(Editor’s Note: We cherish our American First Amendment freedoms, so that our citizens may be proud of and have wide latitude in their views. That’s why we publish GwinnettForum. However, while we print ideas such as this, we do not always subscribe to the views of those writing.—eeb)
By Debra Houston
JULY 6, 2016 | Following the radical Islamist attack on a nightclub in Orlando that killed 49 people, I wondered how the president might respond. He answered in typical fashion, switching the subject from terrorism to gun control. Forget the fact that not a single shot was fired on 9/11 when some 3,000 Americans died.
In his usual lecturing format, he called for a sober approach going forward, adequate time for an investigation, and an atmosphere of political correctness. We should not call the shooter a “Radical Islamist.”
Oops.
If you call a “sit-in” on the House of Representatives floor an exercise in sobriety, then you’ve forgotten how weird the Democrats behave when they need to change the political narrative for their president.
Representative John Lewis, civil rights royalty in my book, initiated the sit-in on June 22. Dozens of fellow Democrats plopped down beside him, protesting the refusal of Republicans to allow a vote on an anti-gun bill the Senate had already killed. The Dems banked on the idea that Americans are too stupid to understand that you don’t vote on dead bills.
Democrats are big on symbolism when that’s all they have to offer. So they orchestrated a 60s-style civil rights sit-in. The only civil rights connection I found was a threat to our Second Amendment right to bear arms. The ‘60s sit-ins were about giving people rights; the 2016 sit-in was about taking away rights. In case you haven’t noticed, Democrats are not fond of the Second Amendment.
When the sitters began to sing, “We Shall Overcome,” I felt embarrassed for Congressman Lewis. How could he dishonor the civil rights movement he fought so hard for by using it as a cheap political ploy? How could he allow Representative Nancy Pelosi to turn it into a Democratic fundraising campaign? That’s why I wish my heroes would refrain from running for political office.
The nonsense didn’t end there. Congressman Charlie Rangel told reporters, “Law abiding citizens shouldn’t have to carry a gun.” Yes, congressman, and if terrorists were butterflies, we wouldn’t need to. A Daily Caller reporter pointed out that armed police protect Rangel and his colleagues every day. “Well, that’s a little different,” he said. “I think we deserve — I think we need to be protected down here.”
I think we all deserve protection. I relish the day when citizens turn the tables and terrorists die in a hail of bullets flying straight at them.
Follow Us