The Right Opinion

Control Politicians, Not Guns

By Cal Thomas · Jan. 15, 2013

If laws were enough to deter criminal behavior prisons would be empty.

The latest effort to “control” guns in America is as likely to deter someone intent on breaking the law as outlawing lust would affect one's libido. What's in a heart can't be controlled by restricting what's in a hand.

Following the Newtown tragedy, President Obama vowed to seek the passage of an assault weapons ban and hastily assembled an administration-wide gun control task force, an effort that amounts to little more than a political act designed to impress what Rush Limbaugh calls “low-information voters.” Government must be seen doing something to keep mad men from shooting children and moviegoers, even if that something will likely prove ineffective.

“Where there's a will, there's a way,” the proverb goes, and someone who has the will to kill with a gun is going to find a way (and a gun) no matter how many laws are passed. Consider Chicago where numerous anti-gun laws appear to have done little to stop gun deaths.

President Obama put Vice President Joe Biden in charge of the task force. Biden calls his gun control effort a “moral issue.” Does Biden suffer from selective morality? For him, same-sex marriage and abortion don't appear to be moral issues, as they are for his Catholic church, but gun control is.

The loss of liberty always begins at the extremes, but it won't stop there. Radicals won't be satisfied with outlawing one type of gun. In 1995, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told “60 Minutes,” “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up (every gun) … Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in. I would have done it…” In 2004, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama voted against a bill that affirms the right of citizens to defend themselves against home invasions. The bill ultimately passed.

The Sandy Hook shooter reportedly stopped killing children and killed himself when law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. This contains no lesson for the gun control crowd, which mostly opposes armed guards in schools. Neither does it matter to them that recently a Georgia woman, Melinda Herman, shot an intruder when police couldn't get to her home quickly enough, thus defending her life and the lives of her two children. To gun control advocates, guns decide whether they are used for good or evil, not the people who fire them.

If President Obama attempts to impose new restrictions on guns by executive order, not Congress, what can individuals do? I asked constitutional attorney John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute, “a nonprofit conservative legal organization dedicated to the defense of civil, especially religious, liberties and human rights.” “Even if the president has the authority to issue the executive order,” Whitehead replied by email, “the order may not violate the Constitution's guarantees to individual liberty. If the order resulted in restrictions on gun ownership or possession that go beyond what is allowed under the Second Amendment, individuals who are harmed by the order could sue to have the order declared unconstitutional.”

We need to hear more stories of how law-abiding gun owners have managed to thwart criminals. As the predictable assault of anti-gun TV ads begins, the National Rifle Association should create its own ads with gun owners telling their stories of self-defense and crime prevention.

You know rational thinking is lacking when Pravda, Russia's communist political newspaper, makes sense. In a recent article, Stanislav Mishin writes that after the Bolsheviks seized Moscow in 1917, they promised to leave alone the well-armed citizens if they did not interfere. “They did not and for that were asked afterwards,” writes Mishin, “to come register themselves and their weapons, whereupon they were promptly shot.”

The Second Amendment was written to protect citizens from tyrannical government and to preserve our liberties. It's not primarily for the protection of hunters and target shooters, though they are included. Those politicians who wish to ignore the Constitution are the ones who need to be controlled, not law-abiding gun owners.

© 2013 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

View all comments

22 Comments

Capt. Call in New Mexico said:

Rutherford here gives a wishy-washy response. Sometimes, civil disobedience is necessary. He would have done better to acknowledge that fact using his God-given right to Freedom of Speech, which has been secured for him by the First Amendment,

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 12:50 AM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia said:

The families of victims in "gun free" kill zones should sue the politicians that disarmed the victims. Politicians should have to face the consequences of policy that is clearly leading to innocent loss of life. Every mass shooting, including the Ft.Hood shooting, has happened in a"gun free" kill zone. I mean really! They have disarmed the military and made them victims on their own base.

Check out " Innocents Betrayed" for a frightening look at the history of gun registration -then confiscation -then genocide, or removal of dissedents--such as religious people, intellectuals, the "rich", the white the dark or the brown, or those with glasses, or maybe just the 1%.
Remember "air marshals". That is a solution that works on planes and is what should be done in elementary schools.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 12:54 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

M Rick, a website to check out is JPFO.org. It is the "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" site. It has much needed information on the dangers of gun bans. An interesting article is about the 68 Gun Control Act and its link to the 38 law in Germany.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

pete in CA replied:

"Gun Free Zone" at Ft. Hood is nothing new. Our Marines at Beirut were allowed to carry weapons for show, but could not have a magazine inserted, or a round in the chamber.

