The Liberal side of the Chattanooga Times Free Press editorial page on Saturday, Jan. 12, featured an editorial cartoon by Bennett that illustrated Wayne LaPierre of the NRA being handcuffed by an armed police officer. The captioned read, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The message/propaganda from the left is clear: Liberals are good and those who disagree with them are bad.
Okay, since they brought it up, let’s examine the gun control debate in terms of good guys verses bad guys. I believe that our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the first two Amendments are not just good things, but are great things. I side with our founders who gave us those documents and I side with those who continue to cherish and defend those foundations of liberty. One can disagree with aspects of Wayne LaPierre’s views, but it is totally unacceptable to label him as a bad person merely because he has used his First Amendment right of free speech to defend the Second Amendment.
But not only does the cartoon suggest that LaPierre is a bad person for supporting the Second Amendment, it takes the additional step of suggesting that he should be arrested for his views. Tyrants arrest those who even peaceably oppose them; this explains why tyrants find it necessary to deprive citizens of their ability to resist tyranny. In terms of good guys versus bad guys, this is an easy call for me. Tyrants, those who side with them, praise them, and duplicate their strategies are bad people. Don’t try to tell me that Liberals do not side with tyrants. We constantly hear those on the left praise the likes of Castro.
One of Obama’s top lieutenants, Anita Dunn, stated in a major and very public speech that Mao Tse Tung was one of her top two favorite political philosophers. Mao was a power-hungry brutal tyrant who, via his political philosophy, killed well over forty-five million of his defenseless citizens. Obama openly states in his autobiographies that in his early days he sought out, associated with, and was mentored by Communists and Marxists; preferences that he has never outgrown. Obama clearly stated in his first presidential campaign that his goal was to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
Communism, Socialism and other forms of tyranny, when disguised as something else, may sound appealing to those that Lenin described as “useful idiots,” but their implementation requires that force be used to get individuals to do what they would not do if they had any choice. Naturally, it is easier to force a group of people that is unarmed than it is to force a group of people that is well armed. Our forefathers understood this; is it possible that modern-day Liberals do not?
It would be wonderful if both sides were represented by good people who wanted the same good outcome but merely disagreed on the best way to achieve that outcome. Unfortunately, in today’s political environment, that ideal is not only inaccurate but also dangerously naïve. For the gun control debate, many assume that both sides want an outcome of less violence. But is that accurate? The “solutions” proposed by the left would do little to prevent heartbreaking events that occur from time to time when a severely mentally ill person goes berserk and decides to attack a gathering of helpless individuals; however, the left’s “solutions” would go a long way towards making our entire population of otherwise strong, brave, and free individuals unnecessarily vulnerable.
Jack F. Huguelet
* * *
Mr. Huguelet writes with clarity of thought but softly cloaked political bias. I am biased as well, but not because I'm left or I'm conservative, whether I voted for so-and-so or not. Mine is based on studies funded by the U.S. government which, for all intents and purposes, find that any gun control legislation has no measurable change in gun violence.
The CDC, Center for Disease Control, provided an exhaustive study in 2003 entitled "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws." The CDC's findings were very straight forward, "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws." The CDC, an outspoken advocate of gun control, could find no positive benefit from restrictive legislation.
A 300+ page report in 2003 from the National Academy of Sciences, after examining innumerable articles, books and government publications and could find no connection between restrictive laws and violence.
These are just a couple of the U.S. government sponsored studies that undeniably find there is no correlation between gun control and a reduction in violence. Study after study by reputable universities and government agencies should have made all Americans realize by now: It won't work; It puts law-abiding citizens more at risk; and the same number of guns will still be out there, only obtained in a (soon-to-be) flourishing black market by the very people gun control advocates hope to deter.
I will defend myself, my family and my friends with any means at my disposal, even if my own government has reduced my preferred weapon of choice to a broom stick and hair spray. But what you will find, if that comes to pass, is there will be no reduction in firearms available to (would-be) criminals, making it easier to prey on those myopic individuals who have swallowed the flawed gun control bait, hook-line-and-sinker.
My recommendation: become informed. The rest will follow on its own.
David D. Fihn, Sr.
* * *
Mr. Huguelet and Mr. Fihn have the subject well in hand.
Gun control has nothing to do with stopping crime. It’s about citizen control. Pure and simple.
John T. Sanders