When will it ever end? Last week I wrote about having to go to the doctor and being subjected to the drivel on one of the morning “news” shows. Well, he sent me to a neurologist and in the waiting room, I found myself sitting in a chair with only one magazine on the table next to me. I wouldn’t have even picked it up, but a front page headline caught my attention. It was the latest issue of TIME magazine. I gave up on TIME magazine many years ago when it lost any semblance it had of being a “news” magazine and became just one more outlet for the liberal cause.
The article was touting more gun control and I was curious what the liberal slant was after the tragedy in Aurora, CO. What I read came as no surprise. The article was so slanted and absolutely full of inaccuracy and slanted “facts”. I just had to write about it.
The well-intentioned author – Joe Klein – begins by expressing his dismay that neither Obama nor Romney had much substantive discussion about gunman James Holmes (please excuse me if I refuse to insert the word “alleged”). He then goes on to include two pages of really impressive graphics. One page shows a line chart of the number of mass shootings in America each year since 1970, as well as the total number of victims. Absent from the work are any similar statistics from nations with strict gun control laws such as much of the European Union. Nor is there any inclusion of stats from a country like Switzerland where virtually every home is armed. In Switzerland in last ten years there have been a total of three – count ‘em – three mass shootings, all of which took place in areas where concealed weapons were expressly forbidden.
Even though the author ridicules George W. Bush for allowing the assault weapons ban to lapse, the line graph also shows that the ten years when the assault weapons ban was in effect saw no decline in the number of mass shootings, and in 2003, the year before the ban ended, we saw a record number of mass shootings in the U.S. – 30. The last flaw in the line chart is that it includes all mass shootings regardless of circumstance, for example, the Fort Hood massacre carried out by Muslin extremist Nadal Hasan. He committed his crimes with weapons issued to him by the United States Army. Maybe the author wants to disarm our military as well.
The author is quick to point out that since 1990, 82% of the $18.9 million campaign contributions went to Republicans. Clearly his point here is that legislatures are being bought off by the NRA. Okay fine. If we accept that premise, let’s take a look at other organizations like the Unions. What they contribute makes the NRA’s $18.9 million look like pocket change. In fact, according to Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ), the NRA ranks 46th in political donations from 1989 – 2012 behind at least 18 different labor unions.
The author then attempts to make a point that fully 60% of voting Americans want their elected officials to fight for stricter laws, yet his own chart on page 2 of the article shows only 43% of Americans favor stricter laws. There’s nothing like pulling statistics out of nowhere to attempt to make your case! The author even contradicts himself when he states, “By the time that Holmes allegedly (his word, not mine) opened fire in Aurora, Colorado, stricter gun control measures were opposed by the majority of Americans.
We seem unable as a society to look at reality. Here’s an example we can all learn from; I don’t do drugs, but I can guarantee you, with a pocket full of money dropped in any major city in the country, I could easily find plenty of heroin and crack cocaine (and illegal weapons for that matter) before the day was over. Making something illegal isn’t going to make it go away! Just look at prohibition. All it did was make families like the Kennedy’s filthy rich!
We don’t need more restrictions; we need stronger (and quicker) penalties. In a case like that of Holmes where there is zero doubt of guilt, he should have already been executed. Even in the case of Nidal Hasan, there is zero doubt of his guilt and yet the military is pussy-footing around with him. We taxpayers are even still paying his military salary at the rank of Major. Since he’s such a big advocate of Shari’a law, I’m all for stoning him to death and I’m sure there are plenty of his intended victims that would be first in line to throw the first stone.
If we don’t get this American apologist out of office this November, we face an even greater danger of losing our Second Amendment altogether when he and his partner in destruction, Hilary Clinton, try to force Congress into ratifying the United Nations Arms Treaty. This treaty would create a global registry of private ownership of firearms, mandate the creation of a national collection agency for those guns, and would seek to ban semi-automatic weapons. All of these ambitions are in direct conflict with the right of Americans to be able to protect themselves without interference from the government.
This just illustrates how little the anti-gun advocates understand about the very firearms they are trying to take away. Anyone who has spent any time at all on a gun range knows an expert marksman can fire off rounds with a lever or bolt action rifle almost as quickly as with any semi-automatic weapon.
In all of this argument, the original intent of the Second Amendment seems to go unnoticed – and that is to give the citizens of these united States the ability to protect themselves against an over-reaching government. It is factions within that very government that seek to destroy that right. And why wouldn’t they? To do so would only further guarantee their ability to control the people of this great nation. Wake up people!