We may have won the last battle to keep the Federal government from enacting their first round of gun control but the fight is far from over. Now that the gun grabbers learned that they cannot ram their plans down our throats, according to inside information, they will begin a slow and steady process of cramming it from behind through piecemeal legislation attached to unrelated bills.

We are preparing to launch a new round of counter attacks against these attempts beginning with a new video to open the eyes of voters to the real issue at stake, self protection. Our first video is in production and should be ready next week. The ad uses the all too real scenario of a grandmother watching her grandchildren when an intruder breaks into the house. Hiding in a closet, we emphasize that the average response time for police is 11 minutes. Without a means to defend her family, this situation usually ends in tragedy.

It’s time to take the gloves off and start countering the lies of those who think we are better off without a means of self protection. The failed legislation “conveniently” included an exemption from the law for government officials sending the very real message that while our lives are expendable, their lives must be protected so they can continue to do their work. The hypocrisy is stunning but this is what we have come to expect from the elite class of politicians for whom everyone is expendable so long as it benefits them.

You will be the first to see the new video and we will encourage your comments and recommendations for future ads. We are going to intentionally make the videos uncomfortable because that is the only way we can make people stop and think. Do you really want to end up in a situation where you cannot defend yourself because someone in Washington DC decided you should not be allowed to?

If you have lost faith in government’s ability to do the right thing, you are part of an ever growing majority. We will never be able to open everyone’s eyes but thankfully, we don’t have to. We just need to wake up a few percent of voters who previously were not looking at all the facts.

To move this campaign forward we need your help. We have already covered the initial production but we need to raise $10,000 more this week if we are going to get these ads in front of people. Small donations go a long way when pooled together so whatever you can afford will help. The more we can raise, the farther the reach will be. Please help with a contribution -HERE-

The remaining Boston bomber suspect has been captured. The evidence is pretty damning and the case to prove his guilt should prove easy enough. However, while I am relieved that this madman has been captured without further bloodshed, talks from Capitol Hill have me startled.

RINO Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed not Mirandizing the suspect, but has, instead, suggested that he be held as an enemy combatant.

As the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving bomber suspect, continued, Graham tweeted several calls for treating Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant:

If captured, I hope Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) April 19, 2013

If the #Boston suspect has ties to overseas terror organizations he could be treasure trove ofinformation.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) April 19, 2013

The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to “remain silent.”

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) April 19, 2013

The Obama Administration needs to be contemplating these issues and should not rush into a bad decision.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) April 19, 2013

Graham is absolutely right that we should hope for a very talkative Tsarnaev. I sincerely hope that the terror suspect is able to outline Al Qaeda operations within the U.S. However, Graham is sincerely misguided in his cherry-picking approach to justice.

The problem is that Tsarnaev is an American citizen. The rights of due process exist and apply to even citizens who commit heinous acts and are very likely guilty. Enemy combatant status has been applied to foreign nationals and members of a foreign military engaged in warfare with the United States. While America does need to recognize that the rights of an American criminal do not apply to an Al Qaeda terrorist captured in Afghanistan, we cannot be selective in cherry-picking what U.S. citizens do and do not get the protections outlined in the 5^th, 6^th and 14^th Amendments.

Graham has been playing fast-and-loose with bedrock Constitutional principles. He opposed Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster that protested the President’s assertion that he could use drones to kill American citizens without due process if he felt it was warranted. Now, he is pushing for us to tweak the rules just a bit. While that may be satisfying, it is an undermining of the process for which greater generations have fought and died.

It is not the rights of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that we must fight to defend; it is the process of justice for which we must be willing to fight.

Our nation is a Republic; in a Republic the rule of law, not public sentiment, is supreme. We maintain a constitutional protection of due process not because it’s easy, but because it acts as a safeguard against a government that continually gets more and more comfortable with challenging our rights as citizens. If we accept that due process does not apply to American citizens than we endanger the entirety of the Bill of Rights.

