Share This Page

Liberals, leave us alone

| Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

Having given up on trying to persuade Americans that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the murder rate, Democrats have turned to their usual prohibitionary argument: “Why does anyone need (an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, a semiautomatic, etc., etc.)?”

Phony conservative Joe Manchin, who won his U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia with an ad showing him shooting a gun, said, “I don't know anyone (who) needs 30 rounds in a clip.”

Fantasist Dan Rather said, “There is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons.”

And prissy Brit Piers Morgan thought he'd hit on a real showstopper with, “I don't know why anyone needs an assault rifle.” Of course, where he comes from, policemen carry wooden sticks.

Since when do Americans have to give the government an explanation for why they “need” something? If that's the test, I can think of a whole list of things I don't know why anyone needs.

I don't know why anyone needs to burn an American flag at a protest. The point could be made just as well verbally.

I don't know why anyone needs to vote. One vote has never made a difference in any federal election.

I don't know why anyone needs to bicycle in a city.

I don't know why anyone needs to go hiking in national parks, where they're constantly falling off cliffs, being buried in avalanches and getting lost — all requiring taxpayer-funded rescue missions.

I don't know why Karen Finley needs to smear herself with chocolate while reading poems about “love.” But not only did Democrats allow that, they made us pay for it through the National Endowment for the Arts.

Democrats are willing to make gigantic exceptions to the “need” rule for things they happen to personally like. Their position is: “I don't know why anyone needs to hunt; on the other hand, I see why your tax dollars should be used to subsidize partial-birth abortion, bicycle lanes and the ballet.”

They'll say that no one died in my examples (except abortion) (and bicycling) (and national parks), but the victims of mass shootings weren't killed by gun owners. They were killed by crazy people.

How about keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people?

As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said this week, so-called “assault weapons” are a “personal pleasure” and “mothers and women” have to decide whether this personal pleasure “is more important than the general welfare.”

The “general welfare” is every tyrant's excuse, going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they “need” something simply because the government wants to ban it. That's true of anything — but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.

The question isn't whether we “need” guns. It's whether the government should have a monopoly on force.

In liberals' ideal world, no one will know you don't have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home, there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster.

Meanwhile, we're all required to subsidize their hobbies — recycling, abortion, the “arts,” bicycling, illegal alien workers, etc.

Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby: leaving people alone.

Ann Coulter is legal affairs correspondent for Human Events.

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.