Liz Peek
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Radio
  • About
  • Contact
Screen Shot 2018-02-16 at 9.25.03 AM
February 15, 2018

After Florida shooting, it’s time for conservatives to stand against mass murder

Liz Peek Articles

John Fredericks, host of a widely followed conservative radio show, did something brave Thursday. He questioned, on air, whether people should have access to rapid-fire guns.

Fredericks acknowledged that his call for increased regulation was bound to anger many of his listeners. He described himself as a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and of the National Rifle Association, but voiced his concerns about high-powered weapons in the wake of the horrific shootings at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

He also described himself as a parent, who does not want to see more tragedies take place in our country’s schools.

We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado – in which 13 people were killed and 20 were wounded – followed by other horrific mass shootings.

Will others now follow Fredericks in advocating commonsense restrictions on the availability of the kinds of guns that facilitate mass murder?

Or will everyone on the left and right scurry to their respective corners, paralyzing debate and reforms that might reduce the number of senseless tragedies this nation endures?

We all know the post-slaughter playbook. Sadly, we’ve had plenty of occasions to etch the template.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., or Hillary Clinton, or some other predictable voice will blame Republicans for easing the path to gun ownership and blocking any and all restrictions on weapons purchases. Republicans will point out that people kill people – not guns.

Many will say we need more mental health services. Others will say it is the breakdown of the family unit that has caused so many untethered young people to resort to violence.

There is truth in all these positions, but reiterating the same talking points doesn’t lead to progress. Congress will debate various improvements to school safety, or minor changes to weapons laws, like banning bump stocks. Nothing will get done.

It is time for an honest conversation about gun control. We all know that if rapid-fire weapons had not been involved in the shootings in Las Vegas (58 dead), or Orlando (49 dead), or Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland (17 dead), fewer people would have died. That is a fact.

That fact gets obscured by quibbling over definitions. Fully automatic weapons are illegal, but semi-automatic guns are available. They can fire almost as quickly, use similar ammunition and do just as much damage.

Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub, used a Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle, not technically an automatic weapon, but one that was just as lethal. The families of those killed are probably indifferent to the distinctions.

For 10 years, it was illegal to buy new guns like the one used by Mateen and there was a limit on high-capacity magazines. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Furious lobbying by the NRA has prohibited a renewal of the ban. Today, Americans can buy semi-automatic weapons that are described by numerous law enforcement agencies as assault weapons.

One argument against restricting such sales stems from concerns that prohibiting any type of weapon is a violation of the Second Amendment. But that is patently false. Machine gun sales are illegal, so the precedent exists for restrictions.

Others worry that restricting ownership of some types of guns is a slippery slope. They say further limitations will follow, which is why gun sales typically surge after a mass shooting.

That is no excuse to allow easy access to weapons that have no conceivable role in everyday life and that facilitate wanton bloodbaths.

Hunters or those who enjoy shooting clay pigeons don’t use semi-automatic weapons.

It is time for conservatives to embrace our new reality: today’s violence-prone society makes ownership of high-powered rapid-fire guns too dangerous.

At the same time, liberals need to address why our culture has become so tolerant of violence. Hollywood needs to be held to account for the savage imagery and realistic slaughter that makes its video games and movies so lucrative.

There is no question that young people who grow up engaging in ever-gorier and more violent “games” can become inured and desensitized to death and destruction.

The NRA wields undue influence on our gun laws via large campaign donations to politicians. Similarly, Hollywood undermines our cultural values because of greed. Commonsense Americans should demand that our politicians seek concessions from both groups.

There is no quick fix to prevent the next Columbine or Parkland killings. But we can make a start. Better follow-up on young people who are known to be violent, public service messages that encourage anyone to come forward if they spot ominous social media posts (as indeed happened in Parkland), greater availability of mental health services – all these might help.

But it is also clear that the loose regulations of high-powered rapid-fire weapons in the U.S. makes these tragedies likely to happen again and again.

President Trump, who has broken with traditional Republican orthodoxy on a number of occasions, could lead a conversation about adopting some commonsense reforms.

Though such a move it would anger some of the president’s his conservative followers, he would pick up a lot of support among independents and moderate Republicans. More importantly, it would be the right thing to do. Something has to change.