Enjoy your brief respite… Because tomorrow, the battle for our freedoms begins anew.

Gun-grabbers don’t stop. Sure, they get winded and they move on to other things for months or even years at a time. But it is only the truly naïve that believe that this is the last we have heard of efforts to curtail our freedoms.

Reid had to bend to certain political realities on Thursday when he dropped the anti-gun rights legislation calling for universal background checks. Despite the fear-mongering and the despicable, exploitative calls of “Do it for the children,” the Democrats were dealt a humiliating defeat.

Effort in Washington D.C. is finite. Politicians cannot push for every single issue about which they care, so legislators need to move together. The Democrats have wasted a tremendous amount of political capital tilting at this windmill of gun control and their footing is weaker as a result.

America spoke. After the initial surge of anti-gun hysteria in the wake of the horrible shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Americans saw gun control as less and less important. In fact, this week, in a Gallup Poll, only 4% claimed that enacting gun control was the most important political issue.

President Obama banged the war drums and tried to rally support for the fading cause du jour, but to little avail. As his legislative agenda became less and less popular, he tried grandiose tours to revitalize the unconstitutional cause. When that didn’t work, he began the shame-game and dragged poor, bereaved mothers and fathers around the country as he lectured America about our duty ti relinquish our rights for the sake of the children at Newtown.

And it didn’t work.

In the Legislative Branch, Democrats tried to keep the ship afloat. Sensing the harsh political realities, Reid dropped Feinstein’s “assault weapons” ban and offered it as an amendment. Democrats approached Tom Coburn to help craft a bipartisan anti-gun bill, but Coburn removed himself from the politically risky venture.

Democrats received a blessing when Pat Toomey, wishing to betray his conservative leanings, offered an amendment with Democrat Joe Manchin. The Democrats were ecstatic as the “compromise” would, at last, allow the Democrats to tell their liberal constituents that they had, indeed, accomplished even a minor victory.

And it didn’t work.

So, on Thursday, on the heels of Obama’s epic temper-tantrum, Reid solemnly took the anti-gun legislation off the table, claiming they would, “take a pause and freeze the background check bill where it is.”

Reid also claimed, “… we should make no mistake: This debate is not over, in fact this fight is just beginning.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed that new anti-gun measures were “inevitable.”

That’s why Americans need to remain on guard. Liberals are resilient and they possess a strong determination to transform America and we would be unwise to count these efforts as down and out completely.

We need to advance our cause and push for freedom not only when our back is to the wall, but always seek to shelter our rights. Though it is satisfying to watch the left’s defeat, we must remember that they will be back.

A visibly-annoyed President Obama addressed the country shortly after the Senate rejected the Toomey-Manchin Amendment that called for an increase in background checks. In his short, testy speech, Obama raged against the vile, evil Republicans who worked against the Amendment that “respected the rights of gun owners.”

There’s a German word, Schadenfreude, which describes the pleasure one feels when seeing another displeased. I’ll admit, the palpable rage the President spewed out with his televised hissy-fit gave me a good chuckle. In this zero-sum game for gun rights, the victory for those who respect the Second Amendment came at the expense of those who seek to destroy it.

Continuing the shameful campaign of dragging around bereaved human props, Obama spoke to America about his disappointment while surrounded by family members of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting and former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

As Obama discussed the efforts of Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin, he noted,

“As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.”

I can honestly claim that even a smaller infringement is still an infringement. When we look at the Second Amendment, I will happily oblige infringements of our right to bear arms if any gun-grabber can point to the part in the phrasing that claims, “…But some infringements are okay.”

I honestly don’t understand what is so difficult about the 27 words that make up the Second Amendment. We’re not having this debate; Gun owners are not obliged to accept what Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein or anybody else feels is a “reasonable” infringement on the already-guaranteed right.

Obama continued with his rant:

“In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of ‘big brother’ gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter”

As a rule of thumb, if any gun-grabber insists that they were just instituting a small, harmless provision, that’s when one ought to be on high-alert.

