Kids, presidents and jerking knees

On the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, I got the hint that something bad had happened through various Facebook posts. When I finally made myself turn on the news and learned what had happened, I cried. I had just put my little girl down for her nap, so I went back in and just sat and looked at her for a little while. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain of losing her, especially to such horrific and indiscriminate violence. My heart still breaks when I think of those parents who lost their children that day, and of the families of those teachers who were killed. I don't know if it's possible, but I pray that they find peace and a way to continue their lives without a constant hurt.

I just got done watching President Obama's speech about his intent for the way forward in regards to gun control. Today was unique for me in that I usually do my best to avoid listening to him, but I thought this was important to hear first hand. My first thought was that he should not have had those kids up there with him. The entire country has been in emotional turmoil since the Sandy Hook shooting, and using those children as props to, to use his words, gin up more fear, was disgraceful. Once I was able to ignore his props, I found myself actually listening, and even agreeing with a lot of what he had to say.

Background checks for every gun purchase. I agree with this. Keeping guns out of the hands of felons and persons who are mentally unstable is an important step toward reducing illegal gun violence, and a proper background check should go a long way toward weeding those people out. Law abiding citizens should not have a problem with showing that they are in fact law abiding citizens prior to purchasing a gun. The danger lies in having such a program administered at the federal level because it is too short a step from there to registration. The federal government has no need to know what, if any, weapons I own.

Stricter enforcement of laws that punish people who provide guns to criminals. Absolutely. Anyone who purchases guns with the intent of providing them to any criminal element automatically falls outside the category of law abiding citizen and should be punished accordingly, as well as prohibited from making such purchases in the future.

Harsher punishments for those who commit crimes with a gun. Absolutely. But, again, the emotional haze of the last several weeks has narrowed the view of those looking to attack guns. It is my opinion that all crimes need to be punished more severely. A person murdered with a knife is just as dead as someone murdered with a gun. Personally, I think we should bring back the firing squad, but that's a different conversation.

Where the president lost me, and I know I'm not alone in this, is when he started talking about "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. I use quotation marks because what he, and all those trying to ban them, calls an assault weapon, isn't one at all. An assault rifle is one that is capable of selective firing, that is, capable of firing one round at a time, or firing a three-round burst, or firing on full automatic. These weapons have been banned from purchase by civilians for a long time. The term "assault weapon" was made up by the media and others who don't like them to describe rifles that cosmetically look like a military assault rifle. I have an M4/AR-15. It looks very similar to the guns carried by Marines and soldiers when they go into combat. The big difference is, mine is semi-automatic - it can only fire one round at a time, while those carried by the military are capable of firing three-round bursts. The reality is, my M4 functions exactly like the vast majority of hunting rifles. Its cosmetics that make it look similar to a military weapon do nothing to make it more lethal.

What about "high" capacity magazines? Why do I need those? The answer is simple. Self defense, or the defense of others. In the controlled environment of a shooting range, I can put every round exactly where I want it, or at least within a few millimeters. The circumstances that would require me to use any of my weapons in self defense or defense of others would not be nearly as controlled as those of a shooting range, and I'd be willing to bet my aim would not be as true as I'd like. Those extra rounds in my magazine may very well keep my family and I alive.

But beyond the ignorance of calling my rifle an assault weapon, or what I believe is a justifiable need for a 30-round magazine, a ban on either simply does not make sense. Such a ban would be based entirely on emotions and politicians need to feel good about themselves for doing something. The federal government already tried such a ban, for ten whole years, and it had no measurable effect on gun violence. One of the incidents the president used to bolster his argument for an "assault weapons" ban and magazine limits was the shooting at VA Tech. The shooter there did not use what he calls an assault weapon, and he used 10-round magazines, which would still be legal, and still achieved the highest body count in recent history.

During his speech today, the president made a good show of concern for the victims of Sandy Hook, and concern for the need to better protect the nation's children as a whole. And as much as I dislike the man, I'm sure he does feel genuine concern. But despite the concern displayed today, he is narcissistic, arrogant and a pathological liar. He, and those aligned with him, is opportunistic and has an agenda that goes well beyond the concern for our children. He knows it would be political suicide for him to suggest outright confiscation of guns right now, but make no mistake, in his mind the legislation he proposed today is a step toward exactly that. One of his supporters on the issue, Sen. Feinstein, said years ago that that's exactly what she wants.
An "assault weapon" ban now is less about protecting children (it won't) and more about destroying liberty and "fundamentally transforming the United States." Despite the concern shown today, Obama has repeatedly shown disdain and contempt for the "common" American. He has also voiced his displeasure with the Constitution, the limits it places on the federal government, and processes it requires. Platitudes to the contrary, Obama and his ilk will do everything they can to shred the Constitution, and right now, the 2nd Amendment is at the top of their list.

It is my belief that the president's proposed ban will cost far more lives than it is purported to save. It is a small step, but the road he wants to pave is one toward registration and, ultimately, confiscation. Law abiding citizens will be denied their right to defend themselves and people will die. It may not happen even in my lifetime, but when confiscation is attempted, there will be armed resistance and many people will die.

Do not let emotions and knee jerk responses rule the day. Let your voice be heard. Make phone calls, write letters, send emails. Tell those who were elected to represent you that the direction the president wants to take us is the wrong one.