feeding frenzy that is all about beating the competition — not disseminating information.

It's about being first, beating other media outlets, and making a name for themselves. It's a ghoulish mentality that stokes controversy and violence — for business purposes. It's a sort of "if it bleeds it leads" mentality that causes cable networks to create logos and theme music for such tragic events (all the while, they feign maudlin concern and outrage.)

Come to think of it, the media is guilty of doing what they criticize big business for — putting money (in this case, ratings, newsstand sales, and web traffic) ahead of humanity and decency. Just as greedy businessmen put profit and personal gain ahead of ethics, so too do our media outlets.

More at that top link.

Also see Hugh Hewitt, at The Washington Examiner, "The Media Vultures Gather."

It's a big story, no doubt, marred by lots of erroneous reporting and more of the same ghoulish Democrat politicization that we've seen after all of the last mass shootings, from Tucson to Aurora. And of course President Never-Let-a-Crisis-Go-to-Waste will be up with some gun control legislation faster than you can say political exploitation.

Gun Violence and the Mentally Ill

From Rick Moran, at PJ Media, "Can We Keep Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill?"

And from Gabriella Rosen Kellerman, at the Atlantic, "Diagnosing Adam Lanza."

RELATED: From Robert Stacy McCain, "Criticism From a Friend: Can We Help Victims of Random Sarcasm Syndrome?"

President Obama's Speech at Newtown, Connecticut

The Washington Post has both the video and transcript, "President Obama’s speech at prayer vigil for Newtown shooting victims (Full transcript)." (Via Memeorandum.)

I have to agree with Dana Loesch. Obama turned this into a gun control rally, and he's not ashamed to do it. Clear as a bell.

He just politicized a prayer service.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 17, 2012

If you want death threats from the peace and love "no guns" crowd, just say that you thought the president inserted politics into tonight.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 17, 2012

And here's this from Twitchy, "Dana Loesch says Obama’s speech at vigil was political; Libs unleash torrent of hate."

I seriously cannot keep up with all the "c*nts," "burn in hells," "all your fault" Tweets from progressives.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 17, 2012

That's a torrent of hate alright. Progressives are unleashing it all over the place following the shooting.

More from Twitchy, "Post-Newtown witch hunt: NRA president and members bombarded with death threats." And from Weasel Zippers, "Liberals Call For Murder of NRA President and Its Members…"

Well, I mentioned already that the left's gun control agenda is just the prelude to silencing the conservative opposition, the opening program toward stacking conservative corpses in the left's gulag archipelago. The progressive mouthpieces on MSNBC don't even try to hide this agenda. They just put it right out there, so folks shouldn't be surprised at what's coming down the pike, from Weasel Zippers, "MSNBC Knuckle-Dragger Ed Schultz Advocates “Confiscating” Guns From Law-Abiding Americans…"

Democrats Push Gun Control Legislation in Senate

I discussed Senator Charles Schumer earlier, who said the shooting put us at "the tipping point" for the (left's) national conversation on gun control, "Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way."

And now here comes Senator Dianne Feinstein, "Sen. Feinstein to introduce gun-control bill next year":

WASHINGTON — Two days after the shooting deaths of 26 people at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pledged Sunday that she would introduce new gun-control legislation at the beginning of next year’s congressional session.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession,” the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

Feinstein said the purpose of her proposal, a version of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, is to get “weapons of war off the streets of our cities.”

Officials have said that most of those killed in Friday’s massacre — a toll that included 20 children — were shot with a semiautomatic assault-style rifle.

Feinstein has been at the forefront of gun-control efforts nationally. The assault weapons ban that she pushed followed mass killings in a Stockton schoolyard and in a San Francisco office tower. Feinstein was also at San Francisco City Hall in 1978 when Supervisor Dan White killed Mayor George Moscone and fellow Supervisor Harvey Milk. Feinstein saw White flee their offices and found Milk, memorably saying afterward that when she felt for a pulse, her finger slipped into a bullet hole. Feinstein, then the head of the Board of Supervisors, became mayor upon Moscone’s death.

Oh, she means well alright, but she'll have more credibility when she also starts pushing the discussion on expanding mental health services, with talk of involuntary placement of the mentally ill. That's not the hippest topic, of course, but it's the one we must have if we're going to have a legitimate "national conservation" on gun violence. See Leslie Eastman, at Legal Insurrection, "Mother recounts terrors of raising genius son with violence-oriented mental illness."

