The Liberal Theology of Gun Control

[lostinblue 1,989]

The Liberal Theology of Gun Control

Guns are what you talk about to avoid having to talk about Islamist terrorism.

By

William McGurn

William McGurn

The Wall Street Journal

How does a man who entered the White House vowing to restore science to its proper place tell us that gun control is the answer to terrorism?

After all, California already has strict gun control, as does France, which just had its second terrorist massacre this year. Not to mention that the one time when terrorists with assault rifles and body armor were foiled, it was because an off-duty traffic cop in Garland, Texas, was carrying a gun—and used it to shoot the two heavily armed Islamists before they could kill anyone.

Or that “common sense gun control” would have done nothing to stop Richard Reid (the unsuccessful shoe-bomber); the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston (pressure cookers) or the 9/11 hijackers (box-cutters). Maybe the president should be demanding common sense pressure-cooker control.

Yet while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.

Understand this, and you understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.

Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil. So liberals inveigh against the instruments the evil use rather than the evil that motivates them.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-liberal-theology-of-gun-control-1449533861

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So if the vast majority of shooters aren't Muslim extremists can we at least discuss the evil that causes the 99.9999999 % of shooters to act?

[Dakine10 5,452]

[Boiler 47,773]

Obama will protect us all.

[Merle 458]

30 round magazines were banned during the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 and it had no effect on crime. If Obama could take away all of our guns he would in a heartbeat.

[Dakine10 5,452]

If Obama could take away all of our guns he would in a heartbeat.

Yeah but he can't. He couldn't when they had a super majority. He certainly can't now.

A lot of paranoia about nothing, and we seem to get these kinds of articles posted daily. Guns and paranoia are not a good mix, IMO.

[Boiler 47,773]

Not a Federal issue in totality.

The Dems in Colorado which essentially directly control only a small part of the State were told by the majority of the Sheriffs that they would not be enforcing their legislation.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Not a Federal issue in totality.

The Dems in Colorado which essentially directly control only a small part of the State were told by the majority of the Sheriffs that they would not be enforcing their legislation.

I believe most of the sheriffs said it will be a low priority for them. While many are against it, only a few are outright refusing to enforce the law. Sheriffs don't have veto power over legislation, so while they can say what they want, not enforcing the law could end up a different story. You know all they are trying to do in court is drag this out till the next election and hope for a different result.

[Boiler 47,773]

Refusing or calling it a very low priority is the same thing effectively.

55 out of 62 is quite substantial.

Sheriffs are voted for, not appointed.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Refusing or calling it a very low priority is the same thing effectively.

55 out of 62 is quite substantial.

Sheriffs are voted for, not appointed.

Doesn't matter if they are voted for or not. If they lose their lawsuit, they will enforce the law or risk being in contempt of court.

I say they are waiting for elections as they expect the laws to be repealed if republicans gain control. Then the lawsuits will be moot.

[Boiler 47,773]

Contempt of what Court? Simply not possible, if it was Obama would be in deep trouble.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Contempt of what Court? Simply not possible, if it was Obama would be in deep trouble.

You're not following the Joe Arpaio hearing, I take it? Last I heard, he was facing the possibility of criminal contempt of court charges for not complying with the judges orders.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I do think some of Colorado's laws (and many of California laws) are virtually unenforcable. That is partially why sheriffs are saying they won't enforce it. One example is magazine capacity. You can't easily determine a magazines capacity in the field, especially when Colorado passed the 15 round law.

I guess you could have police carry lots of different cailbers to jam in the magazines...but thats about it.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Sousuke

[Ban Hammer 14,395]

[Janelle2002 3,865]

30 round magazines were banned during the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 and it had no effect on crime. If Obama could take away all of our guns he would in a heartbeat.

Let me guess, you're still waiting on the U.N. invasion sanctioned by the anti-Christ. Lol