Do Pres. Obama and the Left really believe in the 2nd Amendment?

Sen.. Marco Rubio

It's a rarity when a politician will actually tell the truth, and that moment of unvarnished candor came a few days ago when Senator Marco Rubio was interviewed on Bill O'Reilly's Spin Factor. Marco Rubio said that President Obama "doesn't have the guts to admit that he doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment. What we never get from the Left is an honest debate."

Here was a moment of truth-telling such as we seldom hear.The Left will tell you they believe in the 2nd Amendment, but that if they can, they would find a way to confiscate all guns.The Left will never honestly state their positions because they know that they are so unpopular with the American public.

James Holmes, Aurora, CO.
shooter at movie theater.

Rubio went on to say, "....It was this horrible terrible tragedy in Connecticut, which by the way, all of us were outraged by, all of us were sad about, and all of us would want to never see that happen again. And by the admission of the White House, what they proposed would do nothing to have prevented what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado before that, or any of those other places where this occurred. The issue America faces is not guns; it's violence. I think the fundamental question is, 'What is happening in our culture and in our society that's leading to people committing these atrocities, whether it's mental illness or some other violent propensities that have come into our culture and into our society."

Jared Lee Loughner

If the problem is mental illness, what can we do to stop it? What obstacles are in the way of dealing with the mentally ill? The mentally ill have been given rights which protect them from us, but don't protect us from then. We can't protect them from themselves.

D.J. Jaffe of Mental Illness Policy Org. states  that the Federal Government could make a real difference by stopping the closure of public hospital psychiatric beds and making it easier to compel treatment. Our current standard requires violence in order to get care to someone who is too irrational to realize that he needs it.

Nothing in President Obama's proposals addresses the issue of mental illness and how to get them into treatment facilities, even long-term care so they do not pose a danger to themselves, their family members, or the rest of society.

Marco Rubio told Bill O'Reilly, "He (Obama) sees this as an opportunity to get some of these things done that he's wanted to do his entire political career. He's going to utilize every rhetorical device to get to that point. I actually think the President doesn't have the guts to admit it, that he is not a believer in the 2nd Amendment."

All Obama & Co. have given us are failed policies and failed laws regarding the mentally ill. Going after law-abiding gun-owners does not address the problem and instead, attacks the Constitution, freedom and liberty.

We don't know if Adam Lanza (the Newtown shooter) was mentally ill, or if a better system would've helped him. But we do know that somewhere there is another young male who is angry and violent, showing signs of mental illness and looking for the opportunity to get the world's attention  and his 15-minutes of fame from the news media through another mass shooting. We don't know what the venue will be, whether it's a shopping mall, a school, a movie theater, but it will happen. It's only a matter of time.

More Guns? Are you kidding me??

A few years ago while sitting at breakfast with the chief of police from my town of Londonderry, NH, I expressed concern over the fact that a home in my neighborhood had been recently burglarized. Now in our bedroom community of Londonderry, New Hampshire, any type of crime was a rarity. But, since I lived about 15-min. from the police station, I wanted to know what the police response time would have been if someone were trying to break into my home or threaten my family. Chief Ryan gave me a deadpan look like "Are you serious?" and then said in a matter-of-fact manner that the best that the Londonderry Police Dept. could do would be to show up to take a report. He went on to tell me that rather than trusting in my local police to protect me, I'd be better off purchasing a gun and learning how to use it. True story! Thank-you Chief Ryan for the wake-up call!

Since that time, when I hear people calling for the removal of guns from the hands of citizens--who do they think is going to protect them? These same elitist liberals will tell you to call 911 if you're being threatened, or if your house is being burglarized. But, if you live in a major metropolitan area with someone breaking into your home to rape you or even murder you, guess what? You would be dead before the police show up at your door. All they'll do is take a report and place a chalk mark outline where your body was found. The same can be said for a small bedroom community of 25,000 like Londonderry, New Hampshire.

Last Friday, immediately following the Century theater massacre by lone gunman, James Holmes, the nanny mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg (who will never allow a tragedy to go without being used to advance his political agenda) began calling for more gun-control laws. Now this is the same elitist mayor who wants to limit the size of sodas in NYC to 16 oz. or less. If we don't need guns, then I challenge Mayor Bloomberg to give up his security and make sure that his police detail no longer carry guns. Why should he have all this extra protection when he wants to deny every other American the same right?

Economist John R. Lott has written a book, "More Guns, Less Crime" where he makes a convincing argument that allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime. Lott presents data that armed citizens stop crimes. The more armed citizens you have, the lower your rate of violent crime -- criminals are stupid, but they're rational, and they don't want to get shot any more than you do.

John Lott writes: "Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves."

Virginia Tech students praying after the shooting rampage

Along with Aurora, Colorado, there is also the Virginia Tech massacre that occurred on April 16, 2007 where 33 people were killed in a deadly rampage by another lone gunman.

Here's what both the Virginia Tech shooting and the Aurora, Colorado shootings have in common. Both locations were "gun-free zones." No fire arms allowed, no concealed weapons allowed even with a permit. The problem with "gun-free zones" is that killers and other criminals could care less if Virginia Tech or the Century Theater in Aurora, Colorado is a gun-free zone or not.

At both tragedies: Virginia Tech and the Century Theater shootings--had students and movie-goers been allowed to carry concealed weapons, there would most likely have been far fewer people killed. Do you mean to tell me that if several movie patrons at the midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" had been packing concealed guns, that James Holmes would not have been taken out, and the death toll and number of injuries would have been greatly reduced? And when the deadliest campus massacre in the U.S. took place at Virginia Tech where 33 were killed and 16 were wounded, do you mean to tell me that if students and professors had been packing concealed weapons--that some student or professor would not have taken out the lone gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, and maybe far fewer individuals would have been killed or wounded?

So my contention is that we don't need fewer guns, we need to change local laws in every state so that more citizens can carry concealed weapons. If you don't agree, then next time you're in a situation where someone is pointing a gun at you and threatening your life, try calling 911 and see how that goes.