My article as originally published in American Thinker:
Without being armed with all the facts, President Obama shamelessly rushed out and used the victims of the horrific Umpqua Community College massacre for political gain, just as he had with Sandy Hook and other carefully chosen shootings that have occurred during his tenure. He then skipped right over the heavily gun-regulated war zone of Chicago to fly to Roseburg, Oregon and further exploit the grieving community. This president is clearly uncomfortable with America’s skin, which is why he is hell-bent on transforming every aspect of it.
In the movie The Silence of the Lambs, Buffalo Bill was also unable to achieve the fundamental change he desired (a sex-change in his particular case), so his “solution” was to sew together sections of skin from the carefully selected young ladies he murdered to construct a “woman suit” and ultimately complete his desired transformation. In other words, he was a total nutcase.
In an eerily similar fashion, the thin-skinned Buffalo Barack carefully selects and exploits the lifeless victims of certain crimes involving firearms in order to further his desire to “fundamentally transform” the United States into something it was never born to be. He, along with his tailors in the media, carefully stitch together anti-gun narratives using their chosen victims along with various red herrings, straw men, and outright lies concocted (like the unwarranted media attention so-called “assault weapons” receive) to further the ultimate goal of overturning the Second Amendment.
There is deafening silence from Buffalo Barack with regard to the countless shooting victims in areas such as Chicago, where highly restrictive gun laws are the norm because those victims fail to further his cause. And he conveniently ignores mass shootings in “civilized” nations that take place despite “sensible” gun laws such as in Oslo, Norway, where a gunman was able to effortlessly slaughter 77 people using semi-auto firearms and explosives (afterward, Norway’s “sensible” sentencing laws put that psycho away for a mere 21 years). And even the existence of total gun control within the totalitarian regime known as China hasn’t stopped mass killings with knives, as can be seen here, here, and here. Evil will always find a way.
Given that this is really a war over liberty, Andrew C. McCarthy makes a great point:
Why are we debating policy? After all, gun rights are explicit in the Second Amendment. In general, there is not supposed to be much policy debate where our fundamental rights are concerned. We would not, for example, abide a suggestion that we reconsider whether the government may break into your home and poke around for evidence without a warrant. That is not to say there may not be logical reasons to allow a police officer to act unilaterally on a strong hunch; it is to say that a constitutional right is supposed to be a guarantee – something the government has to respect, not something the citizen has to justify.
Of course progressives will never give up. And looking forward, if elected president, Hillary Clinton has made it pretty clear she plans on cannibalizing our Second Amendment rights – perhaps with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.