‘Whose Side Are You On?’
Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:
1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;
2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;
3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;
4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.
I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!
This is a Reblogged from WND.
Columbine Survivor Blasts Obama
President Obama says he wants to restrict Americans’ rights under the Second Amendment in order to “save lives,” but Evan Todd isn’t buying it.
Todd was one of the people injured in the infamous Columbine High School shootings, and in a recent open letter to President Obama, he pulled no punches.
“Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?” he demanded. “Whose side are you on?”
It’s a question many people have wondered about.
The shooting survivor stresses that under Obama’s proposals, law-abiding Americans would be put in danger by being restricted from owning certain weapons or having the amount of ammunition they can carry limited.
Todd points out that assault weapons bans have little effect on crime, and in particular he notes that the original federal weapons ban did nothing to protect him from being shot in 1999.
“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,” Todd wrote.
Todd takes particular exception to requiring universal background checks:
“A universal background check will … arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. … 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.
“… 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. … It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. … It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.”
He also didn’t mince any words about some of the shenanigans the Man Who Would Be King and his Administration have been up to.
“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?”
We could throw Benghazi into that question as well, since it appears the “consulate” was merely a front for CIA gun-running operations to Syria’s anti-government forces.
It takes a particularly strong self-delusion to pretend that any of the gun regulations proposed by Obama would stop something like a Newtown shooting, or that they have anything to do with genuinely making people safe.
If that were truly this Administration’s desire, as Todd points out, then Obama would be lifting restrictions on the law-abiding and making sure American citizens are able to defend themselves.