RELATED: From Politico, at Memorandum, "Schumer, Feinstein push changes on gun laws."

Obama to Speak at Prayer Vigil in Connecticut

USA Today reports, and Slone reacts on Twitter:

HERE HE COMES: President-never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste:President now on Air Force One and en route Newtown, CT #tcot
— slone (@slone) December 16, 2012

BONUS: Aaron Worthing's post from the other day, "A Few Thoughts About the Crime in Connecticut And Gun Control":

...while I am getting sick of the politicization of every tragedy, I am not going to overly object to people talking about gun control today.  I don’t support gun control, but let’s have this out.  If we can’t stand up for the Second Amendment today, we are just going to lose the argument.

The reality is the “lets ban all guns” theory is simply a bit of what I call “silver bullet utopianism”—that is the idea that a large and complex problem can be solved easily with a proverbial silver bullet.  And it is utopianism, with dangerous consequences in real life if we don’t wake up from it.

As I quipped today on Twitter, one only has to drive through downtown D.C. late into the night to see how successful the ban on prostitution is.  You see them, openly and notoriously operating on corners only blocks away from the White House.

(Must... resist... urge... to make cheap “politicians are prostitutes” joke.)

The same can be said for drugs and illegal immigration.  I can name for you several spots where the illegal workers line up.  Everyone can.  It’s no secret.  It’s open and notorious.

And it is downright bizarre to see many of the same liberals who advocate drug legalization, or open borders on the theory that “you just can’t stop the flow” simultaneously argue that banning guns will accomplish anything but disarming solely the law-abiding citizens.

And there are several other problems with banning guns.  For one thing, what liberals are advocating is that the government have a monopoly on the use of deadly force—or more precisely the government and the criminals who violate the law.  Good law abiding citizens shouldn’t protect themselves, the argument goes, the government should protect them...

Well, the left-wing sickos have no shame.

It's all about stripping law-abiding citizens of their guns. The left's "gun control" agenda certainly won't stop gun violence.

PREVIOUSLY: "Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way."

Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way

I watched "Face the Nation" earlier. All the panelists were exploiting the tragedy to push for more gun control, with host Bob Schieffer being the most aggressive of them all, even broadcasting a big gun-control editorial at the bottom of the hour. It's really amazing to listen to this. Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer suggested the country was ready for action since Sandy Hook was "the tipping point" in the so-called national conversation. Surprisingly, Schumer sounded at times reasonable, especially when he slammed idiot progressives for wanting to take away Americans' guns. Here's the segment with Schumer's comments, "Is it time for tougher gun laws?" Also on the show was the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. Over the top, he said this massacre was the nation's "new 9/11" (and folks can just ponder the mind-bogging, incommensurable obscenities dripping from that remark). And what gun control love fest would be complete without the despicable "big thinker" David Frum, who befouled himself with a disgusting series of comments over the past few days. Frum's an objectively bad person and few have topped his inhuman posturing on this, and that's saying a lot.

In any case, here's Derek Hunter, at Townhall, "Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way":

I’ve said before how progressives will exploit anyone and anything to advance their agenda, but I’d always thought there was a line, somewhere, of decency they wouldn’t cross. I was wrong.

With the blood of the victims still wet, progressives began their call for gun control. They had no idea if the guns were purchased legally (they were, and stolen from the first murder victim, the killer’s mother), what kind of guns they were (they were pistols, not “assault weapons,” though a semi-automatic rifle was found, unused, in the killer’s car), or even if the killer was in custody or dead (there were stories of a hunt for a second shooter) before they succumbed to the siren call of their agenda.

Michael Moore, noted tragedy profiteer, took to Twitter with “Only minutes away from pundits & politicians say, "This isn't the time to talk about gun control." Really? When is that moment?”

A short time later he followed up with “The NRA hates freedom. They don't want you to have the freedom to send your children to school & expect them to come home alive.”

No fiction writer could do the sickness of that man justice.

But Moore wasn’t alone, David Frum was his usual self and joined a chorus of his fellow progressives that included Piers Morgan, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and nearly the entire homepage of The Huffington Post in calling for more gun control.

Actress Rashida Jones tweeted, “Gun control is our only road to freedom. Freedom from the fear of senselessly losing children. I'm so saddened. WE NEED LAWS NOW.”

The stupidity of these people is self-evident. States with the most freedom to own and carry guns have the lowest crime rates. Meanwhile, cities such as Chicago, where it’s illegal to own a gun, have the most gun violence.

