Navy Yard shooting should send 
a message to Colorado legislators

Monday morning, the Washington Navy Yard became the latest target of a disgruntled employee when Aaron Alexis went postal in a building in the naval complex. Armed with two handguns and a shotgun and a handgun, Alexis entered the building with a single motive: killing as many innocent people as he could in the least possible time.

Two hours later, 12 employees and military personnel were dead, a number of others were wounded, and the killer himself had been shot down by police.

It is a story Americans have seen and heard too often in recent years: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Sandy Hook Elementary, Fort Hood, Aurora and now the Washington Navy Yard. Gun control advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein calls this list “the litany of massacres.”

“When will enough be enough?” Feinstein asked. “Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Feinstein’s words should resonate in Colorado, site of two of the most notorious mass killings in American history, Columbine and Aurora.

Coming only a week after the successful campaign in Colorado to recall state Sens. John Morse and Angela Giron, the Navy Yard massacre still should inspire Colorado legislators to reconsider common-sense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of individuals bent on murder.

If the Washington Naval Yard massacre had occurred a week ago — the Monday before the recall election for Morse and Giron — these two lawmakers might be returning to Denver for the new legislative session.

In Colorado, as in most of the states, a majority of voters support limited restrictions on gun ownership, as well as the Second Amendment. Charges that reform threatens the Second Amendment are NRA hyperbole meant to excite the gun-toting base into a passionate defense against the chimera of government confiscation of privately owned guns.

The modest gun safety laws Morse and Giron supported are no threat to legitimate gun owners. But they could help prevent guns falling into the hands of such individuals as Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes or Aaron Alexis with a compulsory background check.

Alexis’ history of violent behavior and misuse of guns, combined with his Navy reserve record of multiple disciplinary infractions, should have been red flags to an investigator who ran a background check on a gun purchase.

Encouraged by their victory over Morse and Giron, the national gun rights organizations are now circulating intimidating questionnaires testing other legislators on their support for repealing the new Colorado gun regulations.

The Daily Caller quotes from the questionnaire: “As you are likely aware, we recently succeeded in the first successful recall of not one, but two, state officials in Colorado history. As we consider our next endeavors, we wish to know where every legislator stands on a repeal of Colorado’s unlawful new gun restrictions.”

The GOP apparently plans to continue its vendetta against proponents of mandatory background checks. With their majority reduced in both chambers, the Democrats are not strong enough to assure victory, should the GOP attempt to rescind the legislation requiring background checks.

However, Republican politicians are unlikely to persuade a majority of voters that assault weapons are good for them or their children.

The Morse-Giron recalls were a heads-up for Democrats, but not a sign they are wrong on the issues. Unfortunately, it is easier to motivate the discontented than the satisfied, so those who detest the law are more likely to protest than those who are satisfied with the status quo.

The recall election was conducted under circumstances favoring a GOP victory in Morse’s closely divided district. His defeat was likely assured when a lawsuit by Libertarians guaranteed there was not time enough to print and distribute mail ballots.

Last November, 74 percent of Coloradans voted by mail. With no such option available in the Morse and Giron recall elections, Democrats were less successful than Republicans in getting out the vote for in-person elections.

The recall election is a setback, but not a defeat. The majority of Coloradans still favor reasonable gun safety legislation. Democratic legislators should take that message back to Denver in 2014 with the resolve to make it so.

Bill Grant lives in Grand Junction. He can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

Instead of new gun laws we need to ask why this individual with two gun violence convictions doing loose in society. Probably people like Bill Grant who did not want to see him incarcerated because he was just misunderstood.

The Liberals like Grant still don’t get it. Passing more laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who follow the law will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Washington DC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the Country yet this criminal still ended up with three guns. Clearly, the current laws are not being enforced, so lets pass some more laws so we can not enforce them.

Grant conveniently fails to mention two key statistics from this election. One, Barack Obama carried Morse’s district by 21% 9 months ago. Two Obama carried Giron’s District by 18%. The recalls represent a huge turn around in the vote, and Democrats in Colorado should be very worried, particularly Governor Hickenlooper.

Another Grant waste of space. Why is this about “voter suppression?” Why is it about a damned political party getting/staying in control? Why is it about an uneducated bleeding heart liberal like Grant? Bag of hot air.

