As surely as night follows day, a crime like the mass killing in Florida on Wednesday brings out the liberal opportunists.
In the case of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, though, they didn’t even wait for nightfall, as the unseemly calls on social media for more gun control started literally within minutes of the news breaking.
But in an interview Thursday morning with Fox News host Bill Hemmer, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy had one statement that should stop the gun grabbers in their tracks.
“If you can show me a law that will prevent the next mass killing, go ahead and sign me up for it,” he said.
And that’s the brutal reality that the rabidly anti-gun left refuses to accept.
Check out the interview here:
There are too many questions now about the Florida shooting to draw the kind of sound conclusions needed for a serious discussion about changing laws.
No one knows, for instance, what motivated the suspect, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, to apparently go on a murderous rampage that left 17 dead on the campus of a school he used to attend.
According to an NBC report, he purchased the gun at a “federally licensed gun store in Broward County,” where the shooting took place.
Gun control proponents would love, no doubt, to seize on that fact to demand exactly the kind of gun criminalization and confiscation Australia embarked on after a mass shooting more than 20 years ago.
But they’d be flying the face of the United States Constitution, which literally, in black-letter law, guarantees the right of the people to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That doesn’t mean unfettered access to arms like machine guns, because no right is absolute in a country of ordered liberty. (The freedom of the press cannot be abridged, for instance, but that doesn’t mean there are not laws against libel.)
What it does mean is that the federal government is severely constrained in how far it can go in limiting the rights it exists to defend. And that brings the discussion to Gowdy’s question.
Assuming the NBC report is correct and Cruz purchased the gun legally, there’s the question of how many other people have purchased guns from that exact same “federally licensed gun store” and have not committed mass murder.
Yet the gun-criminalization and confiscation gang would seize firearms from all, for the sake of one?
Most liberals and Democrats would deny that was their goal, but even if the most shameless – or honest – of the gun grabbers were to respond enthusiastically to the idea, that again brings up the question of motive.
As yet, no one publicly knows what spurred this killing rampage. So no one knows what methods the killer could have employed had a firearm not been available.
It bears repeating, again and again and again, that in the worst school murder in United States history, the weapon was not a firearm or firearms, but a massive amount of explosives planted by a seemingly sane member of the local school board in Bath, Michigan, in 1927.
Before entering Congress, Gowdy built a reputation as a pit bull federal prosecutor. On Capitol Hill, his interrogations of reluctant, or truth-averse witnesses testifying to Congress are legendary.
So the man chooses his words carefully.
His statement to Hemmer was any law that could “prevent the next killing” deserved support. He did not say “prevent the next mass shooting.”
No law can truly stop the evil that exists in the human heart. And crafting laws designed to try, while abridging the constitutionally guaranteed liberties of the rest of the country, is not only wrong-headed, it’s doomed for failure.
Like and share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you agree.
What do you think the liberals will do with this school shooting story? Scroll down to comment below!