Come and take them
by Ben Crystal
In the wake of last week’s tragedy on the campus of Umpqua Community College, President Barack Obama asked commanded Americans to “politicize” a violent Muslim’s attack on a crowd of innocent college students and teachers. Of course, asking Democrats to politicize tragedy is like asking Michael Moore if he wants another doughnut.
These are people who politicize everything. However, they did seem reluctant to politicize the fact that UCC murderer Chris Harper-Mercer appears to have been influenced by radical Islam. And they missed a chance to politicize the ludicrous parental failings of the killer’s father, who blamed his son’s actions on firearms: “How on Earth could he compile 13 guns? How could that happen?”
But the same president who trafficked guns to Mexican narcoterrorists — and then lied about it to Congress — thinks we should politicize the tragedy that befell Roseburg, Oregon. I certainly wouldn’t doubt the expertise of a guy who literally put firearms in criminals’ hands.
The problem is it’s as difficult to have a political discussion, especially about so-called “gun control,” with a liberal as it is to have any other discussion with a liberal. When it comes to firearms, they manage to compound nearly comprehensive ignorance with learning curves steeper than the Himalayas. In the days since a lunatic Muslim shot up UCC, I’ve encountered an impressive menu of outright nonsense proffered by the anti-Bill of Rights crowd as proof that “gun violence” is a “public health hazard.”
They actually believe that guns kill people. According to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, “More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history.” I don’t know where these vast herds of sinister and sentient guns roam, but the ones in my house are either lazy or defective. If I don’t take them out of the safe, they just sit there.
The reality is that guns don’t kill people. People kill people. The anti-Bill of Rights kids have been sneering dismissively at that point for years. What they have yet to do is refute it. It doesn’t matter who’s behind the gun. He’s the one doing the shooting. Even in the exceptionally rare instances of accidental shootings, the gun never “just went off.”
They think gun shows are some sort of terrorist weapons bazaar. I’ve been to more gun shows than I can count. I’ve also purchased at least half the weapons I currently own at gun shows. The guys from whom I purchased them are pretty regular small-business owners. Many of the sellers own shops in their hometowns and supplement their incomes with show sales. Very few, if any, subsist solely on the money they make on the show circuit. And every single seller at every single table at every single show to which I’ve ever been required the same paperwork and the same background check that they would run in their store. While there are some weird cats around the edges of the arena at most shows, those guys are usually ATF agents trying to blend in; and even the real freaks are less menacing than the average “Occupy” thug.
By closing the so-called “gun show loophole,” not only would liberals not affect gun shows; they’d merely be making it impossible for my old man to give me his Rizzini 12 gauge. (Note to Pop: Do it now, before Obama gets his paws on it! Y’know, if you were considering it.)
They’re absolutely terrified of “automatic weapons” and “assault weapons.” Of course, they also think anything with a bayonet lug, pistol grip or “high-capacity clip” is an “automatic weapon.” My wife owns a Ruger 10/22. It’s painted a color she and Rust-Oleum call “French lilac,” and I call “mortifying.” It’s possibly the least intimidating firearm on the planet. It also would not have passed muster under the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban.
Meanwhile, automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934. To be sure, it is possible to purchase a tax stamp and then wade into the fully automatic market. I’d love a chance to bring my own iron to someplace like Big Sandy, but I’m pretty sure I can’t sell the wife on a gun worth more than the jewelry I’d have to not buy in order to afford the gun.
They think that laws restricting legal firearm ownership and carriage will somehow prevent so-called “gun violence.” Think about the logical gymnastics required to conclude that disarming you will make you safer from people who make a career out of flouting the law. Think about the logical gymnastics required to continue believing that even after nearly every mass shooting in the past few decades, including a few on military bases, took place in a so-called “gun-free zone.”
They think we should emulate more “civilized” nations’ gun control laws. Obama brought up England’s and Australia’s infamous gun grabs. He left out the fact that England’s crime rate has skyrocketed since the government disarmed the people. And they have the added bonus of hosting a growing islamofascist population, which proved perfectly willing to use knives, machetes and even meat cleavers in their war on humanity — a fact brought bloodily to mind by the 2013 murder of British soldier Lee Rigby. The U.K. is also contending with a spike in so-called “knife violence.”
Meanwhile, armed Muslim terrorists have turned Australia into a playground, including last December’s Sydney hostage crisis and last Friday’s western Sydney attack. If that’s not enough proof that emulating other countries misses the mark, consider our next-door neighbors. Mexico has far more stringent gun laws than the U.S. does. I’d like to see Obama politicize guns while standing in Ciudad Juarez. As for Europe: By law, nearly every household in Switzerland harbors a gun. Switzerland’s murder rate is one of the 15 lowest on the planet.
They think they can get the guns. This is where the pin hits the primer, kids. The ultimate dream of every anti-Bill of Rights “activist” is confiscation. The number of privately owned firearms in the United States is somewhere between 270 million and 330 million. For all intents and purposes, there is a firearm for nearly every person in the country. The American civilian population is one of the most heavily armed forces on Earth. Many of those private owners are the same police officers, federal agents and service personnel who would be deployed against the civilian population in the Democrats’ gun-grab fantasy.
The Democrats are willing to risk the most destructive civil conflict in human history, one that would likely cost tens of millions of lives, just to save people from a danger that doesn’t actually exist. OK, kids. You want them? Come and take them.