Coulter: Our rights and their intentions
By Brian Coulter
Oct. 4, 2013 at 11 p.m.
There are opinions suggesting Second Amendment supporters are unreasonable. Such voices insist those most active in the gun control movement only want to nibble around the edges of our constitutional protections but leave them more or less intact.
They say we should compromise, forgetting we've already complied with the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Act, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and the 1994 Gun Free School Zones Act. None has curbed crime, and some have made it worse.
The latter, intended to keep violence away from schools, ushered in a 370 percent increase in gun violence against children. So when does it end?
Attorney General Eric Holder answered this question in 1995, explaining government must "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way," which must mean arming murderous Mexican cartels to foment anti-gun sentiment.
Anti-gun crusader Sen. Dianne Feinstein more recently denied any other motives to restrict gun rights, including concealed carry, saying, "It's not what I've done in the past and it's not what I'm doing right now."
She's lying. Video from 1995 has Feinstein talking out of the other side of her mouth, slavering for a defenseless America, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
Disarming us has long been her obsession and that of many anti-Second Amendment radicals, such as Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who admitted, "We're on a roll now. We're gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can." When asked if the "assault weapon" ban was just the beginning, Schakowsky exclaimed, "Oh, absolutely. I mean, I'm against handguns."
After being asked if the Second Amendment was a significant impediment to a handgun ban, Schakowsky dared to reply, "I don't know that we can't ... I don't think it's precluded."
Pro-Second Amendment author John Lott met Barack Obama at the University of Chicago in the 1990s where the future president told him, "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."
Lott notes Obama has demonstrated his hostility to Second Amendment rights in many ways.
In a 1998 questionnaire for the Illinois state legislature, Obama said he wanted to "ban the sale or transfer of all sorts of semi-automatic weapons," which is perhaps why his Secretary of State, John Kerry, signed the United Nations Small Arms treaty last week without a congressional vote.
From 1998-2001, Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, the major funder for gun-control research at that time. He also opposes concealed carry and only sees two legitimate purposes for guns: hunting and target shooting, meaning using guns for self defense is not legitimate. This goes a long way in explaining Obama's past support of laws banning the use of guns for self-defense in Illinois, even in one's own home. Chicago, despite its strict gun laws, is now the murder capital of the nation.
Liberals continuously devise means to erode the Second Amendment, including legislation proposed earlier this year requiring gun owners to carry expensive liability insurance or pay a $10,000 fine. New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney said her bill would "shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon."
That and other congressional measures came with the imprimatur of Obama, who called a press conference to insist none of the proposed bans or restrictions "will infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners" and that "all of them are consistent with the Second Amendment."
It's an act. We know this because he also said, eyes misty with feigned grief in remembrance of the children slain in Newtown, "Shame on us if we've forgotten. I haven't forgotten those kids." Within seconds, Obama got to the point: "This is our best chance in more than a decade" to implement "common sense" measures on gun control.
When those attempts to dismantle the Second Amendment failed, Obama and the Democrats hunkered down like vultures and waited for the next Democrat-enabled mass shooting to occur. This time it was the New York Naval yard attack, where members of the military were yet again gunned down, as was the case at Fort Hood, because they, like kids in gun-free school zones, are made easy targets for deranged people intent on mass murder because of a Clinton-era law making military bases gun-free.
Not one to waste a tragedy, Obama pretended to eulogize the slain service members by yet again calling for stricter gun control. With practiced mendacity, he called the attack there "unique," while failing to mention that virtually every mass shooting in America occurs in venues where liberals make it unlawful for people to fend off evil.
Liberals really must spare us their crocodile tears and Kabuki theatrics when it comes to concern for dead innocents, especially in light of how they inscribe the victims' names on the altar of anti-Second Amendment totalitarianism after having been slain by monsters using legal guns illegally. For perspective, consider those in favor of banning "assault rifles" (the Navy yard killer used a shotgun) are generally also in favor of abortion, yet more unborn babies will be murdered today alone (3,300) than people have been killed in the last decade by the guns in question.
Dead children and soldiers don't grieve liberals. Failed opportunities to disarm us do.
<em>- Brian Coulter, a Longview resident, is an English teacher at Hallsville High School. He is an occasional contributor to the Saturday Forum.</em>