Categories

Gabby Giffords’ NYTimes op-ed is disheartening because it’s based mostly on emotional blackmail. Here’s a perfect example of her emotional blackmail:

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

Thankfully, Charles Krauthammer’s reply puts things in proper perspective :

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The question is: Would it have had any effect on Newtown? If you’re going to make all these emotional appeals — he’s saying you’re betraying the families — you’ve got to show how if this had been law it would’ve stopped Newtown. It would not have. It’s irrelevant.

I wouldn’t have objected, I might’ve gone the way of McCain or Toomey on this, but it’s a kind of emotional blackmail as a way of saying, ‘You have to do it for the children.’ Not if there’s no logic in this. And that I think is what’s wrong with the demagoguery that we’ve heard out of the president on this issue. (Special Report, April 17, 2013)

The Manchin-Toomey Amendment wouldn’t have prevented the tragic shootings in Newtown, CT or Aurora, CO. The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was the last part of President Obama’s sweeping gun control legislation still left standing.

The rest of the Obama-Feinstein bill went up in flames because people noticed that the Obama-Feinstein bill wouldn’t have prevented these shootings. For once, the American people insisted on genuine solutions to real problems. They rejected the Democrats’ surely-we-must-do-something legislating style.

The American people said that we don’t have to do something if it isn’t a solution. Doing something for the sake of doing something is mostly about people feeling guilty.

Here’s more from Ms. Giffords’ diatribe:

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

Expanded background checks wouldn’t have prevented Newtown. It wouldn’t have prevented the Tuscon shooting. Both shooters, Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner, had mental health issues.

Rather than focusing on mental health issues, the gun confiscation crowd focused on confiscating guns:

The governor then laid out several ideas for how the state would enforce stricter laws on those so-called “assault” weapons: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” he said.

Dianne Feinstein attempted to use the same emotional blackmail in justifying her legislation. Thankfully, Sen. Cruz, (R-TX), stopped that emotional blackmail dead in its tracks. Sen. Feinstein attempted to justify her gun confiscation legislation by talking about seeing a mayor shot down.

Horrific events don’t give people permission to ignore the Bill of Rights. Apparently, Sen. Feinstein and Ms. Giffords don’t agree with that principle. Their approach is to ignore the Constitution that they took an oath to uphold. Finally, this is disgusting:

Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo, desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation, to go on.

Shame on Ms. Giffords. The “gun lobby” that she’s decrying are mostly made up of ordinary citizens paying $35 a year for membership. These aren’t high-powered K Street lobbyists. They’re your neighbors and co-workers.

As for “the wrong these senators have done,” they voted against an amendment that wouldn’t have solved any problems. God help us if we think voting no on amendments that don’t solve problems is a wrong that needs correcting.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Gabby Giffords NYTimes op-ed: emotional blackmail”

  • Jethro says:

    Great post! What happened to Gabby was horrible however these new gun laws are a feel good solution that would not have stopped her assailant. Attacking law abiding gun owners is not a solution…it is a problem.

  • walter hanson says:

    You know I will like some liberal to respond to a couple of things:

    One, the shooter in CO didn’t pick the nearest movie theater. Even though he was wearing combat gear to lessen damage from gunfire he went to the nearest movie theater that displayed no gun zone? You do realize that a sign for no guns is a magnet to these things?

    Two, won’t it have been great at Sandy Hook if one or more of the teachers that had time to hide students was carrying a gun. They could have fired one clip at the shooter thus helping create time for students and teachers to escape (thus keeping the killed to less than 26) while police came? Who knows a good shoot might have killed or wounded the mad man in the process?

    In other words isn’t the best remedy allow gun owners to carry their guns because that will scare of potential killers?

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Chad Q says:

    If Ms. Gifford is trying to keep children safe, then why is she not in favor of placing armed guards in schools or arming teachers? Is/was Ms. Gifford’s just as furious when Obamacare was rammed down our throats or when billions of dollars was wasted on green energy? Is Ms. Gifford’s furious that the true unemployment rate is still above 8% and 50 million people are on food stamps? See, these are the things real Americans are concerned with according to the Gallup poll.
    No bill the liberals introduced would have stopped Aurora, Newton, or even Columbine because those guns were either lawfully obtained or they were taken from law abiding citizens. Also, criminals don’t follow the law.
    I feel sorry for the people who died or were injured but their death or injury does not mean that my rights should be limited. We can’t keep legislating to the lowest common denominator.

  • walter hanson says:

    Chad:

    You forgot to mention why isn’t she outraged that the victims of Fort Hood can’t be called victims of a terrorist act. After all that was only work place violence. Did Obama propose any new gun laws after that?

    Um wasn’t Sandy Hook work place violence?

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Frank Jett says:

    You truly are a heart scumbag.

  • Frank Jett says:

    You truly are heartless.

  • Frank Jett says:

    I replied that you are heartless, and I received a response that my comment is awaiting “moderation.” In other words, you only accept comments they paint you in a favorable light. Interesting.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Actually, Frank, WordPress sometimes requires me to approve or disapprove comments. For what reason, I don’t know. But it happens. FYI- When you posted your comments, I wasn’t by my computer. Calling me heartless because I criticized Gabby Giffords’ NYTimes op-ed is a typical liberal tactic. You didn’t like my post. I get that. Then you didn’t bother putting together a calm, rational response. I get that, too.

    Here’s another FYI- Here at LFR, I’m committed to finding solutions, not just tormenting liberals. Deal with it.

Leave a Reply