It’s galling to see a man lie and, with his very next breath, accuse his opponent of lying. Obama has been sounding the alarm, pressuring everyone who will listen with his “90%” myth that amounts to political peer pressure. Not only is 90% a fabrication based around manipulative partisan polling practices, but even if 90% supported universal background checks, the fact remains that we are a Republic governed by laws and a process to amend those laws. If 90% said the First Amendment was outdated and irrelevant, until an amendment passed repealing it, we would still abide by the First Amendment protections.

That’s what makes a Republic different from a Democracy. 90% can say something. It’s the law that makes it legitimate.

Finally, Obama addressed his exploitation of victims, saying,

“I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. ‘A prop,’ somebody called them. ‘Emotional blackmail,’ some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.”

Now that’s a politician. Obama has used and exploited these poor people for months and after being dealt a humiliating blow, he now has tried to assume the moral high-ground. Addressing the victims’ families would have have been one thing, but this sorry excuse for a human being has been dragging these people around the country for months and protecting himself from political fallout with bereaved human shields. And after all that, he concludes that this was a shameful day for Washington?

This war for the defense of our liberties if far from over; but let’s take a moment and remember that we won a victory yesterday.

Yes- the Master Sgt. was arrested because he “rudely displayed” a firearm. I must have missed that part of the Second Amendment or any of the Supreme Court rulings that affirmed disarmament if the firearm was “rudely displayed.”

Grisham and his teenage son were on a ten-mile hike to earn a Boy Scout merit badge when the police officer stopped them. Grisham carried an AR-15 and a .45 pistol for which Grisham had a concealed carry permit. Grisham recounts,

“At about the 5 mile mark of our hike, a voice behind us asked us to stop and the officer motioned for us to approach him. He got out of his car and met us a few feet later. He asked us what we were doing and I explained that we were hiking for my son’s merit badge. He then asked me what I’m doing with the rifle, to which I responded in a calm manner, ‘Does it matter, officer? Am I breaking the law?’

At that point, the officer grabbed my rifle without warning or indication. He didn’t ask for my rifle and he didn’t suggest he would take it from me. He simply grabbed it. This startled me and I instantly pulled back – the rifle was attached to me – and I asked what he thought he was doing because he’s not taking my rifle. He then pulled his service pistol on me and told me to take my hands off the weapon and move to his car, which I complied with. He then slammed me into the hood of his car and I remembered I had a camera on me (one of the requirements of the hiking merit badge is to document your hikes)…Up to this point, I am not told why I am being stopped, why he tried to disarm me, or even that I’m under arrest.”

The footage shows Grisham handing off the camera to his son and the encounter is filmed.

“In this day and age people are alarmed when they see someone with what you have [a rifle],” one of the officers explains. “They don’t care what the law is.”

“Do ​you​ care what the law is?” Grisham said.

As he is handcuffed, Grisham continued to try and gain clarification as to why he was being arrested and why the officer had not asked him to drop his weapon instead of grabbing at it.

“I will not be in the habit of doing that for anybody with a firearm, because it’s dangerous,” one of the officers replies.

“So just because a guy’s got a firearm he’s dangerous?” Grisham responds.

“Yes sir,” the officer says.

Grisham, who says that he has taught his son to respect police officers, says at one point, “What a bad excuse you guys are showing for [the] police force.”

“Actually, it’s a bad excuse as a dad,” one of the officers replies.

Grisham was charged with resisting arrest, though the footage shows Grisham complied, albeit with visible outrage. His charge was reduced to interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty, but Grisham still claims he’s “confused” about what he’s been charged with.

Texas allows for the open carrying of long guns as long as they are not carried in a manner “calculated to cause alarm,” such as waiving it around or pointing it at people. A rifle slung downward with the barrel pointed towards the ground cannot be considered threatening.

