Few things animate the ire of liberals more than the right to bear arms. Liberals loathe the Second Amendment and when horrific tragedies like the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut rear their ugly head, they are quick on the draw to call for more gun control. But just don’t ask liberals to practice what they preach.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California is readying legislation to re-introduce a ban on assault weapons. Yet, as Mark Levin pointed out, Feinstein owned a concealed firearm. She said, “If somebody tries to take me out I’m going to take them with me.”
When NRA President Wayne LaPierre called for armed guards to be placed in schools late last week, an irate David Gregory derided the idea during his interrogation of LaPierre on Meet the Press. Yet Gregory’s children attend the same school in Washington, D.C. as President Obama’s daughters. And yes, Sidwell Friends, a Quaker school, employs armed guards.
Of course, such sentiments are hardly new amongst liberalism’s leading lights. Back in 1981, the late Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan argued that anyone who wasn’t a law enforcement officer who committed a crime with a handgun should be sent to prison for ten years without parole. However, in 1988, Rowan would run afoul of the law when he shot and wounded an intruder at his D.C. home with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol. Well, Rowan didn’t acquire a badge in the intervening seven years.
So why is it liberals abhor the right to bear arms unless it concerns their right to bear arms? Why is it liberals ridicule the idea of an armed guard protecting the children of others but don’t give it a second thought when it comes to the protection of their own families? Because liberals believe that if only the world was as wonderful as they are there would be no problems. They see themselves as being in possession of enlightened, progressive virtue and that gun laws should be used to keep arms out of the hands of uncivilized, uncouth conservatives or anyone else who has the temerity not to share their worldview. It is the same sort of thinking that allows liberals to own SUVs, send their children to private schools, and obtain waivers from Obamacare without batting an eyelash.
On a personal note, I do not own a gun nor do I plan to purchase one. Nevertheless, I respect the rights of other Americans to make their own choices when it comes to protecting themselves and their families. I say this because I know most Americans are not Jared Lee Loughner, James Eagan Holmes, Wade Michael Page, or Adam Lanza. As such, the federal government and the mainstream media should not treat us as if we are.
With this in mind, I do not begrudge Senator Feinstein for carrying a concealed weapon to protect herself against those who had threatened her life. Nor do I begrudge David Gregory for sending his children to a school that employs armed guards. Nor, for that matter, do I begrudge Carl Rowan for brandishing a weapon when he found an intruder on his property all those years ago. But I do quarrel with Feinstein depriving other law abiding Americans of the right to defend themselves. I do quarrel with Gregory mocking the NRA for trying to protect all schoolchildren, not just those whose families can afford to send them to Sidwell. I also quarrel with Rowan for suggesting Americans who possess firearms should go to jail when he did not go to jail after he breached the law. Above all else, I object to liberals, living or dead, who engage in a policy of “do as I say, not as I do.”
So the next time you hear a liberal call for yet more gun control or decry a proposal from the NRA, there’s a good chance that liberal either owns a gun or has seen to it that his children are protected by, as LaPierre put it, “a good guy with a gun.” If liberals are honest with themselves they would tell you that they too cling to their guns.