Holier Than Thou

The gun control issue encompasses everything that is polarizing the United States of America today.   The media's disdain for responsible reporting was in full display last week following the defeat in the Senate (Democratic Party controlled Senate, by the way) of the newest attempt at gun control legislation.  Headlines raged "Public Opinion Defeated", "Congressmen Bullied By The NRA And Radical Conservatives".  Such words and phrases as "cowardice", "disgust", "grossly unfair", "disregard for the children" were used by guests on CBS and other news shows.

Reaching new peaks of arrogance, hubris, and holier than thou condescension, our president added to the conflagration by continuing his incessant slandering of opponents and impugning their motives.  "A pretty shameful day for Washington", "The Senators who voted against it are cowardly", "It came down to politics", and "a minority was able to block it from moving forward" were a few of the president's inflammatory comments.  Media pundits attributed the defeat to the rural states, as if people living in fly-over country aren't allowed to have a voice.

Obama also asserted that "the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill", saying that the villainous fiends claimed expanded background checks would open the door for universal registration of guns so government would have a record of gun owners.  Well, why wouldn't that be an issue of concern?  Four months ago Obama got his tax increase on the wealthy and within days was demanding another one to avoid the sequester.  Why would anyone believe that he would stop his gun control quest after passing the bill?  It would only be a first step, and everyone knows it.  Unfortunately, his small steps turn into giant leaps.  Expanded gun control will be one of the first items of business if Obama gets to select a new Supreme Court Justice.

There were actually three different gun control bills the Senate voted on.  One was a ban on assault weapons, which lost by 60 votes against and 40 for.  The second was a ban on magazine capacity greater than ten, which also lost with a majority against, 54 to 46.  The third, and the one Obama apparently expected to pass, was the expanded background checks for sales by private citizens online and at gun shows (licensed gun dealers already are required to do background checks).  The bill needed 60 votes to pass and only got 54.  Opponents said they made their decision based on logic and that passions had no place in the making of momentous policy.  What a concept!  One Senator said "criminals do not submit to background checks now.  They will not submit to expanded background checks."  It was a rare moment of sanity in the insane asylum known as Congress.

Never-the-less, the Obama propaganda machine gathered children and gun crime victims to create another p. r. opportunity for the Drama King in Chief.  Honestly, aren't we all getting sick and tired of the Hollywood productions and the incendiary accusations of evil intentions of opponents designed to create mass hysteria.  Would it be too much to ask to start arguing issues on the merits?  Obama emoted that even if this gun control legislation saved only one child it would be worth it, ignoring the fact that dozens of people, including children, could be saved if anyone near a developing tragedy had a gun and knew how to use it.  He didn't seem to have anyone at his news conference who is alive today because a gun was used to save them from a predator.  There are plenty of potential victims whose lives have been saved because someone with a gun prevented an assailant from murdering innocent people.  How come that never comes up in Obama's lectures to us peons?

Personally, I don't think it is a bad idea to do background checks on gun sales on the internet and at gun shows.  But I am at a loss to understand how that could be enforced.  There are over 300 million people in the United States, and it would be impossible to monitor every person to person transaction.  Criminals and terrorists are going to get guns or whatever weapon they want to commit crimes.  Why is it that so many liberals think they live in a fantasy world where planned or random violence won't occur if government just enacts some worthless law?  Why are they so shocked when violence occurs?  Violence does not only happen in America, and it certainly doesn't happen only in places that don't have strict gun controls.  If guns are strictly controlled then the bullies win, whether that bully is a next door neighbor or an oppressive government.  No country can legislate utopia or the elimination of violent crime within its borders until they implement total mind control over the people.  Maybe that is what the liberals want, as long as they get to determine the programming.  Welcome to Orwell's 1984.

All Americans should be tired by now of the news media always producing one sided reports from commentators and interviews with private citizens of how they are disgusted and appalled by conservatives who won't give in to the passions of the moment that defy logic and rationality in order to pass rapidly composed legislation that will solve nothing.  Acting on emotion is generally what causes lethal events in the first place.  Doing something stupid or irrational in response to a tragedy does not solve the problem.  Politically correct feel good measures that don't serve the intended purpose are a waste of everyone's time at best and a huge mistake at worst.  And the gun control legislation rejected by the Senate would have served no useful purpose.

Sane people understand that we have to deal with the reality that bad people exist and will do bad things.  Bad people who want to use guns will have guns, regardless of any new law.  Is it really a good idea for them to be the only people who have guns?  Of course not.  Would the new law have prevented law abiding citizens from owning guns?  No, not yet, but it would make it harder for some of them to own a gun, and that could be the difference between life and death.  This was a law that would make it easier for the bad guys to do their evil deeds while preventing the decent from defending themselves.  It would clearly have had the opposite effect of what presumably was intended.  One can only wonder what is going on inside the mind of our president.  It is very sad when an amoeba has more common sense, integrity and class than the charlatan sitting in the oval office.

p.s. - notice that I didn't even have to bring up the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which as far as some of us are concerned is still the law of the land.