Framing the Dialogue

If We Can Save One Child

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

– – H.L. Menken – –

I was struck recently when President Obama had his first statement after the shooting tragedy in NewTown. He seemed genuinely shaken by the murder of so many innocent children. He almost seemed human. I say almost because I believe that he is the most partisan politician of our times. It has become all about his way and the Democrats in Congress are going along for some reason and diminishing their own power. Perhaps they have found something, leftism, that is more important than power.  How can you not see the exploitation of children with the staged signing today with a nice, diverse mix of children behind him.  It is shameless.  Maybe he should have used his own children as window dressing.

President Obama was described by a former colleague in Illinois as the most anti-gun person he’d ever met. Not the most anti-gun politician, but the most anti-gun PERSON. His words after the Sandy Hook School shooting are tarnished now by his actions to push forth his agenda on more gun control. He has assigned Joe Biden to head the group tasked with coming up with recommendations. Obama has learned a lot about “commissions” when he created the much heralded deficit reduction commission which to his dismay came up with common sense ways to reduce the deficit. He promptly ignored them. With Biden in charge he has ensured that the conclusions will be what he wants.

Oblame-A has placed his bully pulpit on top of the graves of the dead children from Connecticut. He is using their deaths as the crisis by which to achieve more gun control and dilution of the Second Amendment. His use of these innocent children and the adults is sickening;

“If we can save the life of just one child it [gun control] would be worth it”

“We need to do everything to protect them [children] from the horrors of gun violence.”

I may have not gotten the quotes right exactly, but the essence is there. I just cannot bring myself to search for his droning talks to hone in on the exact text. His voice grates me. If we want to test the hypothesis that Obama wants to save children why does he only care about guns? Why only the horrors of gun violence? Why not all horrors? Why not all violence? I am not saying he doesn’t care about the dead children. It was clear that he did…back then. Now their death is an opening.

If he cared about the safety of children and saving even one life he would also propose…

  • The elimination of all un-guarded pools in the United States. More children are killed in pools than by gun violence. And can you think of a more horrible way to die?
  • Children under the age of 18 may no longer ride in motorized vehicles as this is perhaps the number one killer of young children. Car crashes can be traumatic.
  • Children should be restricted to their homes. Children are often hit by cars or crash when riding bicycles or scooters or skateboards.
  • We also need to eliminate scissors as children often are tempted to run with them.
  • We also need to eliminate anything small enough for a child to swallow and either choke on or be killed by the effects. Most prescription drugs would fall into the category. Have you ever listened to the lists of side effects on some of those drug commercials?
  • We have to eliminate most video games as they do not protect children from horrors. I am not just talking about the mega-violent killing games. Angry Birds glorifies the killing of pigs using suicidal birds.
  • We probably also need to eliminate most television show. Is there any doubt that children watching Honey Booboo, NFL football, Law and Order SVU, etc. expose children to the horrors of violence? We also need to stop the airing of 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, and David Letterman as I have no idea why these shows are still on the air.
  • We need to eliminate the Food Network as the delicious items displayed may contribute to the horrors of childhood obesity.
  • How about spending less of our children’s money so that they actually have some future without the nanny-government and runaway inflationary prices and debt that their grandchildren will still be paying?
  • Lastly we need to take children away from their parents. How many children are killed by their parents? The way the federal government is intruding into the lives of all Americans it wouldn’t be a very large step to take the children away shortly after birth. Mothers could be compelled to still provide breast milk and “donate” to a combine.

Obama calls for common sense solutions, as if any opposition to his solutions is senseless and extreme. I heard two numb-nuts on the local radio station discussing gun control this morning. Their condescension was only surpassed by their ignorance. They were going on and on about how gun nuts need to give up their assault weapons…you know “semi-automatic” weapons. The only guns that I know of that aren’t semi-automatic are either automatic (very tightly regulated) and muzzle loaders (you know the Revolutionary war type weapons).

Even those on the right are lulled into using the wrong terms. I generally thought that when “assault weapons “were being discussed they referred to automatic weapons. That is not true as it could be as simple as the way a gun looks or how many cartridges it holds.

Another part of the assurances from the left is that hunters, sportsmen, and those wanting personal protection need not be worried about the protection of their gun rights. Some of these folks actually supported Obama in the past two elections. I shouldn’t have to remind you that the Second Amendment wasn’t about the right to hunt, shoot at targets, or protect their homes. It was about protecting against the tyranny of a too large and intrusive government. Remember that they had just revolted against just such a government and were very wary of letting it happen again. Saying that may make me sound like a nut, but can you really look at the trend with government overbearance and not see tyranny in the future?

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

– – United States Constitution – –

 

 

 

One CommentsLeave one

  1. Donna B. says:

    I agree with what you wrote.

    However, this article would be more authentic if you had actually credited and linked to the cartoonists, wouldn’t it?!

    For instance, Steve Kelly, classic conservative cartoonist, and Dave Granlund, indie who goes wherever the wind blows,

Leave a comment

Use basic HTML (<a href="">, <strong>, <blockquote>)