Today we heard the President of the United States give a speech that was, I suppose, intended to make you and I feel bad enough to hand in our guns and not want a clip with over ten bullets. Why would someone need a magazine like that, some have asked. I ask why is it your place to tell me what kind of weapon or what kind of magazine I should have? Is this really about the children or about pushing the United States and their people to the brink by taking away what they hold closest to them? It seems nothing the President has proposed will do anything to stop the criminal element, especially in a city like Chicago, from getting weapons that are much more powerful than those the regular citizens would have under new legislation.
So one must ask how those citizens would be caring for themselves and their families would be able to protect their own under legislation that only hurts them and not those who are out to hurt them? Not only that, but we see the President not even wanting to touch what comes out of Hollywood and the video game industry. Not that I disagree with that logic because I have never seen a movie kill someone, but if he wants to be consistent one would think he would want to make sure all areas of gun control are covered. But because he has very good friends who have made it a point to say they are not responsible in Hollywood for the violence we see on the streets, he has decided to not even discuss it.
You all know how I feel about this and what I would do to make sure people were more safe in their homes and around others who may be a threat. Not all Americans feel comfortable around a gun, but that does not give the rights of a few more liberty than the other American's who feel they are well protected with semi-automatic guns of all kinds. Nothing that has been done so far, especially in one of the most gun-unfriendly regions in this nation, has been able to stop people from killing each other if the motive and the opportunity is there. I see no movement to making our communities safer inside the community itself, where it has to begin. You can rid the country of all legal weapons if you want, but that will not stop the killings. Those who are pushing for more legislation, on the Left and the Right, understand this more than anyone. This is a political football that no one wants to touch but when the time comes and there is a tragedy, we must make new law to hurt those that are law-abiding citizens.
One of the actions the President would like Congress to take is to make sure your doctor has the ability to alert the state that you live in and the background check that you may not be of sound mind to own a firearm. This includes doctors asking you if you own any weapons. Take away for a minute that a doctor has no legal authority to ask this question with legislation or otherwise, right in the heart of ObamaCare there are rules for keeping patient information safe. It seems the President was on board with that when the legislation passed, but now he would like to give doctors more leeway when it comes to reporting people. How can we have privacy rights when the President would like to throw them out the window of the exact legislation that he pushed and said would be better for Americans? You cannot have it both ways, everyone! You either believe in the privacy rights between a doctor and the patient or you believe the doctor should be able to report ANYTHING that he FEELS is wrong to the state.
Some other memorandums from the President were:
- Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
- Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
- Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities
- Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
And there are many more, 23 in all, that direct federal agencies to do one thing or another that will have no effect on gun violence what so ever because we are not getting to the root of the problem here and those in the media and those who are memorized by the President fail to see this. His real purpose is to push Congress for a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, which in his mind is probably something that could happen or he would not mention it. I also believe that it could happen, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that we could see a return to that law, but this one would be much more damning to the regular American citizen who owns firearms.
At the end of the day, the President said nothing that would help the situation. What about the adult who is not mentally stable, but their family has no recourse because the doctor and the state do not feel there is anything they can do? A family somewhere may know someone in their family needs help, but the person refuses to get that help and the family is powerless to have them committed to get the help they need. This happens, and if we believe the accounts from Sandy Hook this IS what happened! If the mother of Adam Lanza was going to have her son committed as we are told, why did she wait? Why did she have to wait? Was there anything that new legislation could have done to make sure his mother could have had him committed a week before or even months before? The fact we do not know much about the family and the whole story is not helping matters when it comes to looking at situations like this, but a situation could arise just like it and nothing that this debate has brought out does anything to help those in need that may not feel they need the help because they are mentally disabled in some way.
This is a way to take the guns the government does not feel you have the right to have, not to keep anyone safe. Anyone out there with a brain knows that there is nothing that can be done when someone truly wants to kill someone or numerous people. Help for those people need to be available, but that is the best we can do. Taking these guns off the street will not really get them off the street, and our crime rate in cities around the nation with tough gun laws show this. We have a lot of societal problems as well we are not addressing, and that is because on one hand people feel they have the right to live in a society without guns but have the right to watch movies with people with guns. How does that make any sense? So, I can watch someone else with a gun but I cannot have one myself for protection?
Today, tweeting on his official Twitter page, Piers Morgan said: "Obama's hit the nail on the head - the right to life, especially for children, surely supercedes any other rights?"
So does this mean we should rid the country of abortion as well? The argument is that if we did outlaw abortion that women would go to the "back alleys" and have one anyway. The same rules apply here. You may outlaw a gun or a magazine, but that does not stop someone from going to a back alley and buying one. The two situations seem to have nothing to do with each other from the point of view of those who do not support the Second Amendment, but have everything in the world to do with each other! These are the same people than champion abortion rights, yet the right to own a gun is off limits because we have to protect the children? How many babies have been killed over the last decade compared to children out of the womb being killed by a semi-automatic weapon? I promise you, the abortion numbers are MUCH higher, yet we never hear those in the media take that cause up.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment