Belgium Shooting – Case for Gun Control?

I was sitting around today and a thought occurred to me. Why haven’t I heard the gun control advocates taunting us with the recent Belgium shooting?

A “lone gunman” shoots and kills his cleaning lady, then enters a crowded shopping area where, using grenades, an “assault rifle” and a handgun, he kills two teenage boys, a 2 year old girl, a 17 month old girl, a 20 year old man and a 75 year old woman. An additional 123 people were injured.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/gunman-launches-deadly-attack-in-belgium/story-fn7x8me2-1226221418204

Ordinarily, the gun control crowd would be salivating. But nothing? What’s the deal? So, I began looking into it a little bit and here’s what I learned.

"The conclusion for me is that we have in Belgium the harshest gun laws in Europe and certainly one of the worst in the world"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_53/ai_n27126468/

That statement is from writer/physician J.J. Martin, from Malonne, Belgium. Continuing in the same article, Martin notes

"The actual situation is: A law-abiding ordinary citizen cannot buy any type of firearm, unless he has a valuable reason (money transport, jeweler, etc.). If, by chance, he can have the authorization to buy a gun, the permit will be valid for only three years and a new application must be made at that time. If the permit is not accepted, he will have to sell, destroy or surrender the gun to the police.

Any citizen owning a gun of any type at the date of the new law must register it with the police and ask for authorization to keep it. If the authorization is not granted, the citizen must sell, destroy or surrender the gun to the police."

Now I understand. The horrendous tragedy… no, tragedy isn’t the right word… the treacherous criminal act of a murderer is evidence in support of those who have tirelessly argued that “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.

In this case, not only did a parolee, previously convicted of possessing 10 prohibited firearms and 9,500 gun parts, somehow obtain more weapons in a country with some of the strictest gun laws, he was also able to obtain hand grenades. Looks like those gun laws aren’t everything they’re touted to be, huh?

Then, I was struck with another notion. Isn’t it interesting how the left is always ready to leap to the defense of Muslims, demanding others draw a distinction between the mainstream followers of Islam and the extremists (which I agree with completely), but treat all American gun owners as extremists? Think about it. When have you ever heard a gun control fanatic say anything like “The person who commits violence with a firearm is in the extreme minority and we should avoid generalizations that demonize the majority of gun owners, who are law abiding and productive citizens”?

Didn’t think so.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

This is the agency (harrumph, bureaucracy), created by the The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, of which the Republicans are being accused of blocking Obama’s leadership appointment.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/198579-advocates-explore-constitutional-powers-to-appoint-consumer-nominee

The GOP leadership claims they are blocking the appointment because it creates another czar position, with no oversight and outside all checks and balances. Okay, sounds reasonable. Of course, the first reaction from some on the left will be, “So, the Republicans created such bureaucracies, as well”.

Agreed. But, for how long will we continue this back and forth, tit for tat, bullshit? When will we draw a line in the sand and say “No more”? Yes, both political parties have played equal parts in creating this nightmare and have given The People a royal screwing. Yes, all that is true, but here it stops. No more blaming the other party.

Well, I got a little off track there for a moment, but back to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose initial budget exceeds one-half billion dollars.

Is this really a solution to any problems? For one thing, we already have a Bureau of Consumer Protection, within the Federal Trade Commission (whose budget is in excess of $300 million, and which boasts having filed “57 new complaints in federal district courts” in 2010. Wow! That’s efficiency for ya! $5 million per complaint! Not to mention their enormously successful Do Not Call registry, which has completely halted those annoying telemarketing calls I received in the past. WTF ever.

http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/oed/fmo/budgetsummary12.pdf

The USA.gov website provides an index of the numerous state and local consumer protection agencies.

There is the Consumer Product Safety Commission, whose budget has doubled over the past 4 years.

Take a gander at http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Consumer-Safety.shtml , which consists of over 100 links to sites offering “consumer protection”.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Aviation Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division (U.S. DOT), Better Business Bureaus, etc. Practically every single government agency has a division “dedicated to consumer protection”. I wouldn’t have a clue about how to begin compiling a report on how much governments (fed, state and local) spend on “consumer protection”. Yet, during almost every television commercial break, at least one law firm tells us they stand ready to attack those nasty corporations, which have caused us some harm. How can that be, with all the government does to “protect” the consumer?

So, are we to believe that this new bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is the end-all-be-all? Is this going to be “The One”? Are we finally going to be protected? Am I the only one who doubts that?

For those who believe so, let’s hear what the CFPB has to say about one aspect of their mission.

"When you see these prototypes, you may think, “This doesn’t look shorter or simpler than the current disclosures.” You’re right. These prototypes have some new items that you may not have seen on the current disclosures they’re replacing. These additions are new disclosures required by the Dodd–Frank Act. Basically, we’ve boiled down content that could have filled ten pages into five or six." http://www.consumerfinance.gov/knowbeforeyouowe/

What did they say? Sounded to me like “We could have made this really, really, really difficult by giving you ten pages of a convoluted explanation of your mortgage documents, but instead we only made it really, really difficult and kept it to only five or six pages of convoluted BS. See, we’re the government and we’re here to help.”

Of course, that is in addition to the mere fact that this exercise in futility is just another redundancy in government bureaucratic spending. Just within the above example, we are paying one or more bureaucracies to generate and mandate “consumer protection”, while simultaneously paying another to protect the consumer from the first! Unbelievable!

You know what is even more unbelievable? Many have allowed themselves to be convinced this is a great idea and that more government is always the solution to all of life’s problems. 

Consider the Environmental Protection Agency, with its $9 billion budget. I'm not sure how much more "Protection" we can afford.

Please, please, please. WAKE UP AMERICA! Before it’s too late.