By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Having given up on trying to persuade Americans that
taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the murder rate,
Democrats have turned to their usual prohibitionary argument: "Why does
anyone need (an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, a semiautomatic, etc.,
etc.)?"
Phony conservative Joe Manchin, who won his U.S. Senate
seat in West Virginia with an ad showing him shooting a gun, said, "I
don't know anyone (who) needs 30 rounds in a clip."
CNN's Don Lemon, who does not fit the usual profile of
the avid hunter and outdoorsman, demanded, "Who needs an assault rifle to
go hunting?"
Fantasist Dan Rather said, "There is no need to have
these high-powered assault weapons."
And prissy Brit Piers Morgan thought he'd hit on a real
showstopper with, "I don't know why anyone needs an assault rifle."
Of course, where he comes from, policemen carry wooden sticks.
Since when do Americans have to give the government an
explanation for why they "need" something? If that's the test, I can
think of a whole list of things I don't know why anyone needs.
I don't know why anyone needs to burn an American flag at
a protest. The point could be made just as well verbally.
I don't know why anyone needs to read about the private
lives of celebrities. Why can't we shut down the gossip rags?
I don't know why anyone needs to vote. One vote has never
made a difference in any federal election.
I don't know why anyone needs to bicycle in a city.
I don't know why anyone needs to have anal sex at a
bathhouse. I won't stop them, but I don't know why anyone needs to do that.
I don't know why anyone needs to go hiking in national
parks, where they're constantly falling off cliffs, being buried in avalanches
and getting lost -- all requiring taxpayer-funded rescue missions.
I don't know why Karen Finley needs to smear herself with
chocolate while reading poems about "love." But not only do Democrats
allow that, they made us pay for it through the National Endowment for the
Arts.
In fact, I don't know why anyone needs to do any of the
things that offend lots of people, especially when I have to pay for it. I
don't mind paying for national monuments and the ballet, but if
"need" is a legitimate argument, there's no end to the activities
that can be banned, forget "not subsidized by Ann."
Democrats are willing to make gigantic exceptions to the
"need" rule for things they happen to personally like. Their position
is: "I don't know why anyone needs to hunt; on the other hand, I do see
why your tax dollars should be used to subsidize partial-birth abortion,
bicycle lanes and the ballet."
They'll say that no one died in my examples (except
abortion) (and bicycling) (and bathhouses) (and national parks), but the
victims of mass shootings weren't killed by gun owners. They were killed by
crazy people.
How about keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people?
Liberals won't let us do that -- and yet they won't tell
us why anyone needs to live on sidewalk grates, harass pedestrians and crap in
his pants. Those are precious constitutional rights, straight from the pen of
James Madison, and please stop asking questions.
"I don't see why anyone needs ..." is code for:
"I don't do it, so let's ban it." The corollary is: "I enjoy
this, so you have to subsidize it."
Environmentalists say: "I don't know why anyone
needs to shower once a day -- my French friends and I take two showers per
month. We think we smell fine."
That's the difference between a totalitarian and a normal
person. Liberals are obsessed with controlling what other people do.
As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said this week, so-called
"assault weapons" are a "personal pleasure" and
"mothers and women" have to decide whether this personal pleasure
"is more important than the general welfare."
The "general welfare" is every tyrant's excuse,
going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit
of providing reasons why they "need" something simply because the
government wants to ban it. That's true of anything -- but especially something
the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.
The question isn't whether we "need" guns. It's
whether the government should have a monopoly on force.
In liberals' ideal world, no one will even know you don't
have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home,
there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better
with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster.
Meanwhile, we're all required to subsidize their hobbies
-- recycling, abortion, the "arts," bicycling, illegal alien workers,
etc.
Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby:
leaving people alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment