Liberty was shot last week. When a crazed gunman opened fire at an Arizona shopping center killing six people and critically injuring Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others, the effects have been widespread, but nothing as significant as the assault on personal freedoms by the media and the liberals. The gunman managed to buy a gun legally. He filed the paperwork needed and paid the money just as any other citizen would do, but the difference is that he used that legally purchased weapon to commit a crime. Now the liberals are crying for more stringent gun regulations to prevent this crime from happening again. Some are even trying for the umpteenth time to get all guns banned, since obviously only criminals buy guns using strictly legal means.
The old adage goes that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. It is a good and appropriate statement, and it is true. If the sale of guns is outlawed, then only the criminals would have access to them, since they do not care if buying a gun is illegal. Think about it. They bought the gun for the purpose of shooting someone. In case you didn’t know, shooting someone is illegal. So if they buy a gun legally for that purpose, then they are doing so with the intention of breaking the law. Can any sane person think that making it illegal to buy a gun is going to deter a criminal from buying one illegally? Even now it is easier for the criminals to buy them illegally than it is for a law-abiding citizen to buy a rifle to hunt. Making gun ownership illegal will do nothing to fix the problem.
Gun ownership and procurement is not the only liberty under attack. The liberals have launched a full-scale war against the “Tea Party” alleging that the inflamed rhetoric used in the congressional elections spurred the shooter into his murderous rampage. Ludricous. This guy had issues long before the campaigning got so heated. Did the debate get heated? Yes, of course it did. All debates between passionate people with differing viewpoints can get heated. It is in these moments of heat that the viewpoints of the people are apt to change. A logical argument may or may not change a mind, but an impassioned plea goes a long way to evoking change. Debate is a violent activity even if it is dispassionate. Any change inspired by outside influence is inherently violent. This is not a bad thing.
Sarah Palin’s campaign used a symbol of a target to highlight congressional districts that the conservative effort needed to win to regain control of the house. Some people have alleged that the use of the target was somehow a call to madmen to take up arms and commit murder. This is insane in and of itself. The use of a target as an icon has been used by marketing firms and admen for years in advertising. It conveys a meaning that identifies an object of desire. Does it connote violence? Yes. Is it appropriate? Yes.
The biggest assault on liberty is not the attack on the second or the first amendment, however. Liberals and media heads have called into question how the shooter passed a background check when he was obviously insane. How could that store salesman have looked at this guy and not seen his murderous plan writ on his face? Bob Schieffer of CBS’s Meet The Press suggested that there has to be some sort of system in place to identify these insane people. This is the biggest and scariest assault on personal liberty yet: the idea that people will have to prove their sanity in order to exercise their rights and liberties. Will researchers have to identify an insanity gene? Will citizens have to take an annual exam to prove their sanity? Will we have to carry a card that validates out mental state? Or worse, will we have to be marked by microchip like a dog so electronic readers can identify us instantly if we go crazy?
The sanity of any person cannot be deemed solely on external appearances. It takes an act that defies the norms of society that identifies the insane. Sadly, that means someone has to do something crazy before we can diagnose them. You have the right to the presumption of sanity until proven crazy.
These rights are ours only so long as we protect them. Stand up against these outrages and demand that our freedoms remain protected from liberal attacks under the guise of being “for our own good.” We can determine what is our own good just fine and we don’t need liberals telling us what is bad for us. If left unchecked, the liberties and freedoms we have enjoyed for more than 200 years will all be shot down before us by supposed well-meaning liberals.