Gun-Control, Liberals and New Norms
*****************************************************************************
More than anyone, Liberals and their standard camel’s nose in the tent tactic are to blame for resistance to sensible gun-control
*****************************************************************************
Going on one month from the Newtown massacre, the push for sensible gun-control has lost steam. That’s too bad especially as no one has yet to present a coherent reason as to why anyone outside of the military would need a semi-automatic weapon of the kind used in Newtown. It’s especially also a shame as the vast bulk of National Rifle Association members likely don’t see a need for, let alone use, such weapons of mass destruction.
But the unspoken reason of why few people who are not part of the gun-control crowd are ambivalent to eliminating semi-automatic weapons rests with what most people see as Liberals’ true goal: the elimination of private ownership and possession of all guns, from hand-guns to rifles to semi-automatics.
Liberals use the camel’s nose in the tent tactic for their agenda
_________________________________________________
Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case before it which had at issue whether the enumerated constitutional right to bear arms applied to individual citizens. The usual Liberal suspects gave sympathy if not full-throated support to the position that it only pertained to the military. There is irony in this as the unenumerated right to privacy (which was used in Roe v. Wade) is clearly a constitutional right in Liberal minds, even though not in the text of the constitution, but the enumerated right to bear arms cannot be seen through the Liberal lens.
And the legislative track record of Liberals suggests that once the camel has its nose in the tent, the full body of the Liberal agenda will come in right behind it.
To wit, FDR’s well-intentioned program of social security and work programs has mutated into a panoply of social engineering that even Mr. Roosevelt would not recognize as a progeny of his Depression-era remedies, let alone fully agree with.
When it comes to fiscal matters, Liberals went from deficit scolds of the 1980s to borrow and spend profligates in the last several years. When the U.S. ran its first ever trillion dollar deficit in 2009, Liberals promised that it was a one-off resulting from the financial crisis. Four years later, trillion dollar deficits are the new norm and anyone who would try to pare such back is accused of suggesting painful austerity that threatens the middle-class if not humanity at large.
Even today in a press-conference that the president held, Mr. Obama said regarding more gun-control “if there is a step to saving even one child…..we should take that step.” Taken literally, one could interpret such to mean taking hand-guns and rifles out of the hands of citizens. Surely that would save one child, albeit it a great cost.
So while Liberals agonize over why the public is not rushing en masse to take unnecessary weapons like semi-automatics off the streets, they should look at themselves and their relentless agendas, along with an uncompromising posture as evidenced by their standard-bearer Barack Obama, as the reason for opposition to sensible gun laws.
-I.M. Windee
