By David Limbaugh
Friday, January 18, 2013
Liberals have an uncanny knack for designing solutions
that do not address the problem at hand, and they're doing it again in their
current effort to use the Sandy Hook shootings as fodder for promoting
stringent gun control measures.
It's as if President Obama and his fellow travelers lie
in wait for the unfolding of big events that they can use to incite the
public's passions and thereby gain popular support for otherwise unpopular
government action.
Liberals aren't just exploiting Sandy Hook to promote
their unpopular gun agenda; some are now invoking false charges of racism to
aid their cause, as well. Rep. Hank Johnson asserted that the National Rifle
Association opposes Obama's gun control policies because it "still cannot
get over" the fact that the president is "black." Rep. Charles
Rangel was a smidgeon more subtle, suggesting that while his state of New York
is more progressive than other states (and has thus enacted strict gun control
measures), some of the "Southern areas have cultures that we have to
overcome."
Whether these pernicious allegations proceed from malice
or ignorance, one thing is undeniable: Democrats often seek to inflame our
emotions to impede an honest, good-faith discussion on the merits of various
issues.
Obama demonstrated this in his news conference when he
trotted out his 23 executive orders designed to address mass shootings. By
using the parents of shooting victims and children as props he intended to
imply that unless you support his measures, you oppose protecting children. He
did more than imply that in his remarks when he expressed incredulity that
anyone who cares about these shootings could possibly oppose his policies.
With these things in mind, here are a few questions to
gun control proponents designed to stimulate a discussion of the actual subject
rather than triggering reason-inhibiting emotional responses.
--How is your model city of Chicago working out for you?
--Why do you attempt to mislead the public with the term
"assault weapon" and falsely imply that semiautomatic weapons can
fire repeatedly and quickly when you hold down the trigger?
--Why do you pretend that semiautomatics are more
powerful than other guns when power is a function of their caliber or gauge and
not their capacity to reload automatically?
--How do you explain that as assault weapons and large
magazines have become more prevalent violent crime has been cut in half?
--Since we have recent empirical evidence that
"assault" weapons bans do not work, what unstated reasons could be
behind Obama's banning efforts? Why shouldn't Second Amendment advocates be
suspicious?
--Why do you propose measures that will do nothing to
prevent Sandy Hook-type massacres but will impede the ability of innocent
private citizens to defend themselves against criminal assailants?
--Why aren't you sympathetic to the rights of ordinary
citizens, whose home security is demonstrably enhanced by their right to own
semiautomatic weapons?
--Why do you suppress news of the untold cases of
innocent victims successfully defending themselves with firearms?
--Why do you focus all of your gun-policy energy on
preventing mass shootings instead of other shootings, when the former
constitute a small percentage of gun murders in this country? Why do you ignore
that the vast majority of murders in the United States are committed with
handguns?
--Why do you mock the constitutional right of citizens to
bear arms not just for self-defense, which the Supreme Court affirmed in recent
years, but as a fallback defense against a tyrannical government?
--Do you owe the public an apology for your unfulfilled,
hysterical prophecies that conceal and carry laws would drive law-abiding
citizens to Wild West violence?
--Why do you conveniently ignore the inconvenient fact
that these mass shootings have mostly occurred in your beloved gun-free zones?
If your driving goal is to prevent such massacres, why aren't you trying to
eliminate such zones?
--I know you abhor letting any crisis go to waste, but
how do you respond to the truism that none of Obama's main legislative
proposals to control weapons would have prevented any of the recent massacres?
Universal background checks wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. The assault
weapons ban would not have applied to the weapons used at Sandy Hook or Aurora.
High-capacity magazine bans wouldn't have deterred the massacres.
--Do you think liberals have any explaining to do about
the fact that there may be a causal connection between their do-gooder laws
concerning the incarceration of the mentally ill and these massacres?
--Why does the liberal mind always make a mad dash toward
a federal government solution every time there's a problem or tragedy in
society? Explain, for example, how Obama's proposal for 15,000 more law
enforcement officers, 1,000 more "resource people" for schools and
more federal dollars can help prevent violence in more than 100,000 schools.
Why can't state governments decide whether they want to take action themselves
and pay for it themselves?
--When will you all quit embarrassing yourselves by
talking about tanks?
No comments:
Post a Comment