THE GUN BAN DU - JOUR
In a way, I guess you've got to hand it to liberals. No matter how foolish their opinions on an issue, or how much it infringes on the Constitutional rights of Americans, they are persistent little devils.
Never has an issue been as bad for liberals as the gun control debate. Any Democrat seeking to lose an election need only suggest that Americans be prevented from owning or carrying guns.
Ask any liberal Democrat in the
Yet, the promise of disarming Americans draws liberals in like moths to the bug zapper. They know they're going to get burned, but they just can't help themselves.
The latest in this ridiculous scenario is playing out in The People's
House Bill 1098 would make it a felony to manufacture, distribute, transport, import or sell .50-caliber rifles and ammunition. The felony would be punishable by three to seven years in prison.
Why must these rifles be banned, you ask?
Tired of trying to convince Americans that crime would be eradicated if we could just stop non-criminals from legally buying weapons, liberals have decided to try new semantics: Banning .50-caliber rifles would help fight terrorism.
"It [certain types of .50-caliber rifles] is so powerful that it threatens airplanes - taxiing on the runway, taking off or landing - from hundreds of yards away," said Thomas Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
Wow, that does sound dangerous. (Famous for their lack of knowledge on guns, I wonder if anyone told Mr. Mannard that a rifle and a handgun are not the same thing.)
So, Mr. Mannard, how many planes in the
None, you say? How can that be?
Let's try an easier question, Mr. Mannard.
How many crimes have been committed using .50-caliber rifles—or as liberals call them "the most powerful civilian rifle on the market?"
The answer is zero.
But wait, liberals cry. Just because these guns have never been used to commit a crime or terrorist act doesn't mean we shouldn't ban them.
According to the bill's co-sponsor, Rep. Harry Osterman, D-Chicago, the NRA's observation that no crime has ever been committed with a .50-caliber rifle was irrelevant.
Osterman called it "interesting criteria" and said he hoped the General Assembly would not wait until there is a homicide before banning the rifle.
Next up for the Illinois General Assembly is a ban on turkey sandwiches for the same reason. Sure, nobody has actually been bludgeoned to death with a turkey sandwich, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
They might also want to consider banning the pen I'm using to write this column, because I'm seriously considering gouging my eyes out with it.
Obviously, this is not an attempt to prevent terrorism on American soil.
It is, however, a trial balloon being floated by the gun snatchers in an attempt to test out their new "Banning guns will help fight terrorism" motto.
Tired of getting crushed by voters when they argue that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens somehow cause crime, they've decided to try a more enlightened theory, namely that the best way to protect the American people from terrorism is to ban a weapon that has never been used to commit a single crime or terrorist act.
There's no word yet whether Senator Barack Obama (Osama bin Laden to Ted Kennedy) also shares this brilliant logic, but you can probably guess which way he'd vote on the measure.
This effort is also part of the ongoing liberal obsession with re-instituting the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.
Speaking of which, I thought crime and terrorist activity was supposed to go through the roof when the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
Remember John "I'm Hunting Wabbits" Kerry, who, on the eve of the ban's expiration, dropped his photo-op hunting rifle long enough to predict, "The streets tomorrow will be more dangerous than they were today."
Notice that none of these liberal gun snatchers ever have to explain the stupidity of their policy views (or the failure of mass violence to break out) when one of their foolish gun laws gets flushed down the toilet.
Just like with any other anti-gun bill, safety is not the goal of these liberals. Like always, the only people affected by this bill would be those who attempt to purchase firearms legally.
Which continues to beg the same question: Why are liberals so afraid of law-abiding, heat-packing Americans?
Matthew Holmes is a North Carolina based columnist for Wildfire Politics. His articles have been featured in the North Carolina Conservative, World Net Daily.Com, News Max.Com, Opinion Editorials.Com, and other media outlets. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or http://www.wildfirepolitics.com