It’s been just over a year since James Holmes entered an Aurora, Colorado “gun-free” theater and shot up a bunch of defenseless movie-goers. Since then, gun control activists have capitalized off of the murder victims in their attempt to appeal to Americans’ emotions.
When that debate began to fizzle, Sandy Hook conveniently happened in a gun-free school, and since it involved more people and little kids, politicians were able to more effectively tug at America’s heartstrings to convince people that gun confiscation is really the most responsible thing to do to combat “gun violence.” But because of the evil gun lobby, even the “compromised” Manchin-Toomey bill failed in the Senate. Now, we’re waiting for the next act of mass murder that is sure to be bigger, bloodier and better than Sandy Hook and Aurora combined. And when the media works its magic, it’ll be equally more entertaining and dramatic, especially when they delve into and dwell on the “lone gunman’s” twisted and shocking past and personal life.
No doubt the media will feast on it like a parasite, sucking the lifeblood of the victims and churning out increased profits in the form of higher ratings. And politicians will cry fake tears in exchange for votes, money and guns. You know the drill.
“In Congress, there can be no more fitting memorial to the lives lost in Aurora, in Newtown, and across the country than a concerted effort to enact commonsense gun safety legislation. We must uphold our oath to ‘protect and defend’ theconstitution and all Americans by expanding background checks and keeping dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands. We must restore confidence in the safety of our homes, schools, movie theaters, and neighborhoods by taking clear, concrete steps to prevent gun violence.”
Never mind the fact that in her Congressional oath, the phrase “protect and defend” doesn’t appear. The phrase she’s looking for is “support and defend.” And if she’s going to support and defend the Constitution, that includes the 2nd Amendment, which includes the phrase “shall not be infringed.” There is no Constitutional basis for gun control at all. I guess she thinks we must break the law in order to enforce it?
She wants more gun-free zones to protect schools and theaters. We already have those, and we ended up with Aurora and Sandy Hook. I can only conclude that she must want more of those types of incidents.
If politicians like Pelosi truly want to support and defend the Constitution, they’d work to repeal all federal gun control laws and allow states to have their own laws, if any, governing guns. Is that likely to happen with gun-grabbers like Pelosi? Not in this lifetime.