I consider it the height of hypocrisy for the Obama administration to blatantly pave the way for Iran to eventually get a nuclear weapon and still seek to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Such is the incoherent policy rationale of a liberal.

I’m going to attempt to make this as simple as I can, because apparently progressives cannot or will not think logically where gun control is concerned.

So here goes.

According to a study from the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, there are approximately 300 “relevant federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase or possession of guns” in the U.S.

Now, a 2008 CNSNews column written by Susan Jones on the issue, reports this study does not include a tally of local gun laws which would essentially bring the total to somewhere around 20,000! According to the column, Brookings didn’t include these because 40 states “preempt all or most local gun laws,” so they concluded there was no reason to include the local gun laws in the tally.

Here’s the fly in the buttermilk for short-sighted liberals: criminals don’t abide by the law!

So in the words of Hillary Clinton, “What difference at this point does it make?” What gun law or additional restriction will keep guns out of the hands of criminals or domestic terrorists!

In fact, a police officer friend of mine shared with me that when he runs the plates of a vehicle and it shows “concealed weapons permit,” he feels much better about the person being a law-abiding citizen.

Now there’s some common sense thinking.

A terrorist isn’t going to submit to a background check. A criminal isn’t going to register a weapon. An individual desirous of perpetrating a mass shooting isn’t going to abide by a magazine law. A radicalized domestic Islamic assassin isn’t going to go to a gun store to legally purchase an assault rifle.

Are you getting the picture?

However, a law-abiding citizen will willingly submit to a background check. They’ll have no problem registering their weapon. They’ll abide by a magazine law. And if they aren’t able to purchase an assault rifle legally, they won’t own one!

Any rational-minded person should be able to understand laws only restrict the law-abiding.

I’m amazed at the logic, or lack thereof, that progressives predictably spew following a horrific mass murder demanding additional gun laws for individuals who couldn’t care less about following them.

Now, what if a law-abiding citizen, properly trained in the use of a firearm, had been at most of these tragedies? We know murderers lean toward “soft” targets where the chance of a firearm being present is low.

And what if that individual got off one timely round, perhaps while the shooter re-loaded?

Lives would’ve been saved. It’s that simple. I can’t make it any clearer.

Just one final question for liberals.

Is it really saving lives that’s important to you, or is it propagating your liberal agenda?

If it’s lives, then it’s time for some common sense.

 

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.