The “Moral” Crusade of Anti-Gun Journalists

It’s all rather sad and pathetic. Now that Harry Reid has decided to not pursue the Feinstein proposal on assault weapons, liberal journalists are coming out wagging their fingers and their ethical superiority. Castigating Reid’s decision, Eugene Robinson writes: “The answer isn’t political, it’s moral. The answer is that this is not a moment to do the expedient thing but instead to do the right thing.” Yeah right, as if the ban on so-called assault weapons itself was not motivated by politics, but by morality.

In fact, Robinson admits this fact himself when he says:

The worst way to respond to the shocking massacre in Newtown, Conn., would be to let political self-interest stand in the way of meaningful action. The parents of those 20 slain children deserve a vote on the assault weapons ban. The families of the 30,000 Americans who will be killed by gunfire this year deserve a vote. Bringing the measure to the floor of both the Senate and the House is the least Congress can do.

In other words, what Robinson is really bothered by is not that politics were involved, but that politics were not given an opportunity to be further involved. He is upset that his political party of choice did not follow through in the way he thinks they should have. Well, too bad. Politics is politics, Mr. Robinson. Harry Reid made a decision based on the current political reality in the Senate. Political decisions should not be swayed by events—even ones as horrific as Newtown. The reason we have hundreds of thousands of laws on the books now is because of Robinson’s “victims’ families deserve a vote” nonsense. Crime does not deserve a vote; it deserves justice. It was illegal to murder before Newtown and it is still illegal now, civil government is not in the business of preventing crime from happening, but of administering swift and appropriate punishment, as made clear by Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Emotional pleas and moral grandstanding may make for good drama, but they have no business in political decision-making.

Further proving that he can’t distinguish between criminals and weapons, Robinson writes: “The biggest factor in gun violence is the gun.” Let’s test this asinine theory by substituting some other words:

The biggest factor in spousal abuse is the spouse.

The biggest factor in playground bullying is the playground.

The biggest factor in marital infidelity is the marriage.

The biggest factor in child pornography is the child.

The biggest factor in hate crime is the hate.

The biggest factor in bank robbery is the bank.

The biggest factor in date rape is the date.

The biggest factor in false journalism is the false. (Well, OK, I’ll let him have this one.)

You get the point. Eugene Robinson is so completely sold out on the idea of banning a certain type of weapon that he can’t even begin to see how irrational he is being.

Let me spell it out for you Mr. Robinson: The biggest factor in gun violence is not the gun, it is the violence. Killing people is a crime, regardless of the weapon used. Strangling someone to death is just as much murder as shooting them in cold blood, so are you willing to write your next column against Congress’s inability to regulate human hands? Come to think of it, hands are used to fire guns too, so maybe we’re on to something here…