Good grief! Here comes that old “I care more than the ‘vendetta’ people do” sophist, Bill Grant, again with more snark toward freedom (self-ownership) lovers.
Some folks believe society is better off being run by a written two-party (rulers and subjects) specific-performance binding social contract which is treated as the Supreme Law of the Land. Others believe society is better off being run by manipulation contests to see who can get elected into public office where they can use violence-based coercion and fear to force everybody else to comply with their fascistic (aka “Utopian”) social engineering agendas. I belong to the former. It seems Grant prefers the latter.
Economics 101 for libs: You can’t create prosperity by printing debt-based legal tender. You have to produce real things and sell them to people who want them in a marketplace 100% devoid of coercion. Aesop’s ant works. Aesop’s grasshopper starves.
In every money-for-wages exchange, there are buyers (employers) and sellers (employees) of labor. Both the buyers/employers and sellers/employees of labor incur both a gain and a loss. The buyers’/employers’ gain is the one hour (say $20 worth) of labor. Their loss is the $20 worth of money paid for that $20 worth of labor. The sellers’/employees’ gain is the $20 worth of money. Their loss is the $20 worth of labor paid for the $20 worth of money. The $20 worth of money and the $20 worth of labor have exactly the same market value, or the compensatory exchange would not have been made voluntarily.
Enter corrupt government. In the current immoral, unsustainable and provably unconstitutional “legal” monetary and tax structure, the employer’s loss ($20 worth of money) is calculated as an item of overhead and is deductible as an expense of doing “business”, while his gain ($20 worth of labor) is figured at zero and ignored. In contrast, the employee’s loss ($20 worth of labor) is figured at zero, is ignored and is not deductible, while his gain ($20 worth of money) is fraudulently considered to be gain/profit/increase instead of the zero-sum nonprofit fair market-based COMPENSATION that it actually is.
Interestingly, the words “income” and “business” are deliberately fraudulently “legally” undefined so as to obfuscate and camouflage the stark moral differences between living off your own labor and profiting from the “other guy’s” labor.
That is blatant discrimination and unequal protection of law which has no rational connection to any morally legitimate government purpose. If we had honest judges, the discriminated-against “suspect class” is labor, and the so-called “federal question” at issue would normally be examined under what is called the “strict scrutiny” rule.
In the long run, the fraud is unsustainable and will inevitably lead to hyper-inflation, monetary collapse and mass suffering. Exponentially more people will want guns for self-defense and survival.

“Capitalism” is another word, like “liberal” versus “conservative’ and “left” versus “right”, which is so deliberately and strategically unspecific as to render it meaningliess. Both Left and Right obviously have different understandings about what the word means, but they routinely talk past each other as a matter of wannabe cleverness without ever bothering to agree on the definitions of the words being used.
Words are the “units of measure” of human ideas, and precise definitions have a way of clarifying exactly what is being talked about so as to avoid misunderstandings (of which war is arguably the most destructive example).
The great failure of the word “capitalism”, as applied (or misapplied) by both Left and Right, is that, as a matter of deliberate political strategy, it camouflages the bright moral (self-ownership) line between living off your own labor and living off the “other guy’s” labor. As a result, society has managed to create a divide-and-conquer culture of entitlement. Aesop’s party-hearty grasshopper has finally managed to use “government” and “law” to live off the labor of Aesop’s ant.
In “business” (again no specific “legal” definition), an entrepreneur/owner of a one-man shop lives off his own labor. An entrepreneur/owner of a multi-person shop lives partly off his own labor and partly off his profit from the labor of his employees. The extremely successful entrepreneur/owner of an entire huge industry mostly sits back and demands that highly paid managers, on pain of losing their jobs, assure his profits made mostly from his “ant farm” labor of others. Yet all of these morally opposite models are referred to by the same term, “free enterprise”, and strategically camouflaged under the fraudulent euphemism, “capitalism”, which is widely accepted as being inextricably interchangeable with the term “free enterprise”/self-ownership when nothing could be farther from the truth. Hence the general cultural confusion produced by society-wide acceptance of moral opposites as moral equivalents.
It always amuses me that icons of the Right find an eager audience for their deceptive and self-serving proclamations that “the rich” pay most of the taxes, when Nature’s truth is that labor produces all things of value to humans, which are therefore the only things capable of being taxed. For “the rich” taxes are merely one item of overhead which are factored into the prices of goods we all (including the poor) buy. That’s why “the rich” don’t pay all the taxes, and why the Linder-Boortz Fair Tax would result in a 23% reduction in the general price of goods consumed.
It’s a lot easier for the Left (Grant et ilk) to simply blame guns, skin color, or a lack of a big enough “welfare” check than it is to educate themselves and do the hard work of trying to fix a self-evidently corrupt and unsustainable political and economic “system”.

As a Fellow in the Colorado Writing Project, I would have handed this back after reading the first two paragraphs; they are filled with errors. The recent Colorado gun control law had little to do with gun safety and Morse and Giron were not representing the opinions of the majority of their constituents. As for Diane Feinstein, she seriously needs a course in fire arms safety for the way she handled the semi-auto rifle (which was not an assault rifle, a misnomer) in the Senate. You never put your finger on the trigger until you are aimed at your target and ready to fire. Or was she aiming at members of the GOP? I will give Grant credit for not including an AR-15 as many in the media claimed, but the reports I’ve read and heard is that Alexis entered with a shotgun and picked up a handgun from a guard he shot. Some reports do mention a second handgun. This statement from Grant is nonsense, ” Armed with two handguns and a shotgun and a handgun”. Also note that no military personnel were killed, only civilians contrary to Grant’s opinion; this does not lessen the tragedy, but it is factually wrong. Let’s do something about mental illness and leave the legal gun owners alone. Gun Free Zones, like our military bases (how’s that for an oxymoron), movie theaters and schools remind me of “Kick Me” signs on someone’s back. A little research indicated which gun free zone Aurora theater to target; why take a chance that someone might be legally carrying a gun to fight back.  More and stricter gun control will not solve the problem; very strict gun control in Chicago and Washington, D.C. prove that and we don’t even need to include the Navy Yard; the statistics were there before September 16th.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy