In microcosm, liberals simply adore causing problems, then proposing government solutions to the same problems
Treat the Disease, Not the Symptoms
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
At the outset of the furor surrounding the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut last week, many individuals of good conscience chimed in with the refrain that we ought not politicize this horror, using it to advance any agenda.
While I find this commendable from a perspective of character, I would also assert that this is precisely why we are losing to the political left. Our side needs to wake up to the fact that if we aren’t willing to fight dirty, we will lose to an enemy that is willing to do so.
How many more innocents must die at the hands of an antiquated and oft-misinterpreted amendment? —SignOn.Org, Dec. 14, 2012
By mid-afternoon on Friday of last week, I had begun receiving emails from left-wing organizations to whose mailing lists I am subscribed (I hope for obvious reasons). Such outfits as Avaaz.Org, SignOn.Org, and a host of other organizations released lengthy epistles to galvanize the deluded masses into making gun control the paramount issue on the American social landscape.
These are not the efforts of civic-minded individuals who are concerned about Americans’ safety. These are communist organizers and their riled uber-liberal acolytes who, with funding through donations and socialist elites such as billionaire former Nazi collaborator George Soros, have been chipping away at every corner of America’s foundation.
These are so many factors which set those children in New England up to be massacred that there isn’t room to delve into them all here, but I do know this:
- The availability of guns in America is not the problem; both statistical and anecdotal evidence bear this out overwhelmingly, and
- the enthusiasm with which government has assailed aspects of the Second Amendment over the years through fearmongering and propaganda speaks to one which is intent upon compromising citizens’ ability to retain the power vested in us via the Constitution.
I also know there are measures that might be taken toward preventing such occurrences in the future, although I don’t expect the Obama administration to examine these any more closely than they did market solutions to health care costs and coverage for Americans.
For one thing, knee-jerk, emotionalized (and quite frankly, childish and stupid) solutions to gun crime such as “gun free” zones do nothing but place people in a position to be victimized by gun-wielding criminals. The notion that guns can actually be eradicated is one perpetuated by power-seeking politicians and their duped constituencies. Doing away with gun free zones would handily diminish the likelihood that a given venue might be chosen by such criminals. James Holmes, the Colorado theater shooter, expressly chose the theater in which he carried out his rampage out of almost a dozen others in the area because it was a posted “gun free zone.”
Then, there is the mental health issue. In both the cases of James Holmes and Connecticut gunman Adam Lanza, the record was replete with evidence that these men were mentally disturbed. This week, a friend of the Lanza family reportedly told news sources that his late mother, Nancy Lanza, was in the process of petitioning the court for conservatorship, and planned to have him committed. This would tend to suggest an existing concern for violent behavior, yet he was able to gain access to firearms which reportedly belonged to his mother.
Why are background checks involved in the purchase of firearms? To exclude those whose backgrounds indicate that their possession of same might present an undue public safety risk. Why do firearms owners with children lock up their guns? To keep them out of the hands of children who are not responsible enough to use them safely. Might these not be reasonable precautions to take with the mentally ill?
“Deinstitutionalization” of the mentally ill, championed by President John F. Kennedy, helped to revolutionize mental health care, but many of the reforms that came out of this have imperiled both the mentally ill and the public at large. Efforts to put an end to forced treatment gave rise to laws which put so many layers (and occasionally, lawyers) between the mentally ill and treatment that violent cases have the opportunity to act on their impulses long before action can be taken to aid or restrain them.
But these factors – like the increase in America’s divorce rate, teenage pregnancy and drug use, poverty among ethnic minorities, our declining competitiveness in academics and industry, – are merely symptoms. Americans need to realize that the vast majority of social malaise to which we are witnesses is a direct result of social policies which foster societal dysfunction and instability. And most of these damaging influences have come straight out of the liberal camp, which condemns virtue, elevates vice, promotes intellectual indolence, and wholly disregards notions of personal responsibility.
In microcosm, liberals simply adore causing problems, then proposing government solutions to the same problems. This is how they coalesce their power. It is no different in the aggregate; America’s overall decline is traceable to the same causes.