It just wouldn’t feel right if more than a month passed without this president launching an attack on the Bill of Rights. Thankfully, he trudged back into the gun control battle last week, reassuring worried Americans that our rights are still not safe from his socialist agenda. Attending a townhall meeting in South Carolina Friday, Obama said this about the ease with which people can buy a gun:
As long as you can go in some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it is easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable, as long as that’s the case, we’re going to see unnecessary violence.
If there are neighborhoods in this country where it is literally easier to buy a handgun than a tomato, then something tells me those sales are already in violation of existing laws. Unless there are background checks on vegetables and books that I’m not aware of.
Whether Obama would be able to back up his claims with facts or if he was just speaking off the cuff, the point of his message is clear. As long as there are guns on the streets, we’re not going to be able to reduce the homicide rate. But just in case you aren’t smart enough to follow Professor Obama, he spells it out.
“Our homicide rates are so much larger than other industrialized countries, by like a mile,” he told his audience at Benedict College. “Most of that is attributable to the easy, ready availability of firearms, particularly handguns.” If he had performed this speech on Wikipedia, a little bubble would have appeared above his head at that point reading citation needed.
Imagine an America where we treated the Bill of Rights as if it were written in stone. There could be debates about this or that, laws made, changed, made again. Bills passed. Arguments examined. But we would always stop when we found ourselves riding up on the Bill of Rights. Any proposal that would break one of the first ten amendments would simply be met with a laugh and a shrug. Welp, we can’t do that, so we may as well think of something else.
If that was the case, we could finally have a real, honest conversation about gun violence. The ever-present threat of fascism would be gone. No one would ever have to spend a moment worrying about where the slippery slope would end. We would know exactly where it ended. At a clear, concise, four word phrase:
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Then we could relax while the president pontificated on gun violence. While he argued against a culture that celebrates guns as an extension of manhood, particularly in the inner city. While he talked about solutions. I believe that if that were the climate, we could go a long way towards solving the homicide rate in as little as a year.
But that’s not the climate. As Obama said Friday, arguing for expanded background checks, “It is not violating anybody’s rights that if you want to purchase a gun, it should be at least your responsibility to get a background check so we know you were not a violent felon or that you don’t currently have a restraining order on you because you committed domestic abuse.”
The mere fact that he has to qualify his argument with an assurance that it’s not violating anybody’s rights is proof that we can never be sure. And it’s because of this earned mistrust that we should wait until we have a pro-gun president before we listen to another word about stricter firearms laws.