On March 13, 1996, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, armed with four handguns. He shot and killed 16 children and one adult before committing suicide. The resulting media-driven petition campaigns and anti-gun activism led to laws being passed during the following year that effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in Britain.
Within hours of the first reports of the heinous massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last week, it was evident that members of the gun-control lobby, dedicated leftist organizations and elements of the press were finding the circumstances of this crime simply delicious. I say that because of the alacrity with which they immediately initiated email barrages to their mailing lists and the shamelessly biased reporting of the shootings in the context of a need for swift and sweeping changes to America's firearms laws.
It occurred so quickly that if I didn't know better, I'd say they had their drafts and scripts prepared well in advance.
These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.
– Barack Obama, Dec. 16, 2012
In an address advertised as intending to console residents of Newtown on Dec. 16 (I suppose one could call it a "consolation address"), President Obama furtively telegraphed his intention to advance gun-control legislation through more of his subtle tyranny. Like so many instances in the past, Obama peremptorily (though erroneously) circumscribed the problem, then alluded to more "fundamental transformation" being required to solve it, whether this involves the wholesale subordination of industrial sectors to the government, unconstitutional legislation, or dark-of-the-night, unpublicized executive orders.
In Obamaspeak, "We have to change" simply means we must be willing to pitch the Constitution, capitalism, notions of liberty and traditional values as Obama sees fit. In an effort to squeeze as much popular political capital from the Sandy Hook tragedy as possible, the administration sent an email late Monday directing supporters to the president's weekend speech online, in which he promised to take action to prevent mass shootings.
There were also donation link buttons on the page with the video and Obama's pledge, which gives rise to a visual of vultures picking flesh from the carcasses of dead first-graders. It also bears mentioning here that the Newtown massacre has presented the Obama administration with a stellar opportunity to divert attention from its own abject criminality.
Of course, Obama's sympathies, like those of anti-gun lobbyists and liberals in general, ostensibly have their genesis in our safety. Everyone wants to feel safe, of course. Don't you want your children to be safe? Progressives want guns out of citizens' hands so they feel safe when they circumvent or otherwise subvert the Bill of Rights.
Many things factored into making the children at Sandy Hook Elementary vulnerable, in particular, our paradigm of mental health treatment and the fact that the school was a "gun free" zone. Yet these are being largely ignored by the press and the Obama administration in favor of fixating upon firearms.
Thus, I don't believe it does us any good to even engage gun-control advocates, whose inane drivel includes accusing Second Amendment supporters of wanting to see children shot. In the interest of prudence (and our own sanity), we need to realize that these arguments are nothing but sandbox-echelon babbling. We should simply dismiss them, as we do with charges that we wish to take the vote from women, revert to Jim Crow and ship gays off in cattle cars. We're dealing with people who have called for the murder of gun-rights supporters, so to hell with them.
It is of the utmost importance that Americans become aware of the dedicated efforts that are being made to transform us from citizens into subjects, and that we are already at war. This is a war we have not seen the likes of previously and that will challenge notions of war for centuries to come. Even if we did not have the Second Amendment to stand on, I would still support gun rights, because guns are not the issue – power is. Next will come edged weapons control, then blunt weapons control, then compulsory periodic assessments of citizens by government psychologists.
There are millions of Americans for whom "it can't happen here" has been well-inculcated into their worldview; these have been conditioned to operate at the basest of intellectual levels. They are also the ones who will blindly obey any laws enacted by government, whether these imperceptibly erode their liberties, or require their reporting neighbors to secret police.
There are also Americans – some misguided, some ideologues – who work every day of the week in the cause of compromising our liberties. They are just as dangerous and criminal as those who would stifle any of the liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.
I suppose suggesting that we shoot them wouldn't be taken very well – although that is precisely what it came down to 236 years ago.