The officer took Grisham’s son, Chris, home. However, Chris claims, “The officer told me that I wasn’t getting out of the patrol car until I answered his questions. He said I didn’t have a choice. I was scared.”

I certainly do my best to understand the dangers that face police officers. This story is not meant to disparage police officers for whom I have the utmost respect; it serves as a reminder that the prevailing narrative in America is that guns are bad and those that have them are bad. The officer was right to be careful but wrong to treat an armed citizen as a criminal for the mere fact of possessing a firearm.

Sometimes, it is easy to not see the forest through the trees. Our battle against statists and gun-grabbers is not about repelling the seemingly endless assault on our Constitutional protections; our goal needs to be bigger than that.

We need to remind America that gun ownership is not a sign of deviousness, a cause for suspicion. We must be willing to assert our rights. If we don’t we can only suffer a continual retreat slowed by occasional victories.

We cannot tailor our focus to winning the fight against a universal background check. We need to set an example and let America know that guns are tools that are not, inherently, bad. Those who possess guns are not bad and are not suspicious purely on that fact alone. And most importantly, we need to craft the narrative that we are the ones exercising our guaranteed rights; if someone has a problem with that, they’re the problem, not us.

First and foremost, this is a tragedy. The carnage is gruesome and it is sickening to me that someone would do this. I sincerely hope and pray for the victims of Boston’s bombing.

I do not intend to speculate wildly as the leftist media seems all-too-willing to do. Before anybody could get a grasp on a vague outline of the facts, journalist hacks pounced on the chaos and disgustingly tried to push the narrative in a passive-aggressive manner that this was the work of right-wing extremists.

Chris Matthew pounced and jumped to proclaim, “Normally domestic terrorists, people, tend to be on the far right.”

Sure, it’s possible that this was the work of a right-wing nutcase. But it is the irresponsible pushing of a politically-convenient narrative with which I have a serious problem. This could be an apolitical whackjob; it could be Al Qaeda or it could be a rightwinger. It could be a lot of things and Matthews’ giddiness to assign blame under the guise of speculation is pathetic.

On a side note, Matthews’ hero, King Barack I, regularly associates with domestic terrorists who were active in the bombing of public buildings. If Matthews feels the absolute need to illogically flail about and lob accusations, he might do well to remember Bill Ayers and the radical left’s history and fondness for bombings.

Esquire’s Charles Pierce reminded people that we don’t know anything yet. But then Pierce quickly changed gears and said that though we don’t know anything, we might want to start blaming the right:

“Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.”

If you begin the statement, “Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but…” just stop writing and recognize the absurdity of finishing that statement.

A quick Wikipedia search also revealed that April 15^th was also the 101^st anniversary of the Titanic sinking and was also the 148^th anniversary of the death of Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps the bomber was protesting unsafe seafaring measures or is a southerner, still upset over the Civil War!

Or, maybe we should stop drawing baseless conclusions from precious little information…

It is this increasingly-obvious leftist political agenda that is killing the mainstream media. Commentary is fine but they need to be based off of some semblance of fact.

It’s getting out-of-hand. In the immediate aftermath of the Aurora shooting, ABC’s Brian Ross, a national journalist who ought to know better, was so eager to smear the Tea Party that he speculated to his audience that James Holmes, the shooter, might be in the Tea Party. His basis for that speculation? He looked up James Holmes on an Aurora Tea Party website and speculated that the Jim Holmes might be the shooter.

Without a modicum of facts, Ross slandered a man because he wanted to get the jump on smearing the Tea Party.

Nobody likes to repeat the same things over and over again on live television. But saying, “Details are still emerging,” is significantly more responsible than saying, “I don’t know any of the facts, but I will go ahead and guess based on my political viewpoints…”

One thing is for certain: Through all of these rampant accusations and speculations, at no point will we hear the words, “I guess we were wrong. The cause of violence is not guns, but evil intent.”