But although the side of liberty has the statistics, progressives play on emotion. Facts don’t matter in a world of crying children, and progressives know it. A complicated issue is offered a simple solution that appeals to the feeling of helplessness and promises to alleviate it. It’s a tactic used by despots throughout history.

Actually, Hunter is only partially correct on the weapons used. We didn't know that the Bushmaster was used until yesterday, when the medical examiner issued a report on the findings from the crime scene. Initial police reports said only that two handguns were used. But Hunter is right to note that the facts don't matter to the despicable gun-confiscation leftists. Just to mention that the gunman may have had a semiautomatic rifle was enough for radical leftists to launch the most heinous campaign of lies and disinformation. These people are depraved. As Hunter continues:

The president was reserved and presidential in his remarks, and the White House said this is not the time to press an agenda (we’ll see how long that lasts). But their allies would have none of it. Progressive activists and their fellow travellers in the media have a storied history of dancing on graves to advance their agenda, but rarely have they danced so gleefully on such tiny graves yet to be dug. Time will tell which argument wins the day, but I have my suspicions. As President Obama’s former chief of staff once famously said, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste.”

Dancing on the graves. The blood hadn't dried and horrible, horrible progressive ghouls were demanding immediate action on gun control in Congress. Never let a crisis go to waste for these people, even before families are able to collect their loved ones. Godless and inhumane. Progressives are destroying this country right before our eyes. Don't let them. Stand for decency. Stand for liberty. Stand for reason and what is right, all that is the exact opposite of what the authoritarian collectivist left is pushing.

Connecticut Killer's Mother Taught Him How to Shoot

This story's at the New York Times, "Killer's Mother, His First Victim, Was a Gun Enthusiast, Friends Say" (via Memeorandum), and Telegraph UK, "Connecticut school massacre: Gunman's mother taught him to shoot."

She loved her guns, apparently, which is fine. But notice this bizarre and internally contradictory passage at the Telegraph's piece:

The killings have once again pushed America’s lax gun laws to the top of the political agenda. It was claimed last night that he had even tried to bolster his arsenal by buying another gun on Tuesday — three days before his murderous assault — but was refused because he did not have a “proper” permit.

The authors didn't think that through, eh? Connecticut's gun laws are not "lax," a point made even more obvious in the case of the suspect, who was turned down for another weapon by those very same not-so-lax state gun laws.

More here: "Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack."

Madness, Deinstitutionalization and Murder

From Clayton Cramer's research paper at The Federalist Society (via Althouse):

Studies in New York and Connecticut from the 1920s through the 1940s showed a much lower arrest rate for the mentally ill. In an era when involuntary commitment was relatively easy, those who were considered a danger to themselves or others would be hospitalized at the first signs of serious mental illness. The connection between insanity and crime was apparent, and the society took a precautionary approach. Mentally ill persons who were not hospitalized were those not considered a danger to others. This changed as deinstitutionalization took effect.

Be sure to read it all. For example:

Patrick Purdy, a mentally ill drifter, used his Social Security Disability payments to buy guns, while having a series of run-ins with the law. After one suicide attempt in jail in 1987, a mental health evaluation concluded that he was “a danger to his health and others.” In January 1989, Purdy went onto a schoolyard in Stockton, California with an AK-47 rifle, murdered five children and wounded twenty-nine others, before taking his own life.

Lots more examples like that at the link, but Purdy's is interesting. His crimes led to the passage of the federal assault weapons ban in 1994 (which expired in 2004). The left always uses these horrific killings to take away guns, and the media's working hard now to exploit Sandy Hook for the same purposes. See: "Media Sets Gun Control Narrative, Shuts Down Mental Health Debate."

  RELATED: At The Other McCain, "Guns Don’t Kill People …"

Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack

More details on the Sandy Hook Massacre, and an update to my previous report, "Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation."

At the Wall Street Journal, "Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack":

SANDY HOOK, Conn.—The 26 victims who were shot inside a Connecticut elementary school on Friday were each hit by more than one bullet, most of them from the high-powered semiautomatic rifle wielded by the 20-year-old suspect, the state's chief medical examiner said on Saturday.

Authorities worked into Saturday morning at a temporary morgue on the school grounds to identify the bodies, H. Wayne Carver II said, as state authorities released the names of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.

