What Part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” is Hard to Understand?
Evan Todd was a student at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in the late 1990s. He is a miraculous survivor of the infamous living nightmare that occurred there on April 20, 1999. In fact, he was the first student shot when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris began their rampage that day.
One might think Evan would be supportive of the misguided efforts by President Barack Obama to restrict the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding citizen in the United States of America. Nothing could be further from the truth: for the past decade, he has been an outspoken opponent of additional gun control laws. Now Evan has written an open letter to the president about the issue.
“The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban,” he writes. “It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 to 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.”
But then, the president and his underlings already know that, as evidenced by a recently disclosed white paper written by the National Institute for Justice – the research and evaluation agency of the Justice Department – and obtained by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). The report is an eye-opener for any who still believe that Obama & company are proposing “moderate” or “reasonable” gun control measures. They are neither moderate nor reasonable. They are radical and draconian. If you still count yourself among those who disbelieve that, read on.
The document states: “Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicide, and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.” However, the report goes on to state, “If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions, then it could be effective.”
What, exactly, would such a mandatory gun buyback accomplish? Eliminating the types of firearms Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein and their elitist, gun-grabbing friends don’t like? The purpose is certainly not reducing murders in the United States, since the DOJ has already concluded that “assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicide.”
As for the proposals to limit the size of magazines to 10 rounds (it’s now 7 in knee-jerk New York), the DOJ document states, “In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacturing, sale and possession.”
Mandatory gun buybacks…Proposals to make the very possession of high-capacity magazines illegal…Mandatory registration of all firearms…If these ideas don’t sound to you like confiscation of private property guaranteed by the United States Constitution, then you belong in another country, not mine. Obama can hike up his mom jeans and take pictures all day long of him firing a shotgun, but those of us who know better are not convinced that he loves either the Constitution or the freedom guaranteed by it. His hand-wringing, limp-wristed, latte-drinking liberal base can wonder why gun sales are among the few areas of the American economy currently booming. Some of us know why, including Evan Todd, who certainly has earned the right to be heard on this issue.
As Evan wrote in his letter to Obama, “Gun ownership is at an all-time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all-time low. The people have spoken. Gun stores shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and backordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.”
What part of that is hard to understand, Mr. President?