- Page Two
- Photo Gallery
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Last week I wrote about Attorney General Eric Holder’s involvement in American voting rights and in Operation Fast and Furious. Additionally, we took a brief look at the contempt of Congress charge levied against Mr. Holder. This week we will look at one more issue our bold and fearless Attorney General has taken on and examine the truth (or perhaps untruth) behind the statements he made prior to being confirmed.
It seems every few months the gun control debate arises as a result of a public shooting or international conflict. Over the last few years, the debate has become as cyclical as elections. Earlier this month, Holder appeared before a House appropriations committee where he presented a request for $382.1 million in increased spending for so-called “gun safety” measures. (After 6 months of writing this column, we are finally tackling gun control!)
You will never guess what kind of outlandish proposal the AG in his infinite wisdom is offering. He wants “explore” the possibility of developing technology that uses fingerprint identification in order to fire a weapon. How exactly? Well, the AG says “the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear.” That’s right, Holder seems to think all gun users ought to wear a bracelet that communicate with the gun that you have permission to shoot it.
This comes in addition to the already ridiculous number of hoops prospective gun owners must jump through in order to legally purchase a gun. Folks, the Second Amendment states clear as day that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” President Obama has a law degree from Harvard and has taught Constitutional law at the collegiate level. Mr. Holder has a law degree from Columbia Law School. Both men, on paper, seem to be qualified to understand and interpret the Constitution, right? So the question must be asked, why are they so intent on such stringent gun control measures? “Shall not be infringed” is quickly becoming “Should not be infringed, but that is merely a suggestion.” The proof? Holder wants $382.1 million to see just how close he can get to infringing upon our Constitutional rights.
You may remember this quote from Holder in last week’s piece: “The Department of Justice will serve justice, not the fleeting interests of any political party.” Now, a quick search for the Democrats’ stance on gun control yields this result: “We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.”
I am certain that Mr. Holder would challenge my assertion that his obsession with expanding gun control in America is a “fleeting interest” of his party. Think about it, what exactly did Holder mean when he made such a bold statement five years ago? Has the Department of Justice become another arm of the Democratic Party with which it seeks to strangle American freedoms and enslave the populace to an overreaching and irresponsible government? The answer to that question may be quite frightening.