On Saturday afternoon, authorities revealed the truth behind the grim numerical toll: a list of names, overwhelmingly female, heart-rendingly young. Twenty of the 26 victims in the school were just 6 or 7 years old.

"I believe they were all first-graders," Mr. Carver said.

Six adults also were killed in the school, including school psychologist Mary Jo Sherlach, the oldest victim, at age 56.

Mr. Carver said his staff would perform an autopsy Sunday on the two remaining dead in the spree: the suspect, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who took his own life at the school, and his mother, Nancy Lanza, 52, whom Mr. Lanza shot and killed in the house the two shared in town.

Mr. Lanza's body was found close to the rifle and two handguns he carried, police said, and he is believed to have taken his own life.

Continue reading.

It wasn't until today that the medical examiner could release these details, including the information on finding the suspect's body and the weapons used. As the report continues:

The forcible entry helped solve one of the many unanswered questions about the massacre Friday: how a heavily armed young man was able to pass through the locked security doors of an elementary school.

School staff members saw evidence of forced entry as they were ushered out of the school, said Mary Ann Jacob, a clerk at the school library who hid with others in a storage room during the shooting spree. As they left the building, Ms. Jacob said she saw that the plate-glass window next to the building's front door was broken.

But much remained unanswered, and much of what had been assumed in the rush of the crisis turned out to be wrong. It was incorrect, Lt. J. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police said, that Mr. Lanza's mother had had any connection to Sandy Hook Elementary, where early reports suggested she had been a teacher.

Law-enforcement officials initially said an assault rifle had been discovered in a car in the school's parking lot. In fact, said Mr. Carver, the medical examiner, it had been the primary weapon used in the killings.

Robert Stacy McCain live-blogged developments yesterday. In an update he mentions the dramatic shifts in what was known throughout the day, "Chris Rock Was Right":

When I got up Friday morning, live-blogging a mass murder was not part of my plan for the day. In fact, at the end of a post Friday morning about labor union violence in Michigan, I promised further developments on that story. As I was researching that, however, the TV kept updating with news about a shooting at a school in Connecticut and I figured this might be a story worth mentioning on the blog.

The original 12:15 p.m. ET post relayed reports that “three people have been wounded or injured and one person, the suspected shooter, is dead,” but added the caution that “early reports on events like this can be often be confusing and/or inaccurate.”

To say the very least.

By the time I added the first update, NBC was already reporting 20 dead and next it was 24, then 26, then 27, and all these changing numbers were coming amid a welter of confusing (and, as it turned out, largely wrong) details about the shooter, about the victims, etc. And this kept going for about six hours. Everything is still pretty sketchy, but we now have the bare-bones facts of the story.

Well, the actual facts of the story didn't matter to the radical leftists like Angie Coiro and her hate-addled followers like Walter James "Hatesac" Casper III. Indeed, it's not about "gun control" with these people. It's about literally destroying right-wing impediments to statist authoritarianism:

@damkina Because the #NRA is partnered w/ #ALEC, which is fueled by the #Koch brothers. Unending $$$. We can't tackle this in bits &pieces.
— Angie Coiro (@Angie_Coiro) December 15, 2012

RT @leftonmain: NRA Under Twitter, Facebook Attack After Shootings huff.to/U17j8V \\ Only a taste of what's coming to them & #ALEC.
— Angie Coiro (@Angie_Coiro) December 15, 2012

Yes, "Only a taste of what's coming to them."

Stalin couldn't have stated his plans for liquidation of political enemies any more clearly.

The right to bear arms guarantees citizens the individual protection against the state. That's the central liberty guarantee extant in the Second Amendment. Along with freedom of speech, it's perhaps the most important right Americans have to defend against tyranny. And the radical left would strip those rights in a split second, obliterating the civil liberties of millions of law-abiding people who had nothing to do with this massacre or any one before it. Indeed, mass shooting like Sandy Hook are possible explicitly because upstanding citizens obey the law and come to places of work and school unarmed. It's the criminals who violate those so-called gun free zone to wreak unfathomable evil. The left's policies facilitate the killing, and then these sick-fucks exploit the murders to bring about even more draconian policies that will ultimately bring about even more killing. It's the progressive death loop of ever-expanding gun confiscation. This is the evil the Walter James Casper III tweeted out yesterday in his utterly inhumane rush to politically capitalize on the deaths of those innocent children, 16 of them just 6 years old. This is why decent, intelligent and God-fearing people stand up for the truth. This is why decent, law-abiding Americans repudiate the left's lies. They know where it leads. They know the left's policies will bring the reign of terror and the camps. The piles of bodies stacked like cord wood is the "taste of what's coming." The leftists just lay it out there for everyone to see. It would be shocking but we've seen this play before and the millions of piled corpses before the final curtain.

