Friday, December 28, 2012

Liberals Who Cling to Their Guns

Few things animate the ire of liberals more than the right to bear arms. Liberals loathe the Second Amendment and when horrific tragedies like the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut rear their ugly head, they are quick on the draw to call for more gun control. But just don’t ask liberals to practice what they preach.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California is readying legislation to re-introduce a ban on assault weapons. Yet, as Mark Levin pointed out, Feinstein owned a concealed firearm. She said, “If somebody tries to take me out I’m going to take them with me.”

When NRA President Wayne LaPierre called for armed guards to be placed in schools late last week, an irate David Gregory derided the idea during his interrogation of LaPierre on Meet the Press. Yet Gregory’s children attend the same school in Washington, D.C. as President Obama’s daughters. And yes, Sidwell Friends, a Quaker school, employs armed guards.

Of course, such sentiments are hardly new amongst liberalism’s leading lights. Back in 1981, the late Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan argued that anyone who wasn’t a law enforcement officer who committed a crime with a handgun should be sent to prison for ten years without parole. However, in 1988, Rowan would run afoul of the law when he shot and wounded an intruder at his D.C. home with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol. Well, Rowan didn’t acquire a badge in the intervening seven years.

So why is it liberals abhor the right to bear arms unless it concerns their right to bear arms? Why is it liberals ridicule the idea of an armed guard protecting the children of others but don’t give it a second thought when it comes to the protection of their own families? Because liberals believe that if only the world was as wonderful as they are there would be no problems. They see themselves as being in possession of enlightened, progressive virtue and that gun laws should be used to keep arms out of the hands of uncivilized, uncouth conservatives or anyone else who has the temerity not to share their worldview. It is the same sort of thinking that allows liberals to own SUVs, send their children to private schools, and obtain waivers from Obamacare without batting an eyelash.

So the next time you hear a liberal call for yet more gun control or decry a proposal from the NRA, there’s a good chance that liberal either owns a gun or has seen to it that his children are protected by, as LaPierre put it, “a good guy with a gun.” If liberals are honest with themselves they would tell you that they too cling to their guns.


Has anyone noted the incongruity of Sidwell Friends employing armed guards?  Quakers traditionally refused to bear arms and most Quakers oppose gun ownership to this day.  They are great advocates of "peace" at any price so how do they square EMPLOYING armed guards with Quaker beliefs?  Sheer hypocrisy and dishonesty -- JR

1 comment:

Tom the Redhunter said...

Good question as to who liberals are so anti-gun. Your answer seems pretty good and accurate but if anything doesn't go far enough.

Liberals also want everyone to conform to their view of how society should be and no deviation is allowed. More, their ideal society is to be absolutely controlled by the government. Guns represent individual freedom, and this is not to be tolerated.

As we've seen (and you point out), liberals like David Gregory are ok with guns... as long as the government or some other authority has them. But it's all about government control.