[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]As America, once again, takes sides on a gun “debate” that was decided 200+ years ago, political figures are weighing-in as the nation mourns the senseless slaughter of nine churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]President Obama was quick to pounce upon the political opportunity and claimed, insisting,
“We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” Obama said, joined by Vice President Biden. “But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.”
“It is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. At some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.”
However, despite Obama’s temper tantrums and the left’s insistence that less freedom will make us more safe, there remains one inescapable fact: no additional anti-gun law would have saved the people in Charleston.
To that point, on Friday, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott questioned Obama rhetorically and wondered,
“What type of gun law would have made this situation not occur?”
On Fox News’ “The Kelly File,” the black conservative Senator from South Carolina pushed-back against Obama’s rhetoric, asking the above question and noted that the shooter was already in violation of the law as he was a felon with a firearm.
“The laws were already broken. To suggest that there’s somehow a way for us to specifically stop this occurrence with gun legislation seems to be inconsistent with the facts as we know them on the ground.”
Scott is absolutely correct and his commitment to logic is laudable.
Though Obama appeared testy and frustrated by the lack of additional federal legislation to curtail our Second Amendment rights, those who understand the value and meaning of the Second Amendment are also frustrated at the continued assertion that more ignorable gun laws would prevent crime.
In reality, what stops a “bad guy with a gun” is and always will be “a good guy with a gun.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]