Stand tall against it. Stand for liberty. Stand against the left's program of death and destruction of the individual.

New Details in Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

The chief medical examiner has released the names of the victims. At the Wall Street Journal, "Victims Are Named in Connecticut Shooting." And the Los Angeles Times, "Victims of Sandy Hook school shooting are named."

And contrary to some earlier reports, the gunman was not "buzzed in" the school's entrance. See the Los Angeles Times, "Connecticut shooting: Gunman forced his way into school, police say."

Plus, check this Fox News interview with criminal psychologist Alan Lipman, who notes that in every case, "the facts are, as in Aurora, as in Arizona, as in Virginia Tech, as in virtually every case the Secret Service studied of these kinds of events... Every one of these episodes is proceeded by an undiagnosed, untreated, mental illness."

Also at The Other McCain, "‘He Was a Quiet Ewok, Kept to Himself a Lot. Kind of a Loner, I Guess You’d Say’." (Via Memeorandum.)

Expect updates...

5:18pm Pacific: More, at London's Daily Mail, "Twelve little girls and eight little boys: Police name Connecticut massacre victims - all aged six and seven - as it's revealed gunman shot each child up to 11 times in 'revenge' attack after fighting with teachers the day before."

10:15pm Pacific: More, "Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack."

MSNBC's Alex Wagner: Hopefully Connecticut Massacre Will Create 'Political Capital' for Gun Control

These inhuman MSNBC progressives have no shame.

Video at RealClear Politics, "MSNBC Host: CT Shooting May Bring 'Political Capital' For Gun Control."

Tougher Gun Control Laws Unlikely After Elementary School Massacre

Listen to Piers Morgan get all angry and "furious," in his own words, all while completely ignoring the facts, and even distorting them. He points to the Bushmaster rifle in outrage even though that gun was not used in the massacre, and he rants about how all these guns were bought legally. They were, although the suspect stole them from his mother, whom he murdered, and then killed 20 children and 6 adults. Morgan was spouting the same nonsense after the Aurora shooting. We'll have more stupid gun control outrage after the next shooting, God forbid. But no matter what happens, fortunately, we're not likely to see a wave of repressive gun control laws that will only strip the civil liberties from law-abiding citizens and do nothing to stop gun violence.

More at the Los Angeles Times, "Tougher gun laws seem unlikely even after school shooting":

WASHINGTON — Another mass shooting, another drive for gun control. But will the latest shooting — this time at an elementary school — change the political calculus in Washington and generate more support for tougher gun laws?

"I think the impact of this is going to be inescapable," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center.

The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., is among the worst shootings in the nation's history and comes after a spate of other high-profile episodes of violence, including mass shootings this year at a Colorado movie theater, a Wisconsin temple and an Oregon shopping mall. The rampage in Connecticut left 27 dead, 20 of them children ages 5 to 10. The shooter then killed himself.

But although the tender age of the victims brought tears to President Obama's eyes and an assertion from him that "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics," political observers from both parties were doubtful that anything major would be done.

"You think Social Security is the third rail of politics, try guns," said a Republican strategist, who spoke on the condition that he not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Congress, far from being inclined to tighten gun laws, allowed an assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004.

"You have Republicans getting a lot of push-back from the base on a number of issues, such as agreeing to tax increases and compromising on immigration. Throwing the 2nd Amendment and gun rights into the mix would be devastating to the party," said a congressional Republican staffer, requesting anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the issue.

Opposition comes not just from Republicans. A number of Democrats have been skittish about the issue, contending that Al Gore's support for gun control cost him votes in rural states in the 2000 presidential election.

White House spokesman Jay Carney steered clear of the issue when asked about it Friday, saying it was a day for mourning, not policy debates. That stance immediately drew criticism from the left, and gun control advocates moved swiftly to ratchet up the pressure on Obama.

"If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control ... I don't know when is," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).

"President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress," New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said.

About 200 protesters calling for immediate action appeared outside the White House, some carrying placards that read, "Today: Sandy Hook. Tomorrow?"

