ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


FEATURED JOBS




Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Delicious
E-mail this article
Print this Article
advertisement

With regard to the editorial in the Jan. 16 Independent, “Sensible approach needed on gun control,” I was astounded to read the approaches that were thought to be worthy of consideration, but not one of these approaches is sensible, nor would any of them have prevented the recent Sandy Hook tragedy.

It is apparent that the Obama administration and some governors are quite ready to demagogue this tragedy in order to impose a host of gun-control schemes on law-abiding American citizens. The governors of Maryland and New York also have jumped on the bandwagon, seeing this as an opportunity to inflict tidbits from the gun-grabbers handbook on the residents of their states. The problem with most gun-grabbing schemes is that they impose needless restrictions on those who abide by the law.

By definition, the criminals and mentally disturbed do not obey the laws, and the net effect on stopping killers is zero. Another consideration is that there are in excess of 300 million firearms and a lesser number of high-capacity magazines already in circulation, so putting restrictions on new ones is hopelessly useless because a firearm and a magazine can be stolen or acquired by some other illegal means.

To illustrate the ineffectiveness of gun-control measures, during the Clinton administration, a ban on so-called “assault weapons” was enacted for a 10-year period, and there was no statistical reduction in crime rates. When the ban was repealed, there was no corresponding increase, either. Reinstating the ban will, no doubt, be equally ineffective.

To further illustrate the foolishness, Chicago has a virtual ban on all firearms, but last year, 228 Chicago residents were killed. The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan during the same period was 144, according to the Huffington Post.

An American city that bans firearms yet is nearly twice as dangerous as a war zone clearly shows that gun control imposed on law-abiding citizens is not going to get the job done.

An important related subject being almost totally ignored by the corrupt media is the Fast and Furious scandal cover-up. It does not make sense to take the administration seriously about gun-control measures when it intentionally allowed assault-style weapons to walk across the border to Mexico into the hands of criminals and drug cartels.

This is hypocrisy of epic proportions. The guns that were allowed to walk did not have GPS transmitters hidden inside and were, therefore, not able to be tracked. This was either a monumental blunder or perhaps the intent may have been to have atrocities committed with those guns in order to goad public opinion into acceptance of gun restrictions intended to circumvent the Second Amendment, much like they are now trying to do as they demagogue the Sandy Hook shootings.

The scheme backfired badly when an American border patrol agent and some Mexican citizens were killed with some of those weapons.

Congressional investigations were short-circuited when the administration was caught with its pants down and the president invoked executive privilege to prevent documents from surfacing that likely would have incriminated the attorney general, other administration officials and possibly the president himself.

Executive privilege is reserved to protect national security and classified matters in general, and is not appropriately used as a means to withhold information from a congressional investigation.

Should we believe that our best interests are being served by people who are again trying to do an end run around the Constitution when they are probably responsible for the death of an American law enforcement agent and many Mexican citizens via a state-sponsored gun-running scheme?

The editorial in the Independent calls for a sensible approach; perhaps sensible and effective measures will emerge in a future opinion piece, but keep in mind that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with an equal or more potent gun.



Jack Remez, Bryantown