BY DENNIS BEHREANDT
Vice President Joe Biden has said that the Obama administration is going to take executive (read dictatorial) action to implement gun control.
“The president is going to act,” Biden said. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken.”
The justification for this impending evisceration of the Second Amendment? Quoth Biden: “If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”
Arguably, rather than saving lives, taking away guns will result in more death. Recently in Georgia, for example, 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater broke into a home causing the homeowner and her two children to take refuge in a crawl space. Slater allegedly found the family but was at that point confronted by the homeowner who by then was armed with .38 caliber handgun. She defended herself and her family, shooting the intruder several times, causing him to flee.
Donnie Herman, a grateful husband, praised his wife’s actions. “My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner,” he said.
In this case, a gun saved three lives. Applying Biden’s standard, since a gun was used to save multiple lives, then protecting the Second Amendment is an action very well worth taking.
But big government partisans like Biden, Obama, the vast majority of the Democratic Party and all too many Republicans aren’t actually interested in saving lives. They’re interested, instead, in growing the size and power of government and restricting the rights of citizens.
Consider deaths from abortion versus deaths from firearms homicides.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2009 there were 11,493 firearm homicides in the United States. By comparison, in the same year, according to the CDC, “784,507 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas.”
This number of abortions is hard to fathom. Lets put it into some perspective.
The population of Boston, Massachusetts is 625,087 and the population of Springfield, Massachusetts is 153,060. The total population of these two cities is 778,147. In other words, then, in 2009 abortion took the lives of more people than live in both Boston and Springfield, combined.
And this generational genocide continues year by year.
Based on these statistics, which public policy action, banning guns or banning abortion, will save more lives? Remember, saving just one is important, according to the Vice President.
Banning guns will take weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens who will thereafter be unable to defend themselves from criminals. Chances are this will lead to more crime, not less, as criminals will have a more docile population to prey upon. The end result will likely be more death by violent crime, rather than less.
By comparison, banning abortion will immediately save 500,000 to 1 million lives per year.
Do we hear Joe Biden, Barack Obama or any of the other Democrats concerned about “saving just one life” railing against the abortion genocide? Nope. Crickets. Or worse, they blather on about the supposed importance of protecting the “right” to kill children by aborting them.
The bottom line is that these big government apparatchiks support wiping out the equivalent populations of Boston and Springfield every year, while simultaneously working to eliminate the Second Amendment rights of all those Americans who managed to escape the abortionist.
Like tyrants everywhere, they are masters of rhetoric and propaganda, but in their policies they seek domination and death.
The Moral Liberal Associate Editor, Dennis Behreandt, is the Founder and Editor In Chief of the American Daily Herald. Mr. Behreandt has written hundreds of articles on subjects ranging from natural theology to history and from science and technology to philosophy. His research interests include the period of late antiquity in European history as well as Medieval and Renaissance history.