As I noted in my last article, the liberal media and politicians began to cry for stricter gun laws just minutes after learning of the unspeakable tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Before the bodies were cold, Piers Morgan tweeted that the U.S. needs a ban on all handguns. Before knowing how, where or why Adam Lanza obtained these weapons, Soledad O’Brien suggested the federal government should impose a limit on the amount of guns a person can own.
We soon learned on Saturday afternoon that Lanza obtained the guns illegally by stealing them from his mother and altering them after he was denied a purchase at a local gun store. He was denied from buying a gun, because he refused a background check. The law worked.
In an interview Monday with Soledad O’Brien, John Lott said that from 1950 on, and with only one exception, every attack where more than three people have been killed were committed in gun-free zones. He said that killers target these zones to lessen their chances of being deterred. He spoke about the gunman who chose the movie theater in Aurora, a gun-free zone, as opposed to theaters closer to his home.
O’Brien fought back, saying the guns themselves are the similarity in those attacks, and that “a rational person could say that having access to a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle is inappropriate.”
The problem with people like O’Brien arguing for gun control is that she knows nothing about guns. A semi-automatic rifle can do the same amount of damage that any semi-automatic handgun or revolver can do.
But I digress. O’Brien’s goal is not to limit someone’s access to guns. We already know that these guns were stolen and altered and that the existing Connecticut laws worked. What O’Brien and her liberal counterparts, such as Ed Schultz and Piers Morgan want is a ban on most if not all guns. They constantly look to the U.K. and Australia, lamenting the fact that we still have a very pro-gun culture here in the states. They see law-abiding citizens who legally own guns for their protection, and they see them as a barbaric and imminent threat that must be stopped.
It was incredibly careless for Lanza’s mother to keep guns accessible to her mentally disturbed son. It is unknown as of now if she can be held responsible for any of this, but for someone like O’Brien to suggest that these guns breed killers is not only inaccurate, but dangerously ignorant to the original intent of the Bill of Rights.
No, Piers, but the Founding Fathers were very smart men. They knew that advancing technologies would lend to higher-powered weapons, and I’m sure they knew plenty of mental illness without the medications and diagnoses we have today. But something these media types tend to forget is that the Second Amendment was not created for the sole protection of oneself and one’s family. The Founders also saw a need for citizens to be able to defend themselves or revolt against a powerful, tyrannical regime.
Aside from the First, I can’t think of an amendment Americans hold more dear than the Second. And in the days we live in, when Americans don’t even know if their children will be safe when they send them away on the school bus, trying to take away their access to guns would be a mistake of epic proportions.