Published on Foxnews.com

Liberals undermine #MeToo with partisan attacks Soaring economic optimism could torpedo Dems’ ‘blue wave’ midterms

Related Posts

Screenshot 2025-05-16 at 8.43.36 AM

Articles

DOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment

Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens

Articles

Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens

Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda

Articles

Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda

Recent Posts

  • Screenshot 2025-05-16 at 8.43.36 AMDOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment
  • Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliensDemocrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens
  • Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agendaRepublicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda
  • Screenshot 2019-06-26 07.54.58What Kamala Harris buzz is telling us. Read between the lines, America

Tweets by Liz

Unable to load Tweets

Follow

Liz on Facebook

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

Liz Peek

2 days ago

Liz Peek

My Morning Rant:
I am alternately peeved and sympathetic with Chip Roy, Ralph Norman and the others who torpedoed Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. But after reading the fine print this morning and realizing that reforms to Medicaid don’t kick in until 2029 !!!! I am disgusted. I get that states need some time to adjust to a change in rules regarding Medicaid eligibility – maybe a year or 18 months — but do they really need four years? No, they do not. The extended timeframe is an obvious play to put political repercussions off until after the midterms. Legislators from swing districts fear losing their seats because able-bodied adults lose their free ride. They want to put off any change as long as possible.
On the other hand, those vulnerable legislators will almost certainly get canned if the 2017 tax cuts don’t get extended and Trump’s agenda crashes. We need both to get the bill passed, and to make it tougher.
The conservatives calling for bigger spending cuts are completely correct. Just ask Moody’s, which in recent days downgraded U.S. debt. Imagine, the United States of America has lost its triple-A status. (The other two major ratings agencies had already made this downgrade.) This would be a wake-up call except that most of our country is asleep, lulled into a false sense of complacency by hours spent on Tik-Tok or watching the NFL. We all need downtime, for sure, but we also need to pay attention to what’s happening with our country’s fiscal outlook. It isn’t good. Even the Fed, no friend to the Trump administration or to fiscal austerity, has announced it will cut staff and overhead. Of course, why the Fed has a headcount of 24,000 is a mystery. How can they employ so many people and still get it wrong most of the time? This is the group that never spoke out against Biden’s reckless spending; it’s quite the switch.
Simply put, the country endorsed a huge surge in government spending to compensate for the wrong-headed directives during Covid that shut down schools, businesses and churches. The government under Trump wanted to keep Americans employed and the economy ready to rebound, which it did. Biden kept the spending at max level, refusing to let a crisis go to waste. Democrats in Congress and the Fed went along, spurring the highest inflation in decades.
Now we have to go back to the trend-line pre-Covid spending; the bill on the table doesn’t do that. Republicans must do better if they want to keep the majority.
… See MoreSee Less

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 42
  • Shares: 6
  • Comments: 12

Comment on Facebook

Right on, as usual! Thanks for all your clear-headed messages.

Excellent analysis! Couldn’t agree more.

Just sick of BOTH parties. Neither are there for the Working Americans. BOTH parties responsible for the theft going on. Repubs should have read the bills that gave away money..

Nailed it

We need a balanced budget amendment! Deficit spending needs to end!

Liz Peek Well written, my friend!

Convention of States is looking better everyday.

Honestly you should be somewhere in Trumps administration Liz.. Just sayin

As much as I want a win on the BBB, I’m torn. I find it very difficult to believe that they can’t find more to cut spending

Is TERM LIMITS in this big beautiful bill? Everything else is.
If not, why not?
Past time to cut the deadwood and get “servants” of We the People seated who will do the job more responsibly..

Following.

CUT MORE SPENDING!!!

View more comments

Liz Peek

3 days ago

Liz Peek

What happened to DOGE???
… See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

DOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment

DOGE chief has been thwarted at every turn — by judges, Democrats and their media allies, even Republicans.

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 5
  • Shares: 0
  • Comments: 3

Comment on Facebook

The only "plan" for this entire crooked System is to keep running deficits and keep printing those fiat currencies. The D Brand of crooks can win primaries just by using a few dumb generic words like " affordability" or "fairness" no matter how your real wages and purchasing power spiral downwards.

