Close window | View original article
The New York Times described our President's reaction to the latest slaughter in a victim disarmament zone:
Mr. Obama took a veiled swipe at the National Rifle Association, which has successfully fought most limits on gun use and manufacture and has pushed through legislation in many states making gun ownership far easier...
"And what's become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation," Mr. Obama said. "Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out. 'We need more guns,' they'll argue. 'Fewer gun-safety laws.' "
Mr. Obama completely ignores the realities of the gun issue.
Pro-aborts speak of removing unwanted womb contents; pro-lifers condemn murdering babies. These views can't be compromised.
Pro-aborts won't accept "common sense" legislation even to limit horrifying partial-birth abortion and infanticide because they recognize the thin edge of the wedge. They know that if they accept any limits, pro-lifers won't stop until all abortions have been banned.
Pro-gun people know that if they accept "common sense" restrictions on gun ownership, the anti-gun forces won't stop until they take all the guns away. Governor Cuomo of New York said that his gun registration laws were a "first step" on the way to confiscation, and Mr. Obama has spoken favorably about the Australian and British confiscations of privately-owned guns.
What's more, pro-aborts are convinced that if they can't ban abortion outright, pro-lifers will stop at nothing to make it difficult. They'll use zoning, they'll say abortionists need admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, they'll require all kinds of expensive equipment in abortion clinics, all in the name of protecting women's health, but the effect will be to make abortion impossible.
Similarly, anti-gun people found another way when the Supreme Court overturned anti-gun laws in Washington DC. The pro-gun faction cheered, but the anti-gunners passed laws saying you had to buy a gun in the District in order to license it, then wrote zoning restrictions such that it's impossible to open a gun shop in DC. They couldn't officially ban guns in DC, but they made it impossible to own them all the same. Neither side trusts the other; there is no "common sense" to share.
Anti-gun activists won't admit that guns can't be banned any more than drugs can be banned - or, for that matter abortions; the only question is whether they'll be illegal or not. Mr. Nixon's "war on drugs" established billion-dollar distribution systems which bring an endless supply of illegal substances everywhere from urban welfare ghettos to the remotest rural hamlet.
Being illegal, these distributors have no access to the courts, so drug dealers throw lead at each other instead of lawyers in settling business disputes. They bring in just enough guns for their own needs, but if guns were harder to get, they'd be happy to import anonymous Russian or Chinese guns to sell to their existing customers. This is called "brand extension."
The Washington Post reports that in supposedly anti-gun Europe, terrorists have no trouble getting fully automatic weapons:
"It's very easy to get such a weapon," said Hans Jorgen Bonnichsen, a former operations director for the Danish security service PET. "It's not only a problem for Denmark. It's a problem for all of Europe."
Mr. Obama said, "Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out. 'We need more guns,' they'll argue. 'Fewer gun-safety laws.'" He's right in noting that people like us will call for reducing the number of victim disarmament zones and making it easier for citizens to arm themselves.
He'll never admit it, but the NRA has been able to make gun laws much more permissive since he assumed the Presidency because people have lost confidence in the Obama Administration's ability to maintain public order. Gun sales skyrocketed when he first took office, again when he was re-elected, and as his "War on Police" leads to more gun violence, more and more women are getting gun licenses.
ABC News reports:
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya - and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians. ...
Noble said there are really only two choices ... : either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
Not even our disarmed military forces can protect themselves against "workplace violence" by armed bad guys. As the head of the NRA put it, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Police can't be everywhere; the only way for us to be safe is for us to protect ourselves.
Mr. Obama accused Americans of becoming accustomed to shooting incidents, but he couldn't be more wrong. It's not that we're complacent or accepting, it's that we have no faith in his ideas of what to do about it.
Even Europe's super-strict anti-gun laws are so useless that the head of Interpol has recommended arming citizens. Knowing that, and knowing how many potentially terroristic Muslims Mr. Obama has admitted to our country, how can anyone pay serious attention to his calls for "common sense" anti-gun legislation?