We have all heard the phrase, “The Second Amendment protects the first.” It’s an overly-used phrase that is remarkably poignant in its brevity. Without the Second Amendment and the armed population it ensures, the rest of the rights enumerated are up for grabs. Whether it is a Constitutional right or a human being, it is the underlying threat of resistance that keeps trouble at bay.

That’s why it’s so galling to hear ignorant liberals spout anti-Second Amendment nonsense while cloaked in the protection that the Second Amendment provides.

On Friday, professional liberal loudmouth Bill Maher claimed that the left needs to finally admit that the Second Amendment is “bullshit.”

This is what we’re up against…

Maher discussed anti-gun rights issues with fellow liberal hack Bob Costas, former Budget Director for Ronald Reagan’s Administration David Stockman and Democratic Strategist Stephanie Cutter who is also prone to saying stupid, ill-considered things and is most famous for promoting Obama ads about Bain Capital that all but accused Mitt Romney of murdering a man’s wife.

Maher then spouted off,

“This is the problem with the gun debate is that it’s a constant center-right debate. There’s no left in this debate. Everyone on the left is so afraid to say what should be said which is the Second Amendment is bulls­­hit. Why doesn’t anyone go at the core of it?”

Differences of opinions are fine. Maher, for whom I have the utmost contempt, should feel free to say whatever moronic thing that pops into his head. It’s America; he’s welcome to his First Amendment protections.

However, what is deeply ironic is that while he utilizes the First Amendment protections to spout his nonsense from his Constitutionally-protected bullypulpit each night, he does so because the Second Amendment allows him to.

America has endured would-be despots who would have crushed Constitutional rights without the omnipresent threat of an armed resistance. Hell, we’re in the midst of one right now. What has kept tyranny at bay is the underlying promise that Americans will not be disarmed.

So, no, the Second Amendment is anything but “bullshit.” While the rest of our enumerated rights are the bark, the Second Amendment is the bite; it is the underlying promise that if crossed, a dog will bite that keeps intruders away.

I am still amazed that a sitting Vice President could tell a predominantly black college that Republicans were “gonna put y’all back in chains,” and the media coyly said, “Oh, Joe…”

Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States, declared on Wednesday that too many gun owners own guns simply because they “like the way it feels.” For an interview for MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” the man who is tasked with finding efficient methods of curbing gun violence claimed,

“There is a whole new sort of group of individuals now that never hunt at all… But they own guns for one of two reasons — self-protection, or they just like the feel of that AR-15 at the range… They like the way it feels. It’s like driving a Ferrari, you know. And so my impression is there’s not the same sort of cultural norm about gun ownership with a lot of people who are buying guns now.”

What?!

I feel we should get something cleared up: The Second Amendment is not a hunting consideration. It does not protect only Joe’s beloved double-barrel shotguns; it protects arms. It protects muskets, handguns, shotguns, rifles- and yes- even those scary looking rifles that resemble rifles used by the military.

So, whether someone hunts or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the government should have an interest in protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

This kind of asinine rhetoric is precisely the kind of rhetoric we must work against. The question in this “gun debate” has been, “Why do you need an AR-15?” Answering such a question presupposes that the burden is upon the lawful gun owner to defend his decisions when the right to keep and bear arms has been constitutionally-guaranteed for over two hundred years.

When Biden tries to devolve the discussion into a debate over who needs what and why, he glosses over the issue entirely. It’s like saying, “The majority of Americans use their cell phones for idle chit-chat and that’s unimportant. So the First Amendment protections should only apply to those who have demonstrated an actual, state-approved need for unrestricted speech.”

The right to keep and bear arms is not open for debate. The issue was settled long ago and we who love freedom must not allow the highground in this discussion to be seized by people who pervert the narrative. The answer to a question of, “Why do you need that?” Can only be a firm and declarative answer that refuses to yield the discussion to their terms. “Why do I need a gun? It’s like asking me why I won’t quarter soldiers in my home. Please see the Bill of Rights for all the explanation you’re going to get.”

For that, people have wondered if we’re crazy. “Come on, do you really foresee some kind of gun confiscation?” Yes, we do. It turns out that we were right.

Confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms is occurring. Citizens in New York State are having their firearm permits and firearms confiscated by officials under the pretense of public safety.

Citizens of the Empire State who have been prescribed psychotropic drugs are having their rights and their means of protection stripped away. Drugs that treat depression, anxiety or various mild mood conditions are prescribed to many people and regardless of the absence of suicidal thoughts or any serious indicators, officials have begun to write patients in several New York counties, demanding that they surrender their licenses, firearms and any firearm accessories.

The nature of this confiscation has been kept pretty quiet, as most mass nefarious governmental deeds often are. It’s been reported that the government is comparing confidential medical records with lists of licensed gun owners, a massive violation of HIPAA practices.

If this is true, even a legal layman can identify the obvious 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th amendment violations.

The NY SAFE Law outlines their intentions:

The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

This issue came to a head as a New York man who has exhibited no signs of danger to himself or others was told to surrender his weapons. According to the Blaze,

On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.

Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.

The Second Amendment claims that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” This right has been affirmed as an individual right in Heller. In McDonald V. Chicago, the individual right in the Second Amendment was affirmed as extending to the states.

With this gun confiscation in effect, it will be interested to see anyone try and explain how the uninfringeable right to individual firearm ownership is not being violated when someone not only must obtain a permit to exercise said right, but must also endure arbitrary roundups that require hearings and lawyers to see if the citizen will be allowed to exercise their right.

So why are we so adamant about resisting unconstitutional gun laws? Because we have reached a point where the state is literally confiscating legally-owned firearms from citizens who they do not want to see armed.

It is as alarming as it is disgusting.

The next day, families were struck by tragedy as a lunatic went on a stabbing rampage at the Lone Star Community College in Cypruss, Texas, stabbing 14 people.

Obama and other gun-grabbers have been silent. There have been no demands by liberals to pass knife control legislation; there have been no calls to stop the violence by putting an end to people obtaining sharp things.

I guess all that talk about “owing it” to the victims of violence was all bull. As if we didn’t already know, it appears that the conspicuous absence of concern over the carnage wrought by a knife only further illustrates that liberals don’t care about stopping violence; they care about grabbing guns.

Let’s take a moment and consider the reaction America would hear if the knife-wielding nutjob were actually a gun-wielding nutjob. The “national conversation” just prior to the Senate’s consideration of anti-gun legislation would revolve around the question, “Are you happy now, conservatives?” The left would wildly speculate that without unconstitutional gun laws, such carnage would continue. The leftist media would connect the dots for the viewers, boldly claiming that gun control is a moral imperative.

But the attack of 14 students on a campus that prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons is not news.

Let’s address the absurdity of gun control laws by applying the left’s rhetoric to this recent tragedy. Why are we not hearing from Piers Morgan that, “Nobody needs an ‘assault knife’ like a sword.”? Why are we not hearing from President Obama or Dianne Feinstein, “We need to ban dangerous military-style assault knives like the Swiss Army Knife.  As the name suggests, weapons of the military have no place on our streets!”?

The reason we are not hearing calls for knife control is because it would be ridiculous. Of course restricting knife ownership does nothing to deter the ability to obtain one, nor would any such laws do anything to deter a rampage of a madman.

But guns are a different story. That’s because this “national discussion” over “common sense” gun measures is not rooted in an authentic desire to save lives; the call for gun control is more about control than guns.

The opportunistic vultures on the left are truly nauseating in their willingness to exploit tragedy to further their goals of eroding the Second Amendment. Like Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Perhaps now is the time to promote some national discussions. Let’s discuss the breaking down of social pillars that have led to a moral decay in society. Let’s discuss mental health issues and the moral relativism that enables heinousness.  And while we’re at it, let’s discuss the possibility that just one concealed-carry permit holder on the Lone Star campus could have saved lives while illustrating to the attacker the meaning found in the old phrase, “Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.”