Why is it that liberals get to play both sides of the fence, and the middle, too? Why is it, for example, that liberals accuse conservatives of waging a “war against women”, and then enshrine some of the worst abusers of women, Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton, as their heroes? Why is it that liberals pretend to be concerned about women’s safety and health, and then tell them that they do not have the right to use a gun to defend themselves, that they should pee or vomit on themselves instead, or perhaps use a pen as a weapon?
The examples of liberal hypocrisy are legion; if Al Gore could find a way to harness that hot air he could forget about all his other “green” energy contrivances. Or maybe capturing that hot air would reduce global warming.
The latest inductee into the Liberal Hall of Shame is Mark E. Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords. Sadly, Gabby was shot by a deeply disturbed nut case (which our “Great Society” seems to be producing more and more of these days) in January of 2011. In May of that year, Kelly commanded the Space Shuttle Endeavor, which made its last flight due to Obama’s scrapping of the Constellation project, NASA’s back-to-the-moon mission. This was a part of Obama’s budget priorities that favor increasing welfare and bail-outs for political contributors over scientific achievement and maintaining America’s position as a world leader.
The following month, in June, Kelly announced he would be leaving NASA, and cited his wife’s health needs. He said he would be collaborating with her on a joint memoir, and would be engaging in a number of public speaking appearances. Interestingly he did not mention looking for a job.
Following the equally tragic shooting of President Ronald Reagan, where James Brady was also shot, his wife Sarah Brady, formerly an aide to several Republican congressmen and an administrator for the RNC became an anti-gun crusader with Handgun Control, Inc., now renamed the more disingenuous Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Aside from trying to realize childishly unrealistic dreams about a world without guns, Brady may well have sized up her wounded husband’s prospects of future income and seen that the gravy train was certainly to milk that tragic incidence for all she could, leaving her conservative principles behind. Kelly, seeing his job evaporate due to Obama’s political agenda, may have decided to follow that agenda to a new job – this time disparaging guns and gun ownership.
Giffords was not in the House long enough to have a long record of voting on gun rights issues, and her record is mixed. She voted against the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, but was a co-sponsor of the Bill Number-H R 5162: Second Amendment Enforcement Act and a co-sponsor of Bill Number-H R 6691: Second Amendment Enforcement Act to restore Second Amendment rights to the people of the District of Columbia. Still, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, she said, “As a gun owner, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment … This is a common sense decision that reaffirms the Constitutional right—and Arizona tradition—of owning firearms. I commend the Court for ruling in favor of restoring our right to bear arms.”
Once Kelly began speaking for her, however, things changed. He has been traveling the lecture circuit, preaching gun control. He urged a Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 30 to restrict sales of firearms based on their “lethality” (aren’t most guns lethal?), arguing that semi-automatic weapons and other guns that cosmetically resemble military weapons would offset the superiority he thinks law enforcement should have. This, of course, was not the opinion of the Founding Fathers, who insisted on protecting the people’s God-given right to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
This change of heart, whether motivated by some kind of mental disconnect with reality following his wife’s shooting, or whether motivated by sheer opportunism, or perhaps a little of both, would be bad enough, but unfortunately he was caught on March 5 purchasing both a .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun and an AR-15 semi-automatic military-styled .223 “assault rifle”, the sale or transfer of which Giffords told the 2000 Arizona State National Political Awareness Test that she thought should be banned.
There is no question that she and her husband were part of a horrific example of what a deviant person with a weapon can and will do. There is no question that if someone at the book signing had had either the .45 or the .223 that Gabby and the other people who were wounded and killed might have been saved. There is no question that Mark had, and should have had, the right to buy those weapons to defend Gabby and himself.
The problem is that Mark and Gabby have now joined the voices of the, “Do as I say, not as I do” crowd that wants to have weapons, or security guards, or police, to protect them, but want to take that right away from you. It is worthwhile to note that two eminent leaders of the Twentieth Century, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, were shot by miscreants, and neither of them saw it as an opportunity to climb aboard the anti-gun bandwagon. Perhaps not putting self above principle is the true mark of greatness.