• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

On Monday our esteemed, bright and typically on-target editor here at
WorldNetDaily, Joe Farah, challenged socialists in Congress and the
White House to stop pussyfooting around and propose to repeal the Second
Amendment. After all, Joe said, that’s what these people ultimately
want, so why not be big boys and girls and make the proposal public and
very clear, then see how it plays with the American people?

Could it be because the second these cowards propose such a thing
they’ll have the biggest fight on their hands since the first Bull Run?

Joe’s column got me to thinking — again — about just how
transparent this whole gun control debate has become. Years ago, when
the National Rifle Association began predicting that eventually
lawmakers would want a total ban on all firearms, the were laughed out
of the room by conservatives and liberals alike — both groups who now
seek to transform the NRA’s decade-old prediction into a prophesy
instead. I personally couldn’t believe Americans allowed Congress to
pass the so-called “assault weapons” ban early in Clinton’s first term
– not because Clinton is such a brilliant strategist but because his
assumption that any semi-automatic, no matter what it looks like, is
an assault weapon. But we did let them get by with it, then let
the Republicans off the hook when they failed to repeal that ridiculous
law a few years later.

Now, no politician of any stature is even talking about such a thing,
regardless of which party they belong to. Instead, they’re all talking
about taking more gun rights away — as if that will stop the rash of
school shootings currently driving Congress’ panic mode.

To illustrate just how stupid this gun control argument really is, I
decided to re-write just one of the most recent mainstream (read
socialist) press reports involving the issue, while substituting another
deadly thing in place of the word “gun” or the phrase “gun control,”
which is also commonly found here in America. See if this rings true:

    House Democrats vowed Friday to enact new automobile control
    legislation before leaving town for a 12-day recess beginning Memorial
    Day weekend, traditionally one of the most deadly times for American
    children to be on U.S. highways.

    They announced their intentions after a meeting at the White House,
    where an emotional President Clinton urged them to make new automobile
    restrictions — such as those passed this week by the Senate — a
    memorial to students killed in interstate traffic deaths around the
    country, participants said.

    “What Democrats want is to score political points. They don’t want to
    draft good, reasonable automotive legislation,” said Will Buckle, the
    House GOP spokesman.

    But Democrats who met with Clinton called for speedier action even as
    they acknowledged an uphill struggle in the GOP-controlled House.

    “There’s a very great sense of urgency. … We need to act now. Cars
    are killing our children every single day, and Democrats are unanimous
    on the need to act this coming week,” said Rep. Major Socialist (D).

    Friday’s partisan jockeying foreshadows a tussle in the House not
    unlike the messy Senate fight this week that culminated with Vice
    President Al Gore casting a tie-breaking vote on a major auto control
    measure.

    In a setback for the automotive lobby, the GOP-dominated Senate
    agreed to impose strict new background-checks on all new car purchases
    and pledged to seek better safety devices on all sport utility vehicles.

    But in the House, the majority dominates the legislative process to a
    degree unmatched in the Senate.

    Thus, with Republicans holding a slim advantage in the House,
    Democrats clearly are pinning their hopes on what they believe is a sea
    change in public opinion in favor of stricter automotive controls amid
    the epidemic of car crashes on the nation’s highways.

    The most recent incident, near Everytown, U.S.A., occurred moments
    ago — as Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton headed for their
    next fundraising event in New York. There, a month earlier, two students
    killed 12 classmates and a teacher by running them down with their
    vehicle before committing suicide by crashing into a nearby fuel depot.

    Several GOP lawmakers had been strong opponents of automobile control
    in the past, but this week, after the Senate debate, they endorsed
    proposals to require background checks on cars sold at used car lots and
    to raise the minimum driving and car purchasing age from 16 to 21.

    The Senate also approved proposals to require all vehicles to be sold
    with functional door locks, ban juvenile possession of certain large
    SUV’s, and prohibit the import of high-speed foreign cars.

Well, you get the picture. In fact you could insert rope, soda pop,
red meat, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, ginsu steak knives, motor boats,
motor homes, bungee jumping, carnival rides, most certainly alcoholic
beverages, backyard swimming pools, daycare centers, and any number of
other things that — when used improperly — can definitely kill
children (and adults too).

The dirty little secret is, all of our putative socialists in
Congress — and especially Clinton — know this. They know there
are many, many things in our world that kill kids. And they know
there are other things instead of guns — autos, abortion and alcohol,
to name just three — which singly kill more children in our country
every year than guns do in five or ten years.

So why pick on guns? If these “compassionate souls” really do
care about our children, why not pick on other, more pressing
threats to the lives of our children?

Well, gee — maybe because it’s so hard to resist tyranny when you’re
going up against armed government agents with a bottle of wine, a pork
steak, a pack of smokes and a backyard pool.

This argument is so historically old it is almost comical to repeat
it. But unfortunately, if it is not, then what we will be left with
will be no laughing matter.

This garbage about more gun control equaling less children killed
each year is nothing but semantics. True, if no children are
shot each year, then overall deaths of kids should theoretically go down
– if you don’t have a corresponding rise in child deaths in any other
category. What makes this argument even more trite is that it is being
offered by socialists who advocate death on demand (abortion), yet
refuse to demonize alcohol at least as equally as guns and tobacco; what
other motive besides authoritarianism can we conclude?

It’s this simple, folks — they want our guns so they don’t have
to fight us to control us
. And every time we let some bozo like
Hastert or Lott or Schumer or Clinton take just a few more gun rights
away, we are that much closer to losing our means to fight this tyranny,
pure and simple.

If you doubt that, ask the Holocaust Jews — or the Kosovar
Albanians. Gun control works well for Milosevic, and Hitler, Mao and
Stalin used it well to their advantage too.

You better get off asphalt and drive to the polling booths during
elections. While you’re at it, save your pennies and give them to new
candidates who promise a constitutional approach to government.

Many of you will write me and tell me that approach won’t work.
Well, unless you’ve got a better idea, the alternative doesn’t look too
promising.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.