Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Gun control is back in the crosshairs PDF Print E-mail

Dear Editor:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

That was a deep and sobering peek into the political mind of Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, during a Wall Street Journal conference shortly after the 2008 presidential election. Since then, Americans have seen this power-grabbing strategy put into action time and time again by the Obama Administration.

So right on cue, and even before half of the nation knew anything about the unimaginable horror unfolding in Newtown, Conn., political operatives and partisan pundits sprang into crisis mode sensing a prime opportunity to put gun control back in the crosshairs.

But my objective here is not to debate what types of weapons fit the blueprint of the second amendment or the rationale of the Framers. Instead, I want to specifically bring attention to the logic consistently put forth by none other than Barack Obama as he begins the push for gun legislation reform, which most people realize is simply a ploy to chip away at an individual’s right to bear arms.

In Illinois, standard operating procedure for politicians cozy with Planned Parenthood is to vote “present” because it provides political cover, yet acts as a “no” vote. As a state senator from 1997-2004, Obama twice voted present on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Acts. He also voted present twice against Parental Notification of Abortion Acts. And just this past May, Obama openly opposed a ban on sex selection abortions, where the unborn child is killed just because the parents wanted the opposite sex.

Yet, the most glaring example of Mr. Obama’s zealotry was displayed when he voted three times against a bill, identical to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act supported at the federal level by pro-choice advocates, which would require medical care for a baby who survives a botched abortion.

The bill was introduced in Illinois after a nurse at an abortion clinic testified that babies who survived abortions, and who could have survived if given medical care, were just left to die.

Obama reasoned that the need to protect existing abortion laws was so dire that it would be wrong to require medical care for babies who survive since that might chip away at abortion rights, even though the bill specifically stated that it would not infringe on a woman’s right to an abortion.

Likewise, Republican lawmakers deliberating over Second Amendment reforms in the coming weeks, should reason that the need to protect existing gun laws is so dire that it would be wrong to enact a so-called assault weapons ban since that might chip away at gun rights, even if a bill specifically states that it would not infringe on an individual’s right to own a gun.

Frank Gabl

Prospect Heights, Ill. and

Eagle River 

Monday, December 31, 2012 1:32 PM
 

Comments  

 
-20 #4 Frank Gabl 2013-01-03 13:18
Ken,

I know we’re only three days into the new year so I hesitate to jump the gun. But I’m putting my money on you for winner of the “2013 Quote of the Year.”

“I am one nra member and im not afraid that now the government will take all our guns away.”

Besides, Stan the Russian man disagrees with you. And I think it’s safe to say that history trumps American’s knee-jerk emotions.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
Quote
 
 
+3 #3 2013-01-02 23:04
Well Ian, I can understand why you don't wnat to take credit for your anonymous blogger -- now you can claim plausible deniability when "blogger" acts out his Second Amendment fantasies.

Jeff Laadt
Quote
 
 
-18 #2 2013-01-02 16:22
Well Ken, I guess the issues is the size of a clip. After all, a stock or modified shotgun can do a hell of a lot more damange than a rifle, whether its labeled as "assault" or "rifle". Again, we have to look at the broader issue:
As a blogger just wrote which I can't take credit for:
"Note to all Liberals and Hollyweirdos: When you use your 1st? Amendment rights to try to infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights, then don't be surprised when we use our 2nd Amendment rights to infringe on your 1st Amendment rights. It goes both ways". Hollywood is already ramping up it's defense of the trash they sell to the public. Of course, the Main Stream media takes their message hook, line, and sinker.
Quote
 
 
+18 #1 2013-01-01 18:24
no one needs assault weapons. they are not needed to hunt and if you need them for protection well your probably a dead man anyway. the same with bullets made to go thru police officers vests. I am one nra member that doesn't feel my rights are being taken away when extreme weapons are removed from our world , and im not afraid that now the government will take all our guns away. it just makes sense to lessen the chance of more mass killings. Yes I know it wont stop most but it will stop somewhich is a good thing !
Quote
 

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.


Security code
Refresh