So I went ahead and watched the rotting corpse of Meet the Press this past Sunday morning. While I harbored no delusions about David Gregory suddenly demonstrating the journalistic integrity which apparently joined Tim Russert in the great beyond, I was curious to see how that pale imitation of Russert would guide President Barack Obama through his latest public salvo in the Democrats’ war on the Bill of Rights. What ensued was less an interview and more the sort of thing that airs on Cinemax after midnight. Hollywood freaks don’t fawn over each other the way NBC’s Sunday morning poodle bowed and scraped before Obama.
Obama, who sends his children to the excellent — and well-defended — Sidwell Friends School (as does Gregory), repeated his opposition to the National Rifle Association’s suggestion to place armed security at the schools Obama’s and Gregory’s children pass on their way to the mall. While the NRA owed neither an explanation of recent tragedies with which it had nothing to do nor suggestions as to how to correct the problem of ill-supervised insane people, Obama was quick to denounce their plan: “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”
The idea of scattering firearms randomly throughout the halls of our National cradles of government-dictated “learning” does sound fairly sketchy; after all, one of those union thugs posing as teachers might get ahold of one. And we’ve certainly seen what armed union thugs are liable to do; witness their knife attacks in Michigan last month. But no one has suggested anything of the sort. The NRA merely suggested offering to the students trapped in government schools the same protection that the children of the Democratic elite enjoy at their private schools. Obama twisted the NRA’s idea in order to lead up to his showstopper: “We can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids.”
As we know, his solution to that problem has nothing to do with “somebody with severe psychological problems” (nor protecting children) and everything to do with so-called “high-capacity weapons.” For further proof, take a gander at the summary of the bill Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), herself a former concealed-carry permit holder, squeezed out last Thursday. The bill stops just short of leaving us to defend ourselves with our kids’ BB guns. The bill promises all manner of pointlessly symbolic gestures involving pistol grips and “military characteristics” without addressing the inadequate supervision of mentally disturbed citizens.
Liberal logic dictates that we ban firearms that frighten liberals in order to protect ourselves from the kind of people who ignore such bans. But Adam Lanza himself was living proof of the lack of such restrictions’ effect — as was Tim McVeigh, who needed no firearm at all. Indeed, Newtown, Conn., occurred despite precisely the sort of gun laws that liberals claim will prevent tragedies like Newtown.
Places that force such draconian measures upon their citizens — Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. come to mind — also share well-deserved reputations for being slightly better-landscaped versions of the Thunderdome. Actually, they also share long histories of Democratic political hegemony; but I’m sure that’s purely coincidental. Obama and his accomplices now want us to believe that we should all aspire to live in such lofty circumstances. And he actually thinks he has credibility on the issue.
This is the President who willingly and willfully condemned the “Benghazi Four” to a brutal death while he partied in Las Vegas. This is the President who willingly and willfully backed Attorney General Eric Holder when Holder lied his way into criminal and civil contempt of Congress. This is the President whose minions in the Administration and the corporate media brazenly lied about the tragic consequences of Operation Fast and Furious, an over-funded but under-conceived (or not, depending on just how sinister Obama and his minions really are) program ostensibly designed to… cull the herds of wild Mexican beauty queens threatening the safety and stability of Mexican narcoterrorists.
And we’re supposed to give up our best means of defending ourselves because Obama thinks that’s the best plan? If we do, who will protect us from violence? For that matter, who will protect us from Obama?