Cal Thomas recently wrote for the Daily, "Control Politicians, not guns," and his commentary is misguided and misleading. He says more stories about the individual heroism of gun owners thwarting crime, claims rational thinking is stagnant regarding new gun controls, and is quick to point the finger at politicians who are trying to remedy the United States' complex gun issues.
While he is entitled to his view, his empty rhetoric shows only that he is actively trying to stifle any constructive discussions. He is clearly entertaining fantasies of the left and Uncle Sam coming to take his guns away from him. And most importantly, he chooses to ignore the crucial truth that guns kill people.
It certainly takes a human being to pull the trigger, but gun violence cannot occur without guns. Thomas cites the Second Amendment as the right to gun ownership, and that it was meant to help us protect our civil liberties.
While I don't condone the abolition of gun ownership, eliminating certain weapons and/or strengthening limits on their availability are certainly within the power of Congress and the president, within the limits of the Second Amendment - which was written when muzzle-loaded muskets existed and had little, if any, rifling - and within the rights of an electorate to ask of their representatives.
Modern weaponry is incredibly efficient and devastating, and any new legislation should be carefully conceived to target those who would most likely abuse the privilege of owning a gun.
Arguing that existing gun control laws don't prevent those whose hearts, "can't be controlled" obviously cannot be the measure of how we run our nation.
Just to say laws don't deter those who really want to commit a crime is an impotent comment that demonstrates an incredible lack of understanding.
It is very clearly a moral obligation that we have to one another to make a concerted effort to enact sensible legislation to prohibit certain people access to guns.
Why can we, as a nation, not see past our own noses when it comes to guns? There is something wrong with the way we have approached their misuse, and we need to come to a consensus which will help reduce gun violence without impeding on those who are responsible gun owners.
Thomas' stubborn and partisan approach helps no one and exacerbates an already difficult and divisive topic. Instead of offering constructive and realistic ideas, he is puffing out his chest and crying wolf by absurdly trying to link early 20th century Russia to a modern U.S. government's attempts at quelling the more than 8,000 gun homicides this nation sees annually.
Those who are so ardently opposed to any form of restriction - even when it probably won't affect them - are being conned into believing this rubbish. It is hurting this country even more because it creates a group of people who then decide to diametrically oppose an important issue instead of offering enlightenment, or productive national conversation.