The Uniparty doesn't want their gravy train turned over.

Democrats are Americas virus.

Liz Peek

4 days ago

Liz Peek

My Morning Rant:
John Hawley, Senator from Missouri, is out with a blistering attack on Republicans in Congress who want to “cut” Medicaid spending. He declares those in favor of Medicaid reforms contained in the House bill “a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing” who are not on board with working-class Americans and who want to “build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor”. www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/opinion/josh-hawley-dont-cut-medicaid.html
What rot. Working Americans of all classes are sick and tired of an ever-growing amount of their hard-earned taxes going to fund those who are not working. This is not a Wall Street issue- it’s a fairness issue. Though some groups say most Medicaid recipients are working, that is not true. A study by AEI showed that “In December 2022, 44 percent of non-disabled working age Medicaid recipients without children worked at least 80 hours” per month, compared to 72% not receiving Medicaid. Focusing on “prime working ages of 25 to 54, the share working at least 80 hours was 51 percent among Medicaid recipients and 84 percent among non-Medicaid recipients.” So why would 49% not be working?
Here’s the problem: the Medicaid changes that GOP legislators want to make don’t target “the working poor”, they target able-bodied men and women who are not working, and who historically would not have qualified for Medicaid benefits. Only when Obama rescinded the work requirements for Medicaid did the program blow up entirely and become the drain on the fiscal purse that we see today. As he states in his op-ed, Hawley’s problem is this: “Today [Medicaid] serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.” Hawley, who was elected last fall by a 14-point margin, fears he’ll lose ground with those million recipients if he embraces fiscal common sense. Or maybe he fears losing the support of healthcare professionals, who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign. www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/josh-hawley/summary?cid=N00041620
Our country has seen a long-term decline in able-bodied men working. The labor participation rate for that group is 89.1% which sounds high until you realize that it was 97.1% in 1960. That’s a huge slide, with troubling implications for U.S. productivity. If you believe, as I do, that work is healthy, it is also bad news for the individuals who are, at least in some cases, gaming the system.
Instead of railing about sincere efforts to reform an out-of-control entitlement, why doesn’t Hawley turn his attentions to improving job opportunities and training in his state? Or attracting more employers? And, where are his ideas for cutting federal spending, which is too high and which is hurting our nation? Some $50 billion in Medicaid outlays funds fraud or constitutes “improper payments.” What is Hawley doing to confront that?
Maybe I would be more impressed with his arguments but for his having published his screed in the New York Times- is that the most efficient way to speak to working-class Americans? Bernie Sanders probably thinks so, and so does Josh Hawley.
… See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

Sen. Josh Hawley – Campaign Finance Summary

Fundraising profile for Sen. Josh Hawley – Missouri

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 4
  • Shares: 1
  • Comments: 2

Comment on Facebook

We have to end the idea that working for McDonalds at the counter is the end game career wise. It’s what you do in high school and college to pay your bills. If you want to be in that industry, you need to think manager then owner as that is the career.

Uniparty in action. They are there to Take money, not help The People.

LOAD MORE

Tags

AGENDA AIR FORCE BIG GOVERNMENT BORDER WALL CHINA CLINTON CONGRESS CYBERWAR DEMOCRATS DRAIN THE SWAMP E-VERIFY ECONOMY ELON MUSK FILLIBUSTER FREEDOM CAUCUS FREEDOM WATCH GOP GORSUCH GRADUATION HACKING HEALTH CARE HILLARY IMMIGRATION INFRASTRUCTURE KUSHNER MEDIA MIDDLE EAST MOODY'S NUNES NYC OIL RAND PAUL STOCK MARKET SUPREME COURT SUSAN RICE TAXES TAX REFORM TECHNOLOGY TED CRUZ TERROR TRUMP TURKEY WALL STREET WEATHER WELLESLEY
[themify_map address="233 78th Street New York, NY 10032" width=100% height=250px zoom=14]
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Radio
  • About
  • Contact
©2017 LizPeek.org. All Rights Reserved.
Site by Steeplechase Strategies