Here we go ... President Obama is now using the tragedy in Tuscon as an excuse for more government control over the People and their guns.
It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.
Liar. Liar. Pants on fire.
Not only was this horrific event highly politicized by leftwing politicians and pundits, but you Mr. President, are politicizing it right now!
Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.
When he says "as a society," what he really means is "the government."
Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao before him, Obama is confident that government can solve all of societies woes. You see, all our Masters need is, just a little more power and control.
Apparently, searching and spying on everyone without probable cause isn't enough.
Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.
Liar. Liar. Pants on fire. Again.
Where is the Obama Administration's amicus brief in support of McDonald v. City of Chicago?
We already know that Obama supports bans on guns. So, being the shrewd politician that he is, not wanting to come out on the wrong side of the American public, President Obama’s position is ... Nothing.
I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.
That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
And how are you going to do that? After all, most of "those irresponsible, law-breaking few" don't buy their guns at a store, or from anyone else for that matter, legally. They are law-breakers, remember?
Besides, the risk of going to prison for selling a gun to someone whose NICS check gets "denied" is so severe, no law-abiding gun dealer will take it. Well, that is, unless you work for the ATF (or some other alphabet soup government "security" agency), and you need to say, arm Mexican drug cartels or some other nefarious group in a foreign nation. ATF Lied, Mexicans Died!
If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.
How can more restrictions on law-abiding citizens stop "someone who's made up his mind to kill"?
Murder is the ultimate crime, punishment for which is either life in prison or death. Does anyone really believe a person intent on murder is going to care whether he buy his gun at a legal gun store or not? Seriously. Do you think the additional felony of stealing a gun or buying one off the black market is going to stop someone already willing to risk life in prison or death?
Restrictions on gun ownership does nothing to stop criminals (or those with criminal intent) from getting their hands on guns. But gun restrictions do harm law-abiding citizens, after all, guns save lives.
Think about a woman who has just filed for divorce from her psychopath husband. He responds by threatening to kill her if she leaves him. Knowing all too well that he's unstable, the woman goes to the store to buy a handgun. Unfortunately, she has to wait 3 days to take possession of her gun. Then, the very next day her ex shows up at her house ... Having been denied her Natural Right to self-defense, she's left helpless against this monster and he kills her.
Intentionally disarming the general public has not only failed to reduce crime, but by limiting law-abiding citizen's options for self-defense, it has greatly increased the ability of criminals to get away with their evil deeds to boot. Gun control benefits criminals at the expense of their victims.
Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns ...
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
Any infringement on our Natural Rights is a "wild-eyed scheme" for government control. Our rights exist prior to government and are not theirs to give, deny, or restrict. If you actually did use "commonsense" Mr. President, then you would know that restricting the rights of "responsible citizens" is not only futile in the fight against violent crime, but immoral.
If you are genuinely interested in preventing people from getting shot by psychopaths and thugs, let me offer a few suggestions.
First, expand your respect for the Second Amendment by allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms without a waiting period and carry without a permit. This way, criminals won't know if their target is armed or not, giving them serious pause about committing the crime because they could die today for it.
Now, that's a deterrent!
Second, stop imprisoning people for non-violent consensual "crimes," and use the prison space to keep violent offenders, who are a genuine threat to society, off the streets. This would also free up vast police resources to be used chasing down the genuinely violent thugs.
And last but not least, completely end the "War on Drugs." The drug trade is violent not because of drugs, but because the "War on Drugs" pushes the product onto the black market where only criminals operate. Anyone who doubts this should ask themselves why armed and violent cartels don't fight over the tobacco and liquor trades. Alcohol didn't create Al Capone's gang violence. Prohibition did.
And as Sheldon Richman notes, the "War on Drugs" and gun control go hand-in-hand:
Decriminalizing the use of and trade in drugs would take the drug industry away from the most violent elements of society and place them in the open marketplace, where civil dispute resolution would replace gunfights. It would also deprive thugs of a superlucrative occupation.
That combination would be a blow to the anti-gun lobby. The absence of routine gun violence by reviled drug sellers would deprive the lobby of some of its most potent propaganda. Then Second Amendment champions could begin to rehabilitate firearms as a reasonable tool of self-defense.
There are plenty of logical "commonsense" solutions that we can take "in the face of violence" Mr. President. Unfortunately, you don't seem interested in any of them. Instead, you ply your trade as a politician ... "playing politics" with the personal tragedies of others, to push for more government control.