Pretty much making their weapons very very expensive clubs.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM

The Outlaw in Middle of Nowhere said:

Yet Mr.LaPierre was scoffed at for suggesting that armed Police be placed in our schools. An act that should bring ultimate comfort to parents was laughed at and made fun of (something Obama is excellent at BTW).
The ruling party has convinced, along with the biased media which heed their beck and call, America that guns kill not the insane who press the trigger. But it's a great diversion from all of the other financial mess that Obama has created which is why he wants disarament. When this Moronic society finally wakes up and realizes what a bill they are facing they won't be able to fight against his tyranny and he wins.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM

The Outlaw in Middle of Nowhere said:

Yet Mr.LaPierre was scoffed at for suggesting that armed Police be placed in our schools. An act that should bring ultimate comfort to parents was laughed at and made fun of (something Obama is excellent at BTW).
The ruling party has convinced, along with the biased media which heed their beck and call, America that guns kill not the insane who press the trigger. But it's a great diversion from all of the other financial mess that Obama has created which is why he wants disarament. When this Moronic society finally wakes up and realizes what a bill they are facing they won't be able to fight against his tyranny and he wins.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 3:04 AM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

Cal, your title says it all!!

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 6:25 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

Any politician who votes for gun control should be voted out of office the next time around. However, as Cal so clearly stated, low informtion voters will continue to vote for these traitors to their oath and the country. Let's declare war on politicians, it might be the only way to stop the madness.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM

wjm in Colorado said:

Any executive order against the second ammendment is illegal and a violation of oathe of office. No citizen of the United States is legally bound to obey an illegal order. Such an executive order would be grounds for immediate arrest and subsequent impeachment, but we have seed this marxist in action, total disregard for the law, and so far crickets chirping. At what point is this charlatan going to go too far? Going for the guns just might do it.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM

JJStryder in Realville replied:

300+ million guns in America and they believe every one is a threat to their power. Make no mistake, this isn't about the safety of children. It is about the safety of their power over the American people. We should declare war on the low information voter, their complicity in the disaster that is America now shouldn't go unheeded. We may not be able to stop the pillage of our paychecks, but I'll be damned if their coming into my home and taking my ability to defend myself and my family. I believe I'm not alone in this.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM

sfj in Alabama said:

The NRA already publishes stories about gun owners successfull defening themselves from attack. It is in their "American Rifleman" magazine.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM

pete in CA said:

>"We need to hear more stories of how law-abiding gun owners have managed to thwart criminals."<

We have plenty, but they only get published in protection oriented magazines of less than 10 rounds.

The lame stream media will only report them when there is a big enough uproar over them, and most people are too busy going about their daily business to push the media to do what is right. Even boycotts don't work, as we've all got to go to the same places for groceries, gas, clothing, and advertisers don't care.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Scott in Texas said:

It's the only way they think they can control us is by disarming the the law biding citizen. Do they has a rude awaking coming!!!

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 2:40 PM

MIResident in Michigan said:

Obama can write any Executive Order he wants, I for one will not follow them if they restrict my 2nd Admendments rights.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 3:18 PM

BJ in St. Cloud, MN said:

The fact that "they' are rabidly trying to change the 2nd Amend just reinforces why we need it. The scumbag libs are trying to jumpstart the mindset that the Constitution and Bill Of Rights is the rule book for US citizen. The U.S. Constitution is a limitation on the govt, not on private individuals.It does not dictate the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of govt. It is not a charter for govt power, but a charter of the citizens protection against the govt.
For those idiots that say the word "militia" refers to the military you only need to talk to them about article 3 which uses the word "soldier". The 2nd Amend is very clear about the people's right to keep and bear. Only useful idiots, scumbag libs, and people who know what's best for everyone because they're so full of themselves, think my right to protect myself from them and govt should be restricted.

TERM LIMITS-IMPEACH-PROSECUTE-SOON

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

BJ, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to control despots (think kommandant klinton and Barry).

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 4:12 PM

BJ in St. Cloud, MN said:

Disarming us is an attempt to lessen our will to resist by taking away our means of resistance.

TERM LIMITS-IMPEACH-PROSECUTE-SOON

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Rick Harmon in Woodland CA 95695 said:

The constitution is only outdated and useless when the government abides by the rules set forth by we the people

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Rick Harmon in Woodland CA 95695 said:

the constitution are rules to be followed by the government

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM