Skip to comments.Sandy Hook: Obama's Latest Crisis To Exploit
Posted on 01/18/2013 6:49:14 AM PST by Kaslin
Liberals have an uncanny knack for designing solutions that do not address the problem at hand, and they're doing it again in their current effort to use the Sandy Hook shootings as fodder for promoting stringent gun control measures.
It's as if President Obama and his fellow travelers lie in wait for the unfolding of big events that they can use to incite the public's passions and thereby gain popular support for otherwise unpopular government action.
Liberals aren't just exploiting Sandy Hook to promote their unpopular gun agenda; some are now invoking false charges of racism to aid their cause, as well. Rep. Hank Johnson asserted that the National Rifle Association opposes Obama's gun control policies because it "still cannot get over" the fact that the president is "black." Rep. Charles Rangel was a smidgeon more subtle, suggesting that while his state of New York is more progressive than other states (and has thus enacted strict gun control measures), some of the "Southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome."
Whether these pernicious allegations proceed from malice or ignorance, one thing is undeniable: Democrats often seek to inflame our emotions to impede an honest, good-faith discussion on the merits of various issues.
Obama demonstrated this in his news conference when he trotted out his 23 executive orders designed to address mass shootings. By using the parents of shooting victims and children as props he intended to imply that unless you support his measures, you oppose protecting children. He did more than imply that in his remarks when he expressed incredulity that anyone who cares about these shootings could possibly oppose his policies.
With these things in mind, here are a few questions to gun control proponents designed to stimulate a discussion of the actual subject rather than triggering reason-inhibiting emotional responses.
--How is your model city of Chicago working out for you?
--Why do you attempt to mislead the public with the term "assault weapon" and falsely imply that semiautomatic weapons can fire repeatedly and quickly when you hold down the trigger?
--Why do you pretend that semiautomatics are more powerful than other guns when power is a function of their caliber or gauge and not their capacity to reload automatically?
--How do you explain that as assault weapons and large magazines have become more prevalent violent crime has been cut in half?
--Since we have recent empirical evidence that "assault" weapons bans do not work, what unstated reasons could be behind Obama's banning efforts? Why shouldn't Second Amendment advocates be suspicious?
--Why do you propose measures that will do nothing to prevent Sandy Hook-type massacres but will impede the ability of innocent private citizens to defend themselves against criminal assailants?
--Why aren't you sympathetic to the rights of ordinary citizens, whose home security is demonstrably enhanced by their right to own semiautomatic weapons?
--Why do you suppress news of the untold cases of innocent victims successfully defending themselves with firearms?
--Why do you focus all of your gun-policy energy on preventing mass shootings instead of other shootings, when the former constitute a small percentage of gun murders in this country? Why do you ignore that the vast majority of murders in the United States are committed with handguns?
--Why do you mock the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms not just for self-defense, which the Supreme Court affirmed in recent years, but as a fallback defense against a tyrannical government?
--Do you owe the public an apology for your unfulfilled, hysterical prophecies that conceal and carry laws would drive law-abiding citizens to Wild West violence?
--Why do you conveniently ignore the inconvenient fact that these mass shootings have mostly occurred in your beloved gun-free zones? If your driving goal is to prevent such massacres, why aren't you trying to eliminate such zones?
--I know you abhor letting any crisis go to waste, but how do you respond to the truism that none of Obama's main legislative proposals to control weapons would have prevented any of the recent massacres? Universal background checks wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. The assault weapons ban would not have applied to the weapons used at Sandy Hook or Aurora. High-capacity magazine bans wouldn't have deterred the massacres.
--Do you think liberals have any explaining to do about the fact that there may be a causal connection between their do-gooder laws concerning the incarceration of the mentally ill and these massacres?
--Why does the liberal mind always make a mad dash toward a federal government solution every time there's a problem or tragedy in society? Explain, for example, how Obama's proposal for 15,000 more law enforcement officers, 1,000 more "resource people" for schools and more federal dollars can help prevent violence in more than 100,000 schools. Why can't state governments decide whether they want to take action themselves and pay for it themselves?
--When will you all quit embarrassing yourselves by talking about tanks?
Mr. Obama, Pass a budget, address the Ft. Hood murders committed by Maj. Hasan (with a gun), address the catastrophe in Benghazi, then come clean about the “Fast and Furious” operation.
I mean really his being black is just a minor feature at this point in his destruction of my life!
He's even white and black!
Why would his being black be a factor at all?
Can you say hypocrisy? I bet you can
My question is simple: shouldn't it be enough to declare that school a "Gun Free Zone"? If not, why not? How about if we make it even safer and call it a double secret probation gun free zone?
Perhaps you liberals are unwilling to admit that real threats demand real solutions. If you want fixes that are only feel good drivel, solutions that at best accomplishes nothing and at worst makes us LESS safe, put it in place for YOUR kids; not mine.
I think his point was the unecessary charges of racism. If you disagree with communism, gun grabbing, the welfare state, etc., it has to be racism, and only racism, because how could anyone disagree with his policies?
If you disagree with his using other people children as a political shield - you're racist. They've already started calling it that. The only reasion you object to him using the kids is racism. There could be no other explaination - according to the left.
(It was rather bad and needed to be corrected)
Scientology Watches follow new Scientologists to make sure they are in line.
And, I read a FR post that puts quite a bit of Arabic in his ancestry.
I'll try to find it.
I’ve seen him on television looking 99% white, then the next time looking 99% black. I think he wears black face most of the time. Gets him subliminal guilt factor points...the compassionate negro.
Of course it’s racism. If Obama wasn’t black, the NRA would be totally supportive of any and all gun restrictions up to and including outright banning.