Barack Obama has no distinguishable strategy to address gun violence in schools but instead wants to capitalize on the Sandy Hook massacre to crack down on good citizens who own guns, according to a spokesman for the Firearms Coalition.
A leader for the organization that advocates for the constitutional ownership and safe use of guns in America told WND that whatever Sen. Dianne Feinstein or the president wants in new gun restrictions, it won’t go over well in America.
“We are not going to back down. We are not going to give in. And we are not going to concede one more inch,” said Jeff Knox, the executive director of the coalition.
He responded to WND questions about putting into focus the plans by Feinstein and Obama regarding weapons following the shooting at the Connecticut school that left 20 children and six adults dead.
Obama has said he wants to make sure that another attack like Sandy Hook does not happen. Feinstein has promised legislation to create registration and fingerprinting requirements along with bans.
But Knox told WND Obama’s not really targeting the violence.
“Unfortunately, the president and other anti-rights politicians are not doing anything to keep what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary from happening again,” he said. ” Instead they are going after law-abiding gun owners and targeting commonly owned firearms and ammunition feeding devices. Their proposed restrictions on these items would have had no impact on what happened at Sandy Hook, and, if passed, would not stop the next craven murderer from wreaking just as much havoc and destruction.”
He explained that are two parts of the issue of keeping deranged individuals from attacking and killing schoolchildren – prevention and defense.
“Restrictions on guns and gun owners do not address either of those matters,” Knox said. “Prevention is a matter of detecting deviants who would perpetrate such an atrocity in advance and getting them the help they need – or removing them to a place where they can’t hurt anyone.
“Defense is a matter of having the means to physically stop an attacker as quickly as possible – hopefully before they are able to harm anyone, but at least quickly enough to mitigate the harm,” he said.
“Practically speaking, that means having people in the schools with guns – whether police officers, security guards, community volunteers, or teachers and administrators – only brute force, and the will and skill to effectively use it – can stop a rampaging sociopath.”
He said the much-discussed ban on “assault weapons” Obama and his administration would like would set up a confrontation across American that would have no good end.
“We need to be very clear that the current discussion is not about ‘reinstating’ the failed Clinton ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban. The current plan, from Sen Dianne Feinstein, is to institute a NEW ‘AW’ ban which is much more draconian than the 1994 ban was,” he said.
“The old ban simply restricted the sale of new guns with certain cosmetic features that the hoplophobes in Congress and the press find offensive or scary looking. It did not significantly impact current owners of those ‘ugly’ guns, and manufacturers simply made the same guns without including the restricted features,” he said.
But he said under Feinstein’s strategy, “virtually all semi-auto firearms would be, or could be made illegal to manufacture or sell.”
“Those currently owned would be treated like machineguns – requiring current owners to take them in and register them – and be treated like criminals in the process. Millions of these guns are currently in private hands and hundreds of thousands of owners of those guns would simply refuse to comply with the registration requirement.”
He continued, “That would make them felons. Then Obama and company would have a choice of either ignoring the millions of guns they have declared illegal, or going after the ‘felons’ who have failed to submit to the government’s registration demands and taking the guns away by force.
“As President Obama is fond of saying, let me be perfectly clear about this: what Feinstein’s proposed legislation would invariably mean is that they would be sending SWAT teams to the homes of regular citizens who fail to register their firearms. They would assume those citizens to be ‘armed and dangerous,’ and they would be prepared to kill them if they resist. Killing people for disobeying an unconstitutional law. Killing people for possessing an object that they might have possessed for decades without ever misusing them in any way,” he said.
“Anyone who doubts that this would happen should look at the assault on the Weaver home on Ruby Ridge. A federal marshal killed 14-year old Sammy Weaver, and an FBI sniper shot Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and Vicki Weaver – killing Vicki – all stemming from an accusation that Randy Weaver had sold two shotguns with barrels that were 1/4 inch shorter than federal law allows.”
He also warned that as the process moves forward, gun owners shouldn’t expect a lot of consideration.
“The issue Mr. Obama wants to solve has nothing to do with stopping crazed lunatics from massacring children. He wants to solve the ‘problem’ of citizens possessing firearms that he and his ilk find scary. In that light, I’m sure that he will find some token ‘gun owners’ to sit down at the table with him and assert that ‘no one needs a gun like that,'” Knox said.
But he said: “The real stakeholders in this issue, people like me who own and appreciate these types of firearms, and who respect the Constitution and the intent of the framers when they included the Second Amendment, will not be allowed to officially participate. If we are invited, we will be ignored.”
He said Americans cannot compromise here.
“This is about fundamental constitutional rights, and there is no way to convince millions of American gun owners that we are wrong about that. They might just as well try to outlaw Christianity.”
Obama said just days ago that “gun control” would be a priority for him now, and he promised to put his “full weight” behind proposals for restrictions.
On “Meet the Press” Sunday, he said, “I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”