In an open letter to Obama in response to the latter’s exploitation of Newtown to advance an attack on our right to bear arms, Columbine survivor Evan Todd asks the essential question: “Whose side are you on?” Below are excerpts from the letter, via The Blaze:
Regarding universal background checks, even for private sales:
If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt.
I doubt that was a winning argument with the most profligate spender in human history.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation.
I doubt that was a winning argument either; universal confiscation is the obvious ultimate objective for Obama et al.
Regarding a ban on guns that superficially resemble assault rifles:
It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Regarding a 10-round limit for magazines:
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Todd asks the key question:
Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Not ours, obviously. That has been Obama’s appeal from the beginning. A political neophyte with no real qualifications and an alarming personal history did not get elected only a few years after 9/11 despite having a name like a terrorist, but because he has a name like a terrorist. At every turn he has sided against America, its allies, and law abiding citizens and in favor of our enemies, tyrants, and criminals. This is why the liberals worship him.
Todd answers his own question with another question:
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
The Obama Regime sides with criminals because it is comprised of criminals.
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Todd has answered his own question, all right.
On a tip from Sam Adams.