Robert J. Benz, a contributor for “The Huffington Post,” is talking to “concerned citizens” about the “outrageous levels of gun violence” in the U.S.
In his latest post, Benz asked a person named “Gabi” the following question, “In 2008, the year Obama won the presidency, there were 12.7 million background checks. In his last full year as president, 2016, there were 27.5 million. How many guns do we need? And, what is this really about?”
Gabi, who is clearly a lackey for a gun control organization, responded, in part, by saying, “Robert, thank you for focusing on this profoundly vexing American issue…To answer your question, I think the increase in gun sales is really about greed disguised in the Second Amendment arguments that all guns and the right to buy guns will be taken away…”
Robert summed it up as, “Ok, so, profits at the expense of lives. This is a familiar theme.”
It’s hard for me to unpack all the idiocy in this exchange, but I’ll try. Let me start with the notion that fear buying was unfounded during the Obama years. This is a common refrain amongst anti-gunners. No one wants to take your guns!
Really? Who the heck are they kidding? Anytime you have lawmakers like Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein shouting from the rooftops that we need to “dry up the supply” of widely popular and commonly owned firearms, you have to take the threat seriously. Not to mention the words that were coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
“The president and I agree with you,” wrote Joe Biden, Obama’s #2, in response to a 2016 White House Petition asking for a ban on black rifles. “Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.”
How is that statement not a direct assault on my right to purchase an AR-15? I don’t think “double barrel” Joe could’ve been any more direct.
The boom in gun sales wasn’t a product of greedy gun manufacturers pushing products on hapless consumers or fiery rhetoric from the National Rifle Association, rather it was from legislation being pushed at both the state and federal level that sought to greatly restrict 2A rights. One needs to look no further than Feinstein’s 2013 “Assault Weapons” ban or the SAFE Act in New York, for examples.
The threat was real when Barry was at the helm. So demand for firearms skyrocketed. And what the public was saying to gun-grabbers was, in essence, “I’ll stop buying guns when you stop trying to take em.”
But these chuckleheads at Huffpo don’t get that. They don’t see a reason why anyone would need a gun, so they have real trouble understanding why so many people were rushing out to buy them when our elected officials were fighting tooth and nail to enact another gun ban. For them, personal safety is the job of government, not the individual. Buy a gun, for what? Why? The government will keep me safe.
As for that point about “profits at the expense of lives,” that’s nonsense. There are more guns in America than at any time in our nation’s history and gun crime is down — not up. The notion that selling more guns to responsible citizens increases gun violence is patently false. My guns have never walked out of the safe and shot someone, have yours?
Lastly, on the question of how many guns do we need? The answer is simple. As many as we want.
Gun ownership is an enshrined in our Constitution. We have the freedom to purchase as many firearms as we deem fit. Whether that’s two or two hundred, the choice is yours, not Feinstein’s, Schumer’s, Obama’s, or the chuckleheads’ at HuffPost.