See, the left’s totalitarian brand of “gun control” has nothing to do with controlling guns – or bad guys. Rather, it has everything to do with controlling – disarming – the law-abiding masses. It’s not about protecting the innocents. It’s about rendering the innocents defenseless.
Clichés become clichés for a reason, and the old cliché, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” rings as true today as it did whenever it was that some homespun fellow coined it.
I was disgusted – physically sickened, in fact – when Barack Obama, president of these Divided States of America, shamelessly exploited the Sandy Hook memorial service to lay the groundwork for his unconstitutional gun-confiscation scheme. It was slimy to the extreme.
I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised. That’s what liberals do. Every time some evil nutjob – pumped full of psychotropic drugs by NEA members who don’t want to deal with them – shoots-up the place, the left’s collective mouth begins to water.
“Now, finally, now!” they say, rubbing together soft hands that have never felt the surprising weight of a Sig Sauer 45. “This time we have the political momentum for sweeping gun control. This time the American people will roll over and let us trample the Second Amendment beneath jackbooted executive order or congressional fiat.”
“Let no good crisis go to waste,” right, Rahm?
Well, not so fast, cupcake. As the U.S. Constitution guarantees – and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It ain’t, “should not be infringed,” or “shall finally be infringed once ‘progressives’ have assumed total dominance.”
No, “shall not” means shall not.
There’s only one way to take my guns, slick, and that’s through a constitutional amendment – an amendment that will never happen – ever. Try it any other way and we have a problem.
And this whole “assault weapons ban” angle? Sensationalist propaganda. I prefer to call them “defense weapons.” Contrary to left-wing revisionist pabulum, the Second Amendment’s not about squirrel hunting.
Notice a trend here? What do Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora Colorado’s Century 16 theatre and Columbine have in common? They’re all “gun free zones.”
Places you don’t see mass murder and mayhem? Well, there’s a reason bad guys largely avoid shooting-up gun shows, ranges, households with signs that say: “This home insured by Smith & Wesson” and Texas in general. It’s because they know – even while thick-skulled liberals don’t – that, as recently noted by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Oh, that rather than “gun free zone,” Sandy Hook had a sign reading: “Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempts to harm those herein will be met with deadly force.” Might some of those beautiful babies have still died if the P.E. coach and four MP5-bearing teachers had ended the bloodshed soon after it began? Perhaps. But how many precious lives could have been saved?
No, you won’t disarm me. You’re not going to neuter my household and tear away my ability to defend my wife and precious babies like Dad did all those years ago.
I really, really hope this president and his authoritarian cohorts in Congress will slow down, take a deep breath and realize that, right now, they’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken. If they try what I think they might, but hope they don’t, I fear this nation – already on the precipice of widespread civil unrest and economic disaster – might finally spiral into to utter chaos, into a second civil war.
But then again, that may be exactly what they have in mind.
Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).