"Condolences don't work," said Pastor Michael McBridge of Oakland. What will work is "action now," he said.

"We've had enough," added Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a leading gun control advocate who sponsored the now-lapsed federal ban on assault weapons, has said she plans to make a new effort to revive the measure.

Still more at the link.

And after that head over to read Jeffrey Goldberg, at the Atlantic, "What Can We Do to Stop Massacres?" (At Memeorandum.)

Progressives Don't Want 'Gun Control' Laws, They Want to Abolish the Right to Bear Arms Altogether

First of all, folks need to read William Jacobson' essay in full, "My long car ride mourning the victims “regardless of the politics”." This part is especially good:

Banning guns not only is unconstitutional, in a free society it would be no more effective than banning drugs, and truly would leave guns only in the hands of criminals.

Will we address what kind of society we would have to have in order to impose the type of gun control which exists in a place like China, where an attack on school children by a knife-wielding assailant injured 22 students just yesterday, but did not result in any deaths?  I doubt it.

What exactly is the “meaningful action” to be taken to prevent an obviously sick person from killing his own mother and then going to a kindergarten to shoot children?

The easy answer of more gun control would not have changed today.  Today took place in a state which has gun control and in which all the rules were followed, except by the homicidal killer who would not have cared about any rules.

The seemingly easy answers will be all about the politics.

Following the links takes us to the NRA's information page for Connecticut's gun laws. As William notes, the state indeed "has gun control," and how. There are background checks, waiting periods, and gun registration requirements. All of these no doubt encroaching on the Second Amendment. You can watch MSNBC all day and the idiots there won't tell you that. They'll spout disinformation about how mental illness isn't correlated with increased gun violence, claims that disregard the fact that all the recent high-profile massacres have been committed by suspects with psychiatric problems. As I've been reporting with more frequency of late, the left, during the Obama interregnum, is increasingly divorced from objective reality, pushing propaganda and disinformation that promotes the state-approved party line. And with the president announcing his intent to seek "meaningful" policy reform on America's gun laws, law-abiding citizens can expect to bear the brunt of an authoritarian infringement (yet another infringement) on their constitutional rights.

More here: "Gun Control Laws Seek to Punish 'the People Who Didn't Do It' — And Don't Work Anyway."

Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation

All the reports I read yesterday, and most of those I listened to on television, indicated that the shooter used Glock and Sig Sauer handguns, but that a Bushmaster .223 automatic weapon was found in the suspect's vehicle. For example, according to this CNN report:

[Updated at 6:51 p.m. ET] A law enforcement official familiar with the investigation says the three guns found at the shooting site were legally purchased by Nancy Lanza, the mother of the suspect in the shooting.

According to the law enforcement official, the Glock and Sig Sauer handguns were found inside the school with the deceased gunman. The Bushmaster was found in a car outside the school. The official did not know if the car was registered to the gunman, to his mother or to someone else.

And the New York Times reported:

Law enforcement officials said the weapons used by the gunman were a Sig Sauer and a Glock, both handguns. The police also found a Bushmaster .223 M4 carbine.

But facts make no difference to the dishonest, despicable far-left criminal stalker Walter James Casper III, who retweeted this bald face lie from Angie Coiro early in the day:

RT @aurosan: This is the gun used by the shooter. It's legal. Can someone explain to me why any citizen needs this? twitter.com/aurosan/status…
— Angie Coiro (@Angie_Coiro) December 15, 2012

There's lots more disinformation where that came from, at Hatesac's timeline.

During a press conference yesterday, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy announced that "evil visited this community today." And as fast as a blast from the gun barrels, the progressive ghouls are now attempting to capitalize on such unthinkable horror in order to strip the civil liberties of millions of law-abiding citizens who had nothing to do with this horrendous crime. That too is evil, but then again, progressivism's an evil ideology, all too perfectly embodied by "troll rights" harassment thug Walter James Casper III.

See also: "Gun Control Laws Seek to Punish 'the People Who Didn't Do It' — And Don't Work Anyway."

Gun Control Laws Seek to Punish 'the People Who Didn't Do It' — And Don't Work Anyway

See Glenn Reynolds' commentary at USA Today, "Gun-free zones provide false sense of security":

Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law....

Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.

Fortunately, the efforts to punish "the people who didn't do it" are getting less traction these days...

RTWT, via Memeorandum.

And see also The Astute Bloggers, "SAD, SICKENING NEWS OUT OF CONNECTICUT."