After the Newtown school shooting, many celebrities put together a PSA calling for more gun control. Their "Demand a Plan" campaign urges you, the American people, to demand our government do something.
As is common with celebrity endorsed PSAs, there is also a video mocking the PSA. In this case, a video mash up of violent or firearm scenes from movies is interwoven with PSA comments made by the same actors who we see on screen toting and/or using the weapons. (see that story here).
And what do these well meaning actors want our leaders to do? Well, of course, they want our government to impose more gun laws on the nation. And they are not alone. Piers Morgan threatened to leave the United States if government didn't pass more gun laws. Al Sharpton wants to extend the anti-gun movement to control knives as well. Do you notice a pattern here?
For some reason, though the thought of having limits on what qualifies as marriage is an anathema to the ultra-left, the idea of placing further limits on your right to defend yourself seems perfectly acceptable. And there are plenty more examples of the ultra-left wanting to regulate every other aspect of our lives as long as it doesn't involve sex.
Liberal radio show host Thom Hartmann wants to make it illegal for people to possess a certain amount of money - further regulation of peoples lives. In example after example, we see progressives promoting ever bolder government action in regulating life.
So what should we expect if the left wing proposal of more guns laws and regulations is realized? Should we expect everyone to obey these new laws? David Gregory of NBC can't manage to obey gun laws even while promoting them. Gregory violated D.C. gun laws using a gun magazine on air while in the act of promoting more gun laws. Somehow we are supposed to expect criminals, who by definition break the law, to obey more gun laws while a journalist defies laws already on the books.
Did you hear about that White Plains, New York paper The Journal News, that published in an online map the names and addresses of some gun permit holders? This so called prank seems more like an attempt promote more gun control laws via bully tactics. As backlash, another paper published the names and home addresses of staff at The Journal News who pulled this "prank". If you haven't heard of this yet, you'll probably never guess what The Journal News did in response to the backlash: they hired armed guards for two of their facilities. Employing more guns while promoting efforts to reduce guns hardly seems consistent.
We see high profile progressives who on one hand promote legislation to reduce the influence if not the number of guns in the country, while on the other hand find it comforting to have armed security protecting their loved ones. The same David Gregory who brandished a gun clip on air, mocked the NRA's suggestion of putting armed police officers in public schools. Yet, Gregory puts his own kids in the same high security private school (with police officers) that President Obama's daughters attend.
So why the unrelenting push for more gun control? A gun-free nation sounds great, right? Well, not so much. According to law enforcement officials gun-free zones have seen an increase in gun violence, and actually attract mass murderers because these zones prove an easy target.
Let's ask a different question. Have more gun laws reduced crime rates in general, if not necessarily in gun-free zones? Other countries have already gone further than the United States in its gun control efforts, and reached closer to what American progressives want to do. What happened in those countries? Apparently more gun laws haven't had the desired results. What about the areas of the United States with the highest degree of gun control? Do they have the lowest violent crime rates in the nation? No. So one might ask: do Americans really care about the results of well intended, but poorly considered laws?
According to progressives, practical, if admittedly undesirable solutions (such as putting armed police officers in schools) are not a viable course of action. Instead, progressives believe legislation will solve this problem, as they usually do. However, if constitutional rights are valuable to you, perhaps you should keep your eye on progressives in general.
For example, one Democrat member of the House of Representatives thinks the US Constitution should be amended to allow for control of speech. Of course, he puts a benevolent spin on the matter, so as to make his appeal sound reasonable. But many, many forces are at work with any piece of legislation, especially on the national level. What possible reason is there to believe that once that door is opened it won't be exploited by anyone and everyone with enough influence or money to exploit it?
Where progressive voices are given opportunity to shine, we should all remember the Constitution is an impediment to the progressive agenda, and therefore that document should be abandoned so progressives can make the world a perfect place. Just ask Professor Louis Michael Seidman of Georgetown University, who suggests this very thing. And what's his expertise you might ask? Constitutional law, of course.
So, actors who think you're helping the nation by producing a video promoting gun control laws, you might want to think before your next PSA. Do you really want to promote more government regulation as the solution to all of life's problems? How long do you think it will be before this mighty pen of our socially responsible leaders turns to impose more regulation on what you do for a living? If one amendment (such as the second one) can be so blatantly disregarded, so can another (such as the first one). And, as Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) has expressed (as linked above), even the free speech you progressive actors presumably value can be targeted by well meaning social tinkerers.
You may approve of violating the constitution when it happens to gun rights, but don't kid yourselves into thinking the rights you value are impervious to progressive social engineering. You who mock the Second Amendment and ridicule those who fight to protect it are building the groundwork for dismantling other constitutional rights. Trying to persuade the American people to provide the rope to hang themselves with is not the way to protect your livelihood. You wealthy actors may not value the freedoms the rest of us are losing, but you probably care about your own industry. When new laws against violence in movies and TV are being debated and implemented, don't bother crying to the American people about censorship and oppression. We won't be able to do anything about it. That is your legacy: promoting violence in the culture, getting stinking rich from it, then asking the government to rob us of our basic rights so you can feel better about it. All the while promoting further control of our lives that has nothing to do with actually protecting people from mass murderers.
Hmm, so do I spend an increasingly outrageous amount of money for movie tickets tonight, or do I go buy some ammo? Oh, right, I might not be able to buy ammo later, at least not legally.
children, constitution, crisis, culture, Democrats, first amendment, free speech, freedom, government, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, law, left wing, legislature, liberalism, nanny state, news media, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, public policy, regulation, tragedy
