On July 24th the NY Times published an editorial about gun control and the refusal of our political leaders to take action on this issue. The editorial included the following statements about both the President and the presidential wanna be, Mr. Romney: "When he was campaigning for office in 2008, Barack Obama vowed to reinstate the assault weapons ban that had expired in 2004. That would have prohibited the AR-15 rifle used in the Colorado theater shooting on Friday, along with the large 100-round magazine attached to it. But as president, Mr. Obama has made no attempt to do so. Mitt Romney banned assault weapons as governor of Massachusetts and undoubtedly saved many lives, but now he opposes all gun control measures. He never repeats what he said in 2004 when he signed the ban:
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” he said. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
I have no doubts that both these men want to be of service to their country, and want to do the best for their country and its people. The problem is that the both want to be elected in November, and they are so afraid of the power of those people who feel we have a God given and constitutional right (these folks often think of these as one) to own assault rifles, tear gas, Kevlar vests, thousands of rounds of ammo and 100 round magazines, that they either do nothing or reverse their former positions and remain silent when atrocities such as that which occurred in Aurora should result in major changes in our gun laws.
What is it about this pro killing lobby – lets just call a spade a spade – that makes them so frightening to otherwise courageous and dedicated men? What is it about the desire to get elected that causes men such as Romney and Obama, as well as most of Congress, to turn away from their convictions and not demand that the NRA and its supporters come up with a logical explanation, one that the parents of a dead six year old in Colorado would understand, as to why we should not place strict controls on the ability of anyone to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition and high capacity magazines? Why do neither one of our candidates — the President I support, and the challenger I pray will lose — have the courage to ask the gun lobby the simple question, namely, why does anyone need an assault rifle and high capacity magazines? We’ll get to handguns later.
I know why Romney is keeping silent. He has already demonstrated repeatedly in this campaign that he will surrender whatever convictions he still has in order to court the support of the conservative right wing of the GOP. Romney has changed his spots so many times that I doubt if he even remembers what he used to believe in. If I ever had any thought of voting for him, his inability to keep to a single position or conviction, whether on healthcare, gay rights, gun control, etc., has certainly taken care of that thought.
As for President Obama, I guess he has enough problems already, so the thought of showing some guts and tackling this issue during his re-election campaign is just too scary for him also. My son made a good point about the President the other day. He said that no liberal Democrat could hope to get re-elected if he went after the guns in an election year. He can do it after he wins though. Well, maybe he can — and maybe he will. But, even if the re-elected President proposes the kind of controls we should have, what makes anyone think the spineless folks who inhabit the halls of Congress will back him. It just won’t happen. They are all too afraid. And, that brings me back to my original question. What is it about the "pro killing" lobby that makes them so powerful? If it’s, as a friend of mine has suggested, "the unbridled stupidity of the average American and the average American voter" then maybe it is time to move to Canada, or Switzerland, or maybe Mars when it becomes available.
Leave Your Comments