Control politicians, not guns
If laws were enough to deter criminal behavior, prisons would be empty.
The latest effort to “control” guns in America is as likely to deter someone intent on breaking the law as outlawing lust would affect one's libido. What's in a heart can't be controlled by restricting what's in a hand.
Following the Newtown tragedy, President Obama vowed to seek the passage of an assault weapons ban and hastily assembled an administrationwide gun control task force, an effort that amounts to little more than a political act designed to impress what Rush Limbaugh calls “low-information voters.” Government must be seen doing something to keep mad men from shooting children and moviegoers, even if that something will likely prove ineffective.
Someone who is determined to kill with a gun is going to find a way (and a gun) no matter how many laws are passed. Consider Chicago, where numerous anti-gun laws appear to have done little to stop gun deaths.
The loss of liberty always begins at the extremes, but it won't stop there. Radicals won't be satisfied with outlawing one type of gun. In 1995, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told “60 Minutes,” “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up (every gun) ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.” In 2004, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama voted against a bill that affirms the right of citizens to defend themselves against home invasions. The bill ultimately passed.
The Sandy Hook shooter reportedly stopped killing children and killed himself when law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. This contains no lesson for the gun control crowd, which mostly opposes armed guards in schools. Neither does it matter to them that recently a Georgia woman, Melinda Herman, shot an intruder when police couldn't get to her home quickly enough, thus defending her life and the lives of her two children. To gun control advocates, guns decide whether they are used for good or evil, not the people who fire them.
If Obama attempts to impose new restrictions on guns by executive order, not Congress, what can individuals do? I asked constitutional attorney John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute. “Even if the president has the authority to issue the executive order,” Whitehead replied by email, “the order may not violate the Constitution's guarantees to individual liberty. If the order resulted in restrictions on gun ownership or possession that go beyond what is allowed under the Second Amendment, individuals who are harmed by the order could sue to have the order declared unconstitutional.”
We need to hear more stories of how law-abiding gun owners have managed to thwart criminals. As the predictable assault of anti-gun TV ads begins, the National Rifle Association should create its own ads with gun owners telling their stories of self-defense and crime prevention.
The Second Amendment was written to protect citizens from tyrannical government and to preserve our liberties. It's not primarily for the protection of hunters and target shooters, though they are included. Those politicians who wish to ignore the Constitution are the ones who need to be controlled, not law-abiding gun owners.
Cal Thomas is a columnist for USA Today.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sestak kicks off U.S. Senate campaign — with a couple missteps
- Court rules Steelers must pay Okobi workers comp
- 11 Ligonier Township residents rescued by boat from floodwaters
- Elizabeth Township, McKeesport impacted by ice jam on Youghiogheny River
- Penguins need trade-deadline acquisitions to bring toughness
- PennDOT alerts drivers to numerous road closures due to flooding, debris
- Shania’s first tour in 11 years includes Pittsburgh stop
- Owner of Strip District nightclub Ivy agrees to close after shooting
- Police: Suspect in 1970 cold case homicide of 17-year-old dies days before charges filed
- Blue Jays’ Martin has ‘nothing but praise’ for former Pirates teammates
- U.S. clears police officer in Ferguson case, criticizes police force