BIG OVERSIGHT: GUN CONTROL IN THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM
September 9, 2012
While many were focused on the controversy of initially omitting God and Jerusalem in the Democratic platform, language that affirms the Obama administration’s ‘death by a thousand cuts’ strategy for the Second Amendment went largely unnoticed. This year’s platform relating to the Second Amendment reads:
We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
So on the one hand they recognize gun violence is a problem - with recent mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado and at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, it’s no surprise. The problem lies, however, with their belief that gun control will help rather than hinder the ultimate goal: saving lives. The Second Amendment affirms one's inherent right to self-defense and proof that Americans exercise it to that end is ubiquitous, it’s just not reported in the lame scream media. See here and here for examples.
An inconvenient example of their illogical thinking points to a certain omission in the platform involving Obama’s hometown of Chicago. Recall back in 2008, Democrats attempted to downplay then-candidate Barack Obama’s hostility toward gun owners and our Second Amendment freedoms by putting this line in their party’s platform (emphasis added):
We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.
In this year’s platform, however, Team Obama has shortened this passage to read:
We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.
Gone is any mention of Chicago. That’s because life in the criminal utopia that Obama helped build there is not pretty.
When he was a candidate and lawmaker from Southside Chicago, Barack Obama endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
He also voted to ban most commonly owned rifles and shotguns, and even voted against legal protections for people who used firearms to defend themselves or their families from deadly attacks.
Despite a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared Chicago’s gun ban unconstitutional, the city’s stifling restrictions on gun ownership make it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to use a firearm for self-defense.
So far this year, 369 people have been murdered in Chicago despite the city’s draconian gun control laws. That’s roughly a 30 percent increase from this same time last year.
In fact, Chicago is on pace for a record 490 homicides in 2012, which would not only make it the deadliest big city in the United States, but also as deadly as notoriously crime-ridden Bogota, Colombia.
So, a newsflash to all the Dems advocating for gun control – criminals don’t abide by laws. They will find a way to obtain and use a firearm regardless of the regulations, which will in turn do nothing more than disarm law abiding citizens who have the ability to prevent bad situations from becoming worse. Is Chicago really the model we want exported to cities across America? This election could decide.
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.