"If even one child's life may be saved...."

Then, fill in the blanks on what affront to our Constitution must be tried out in the name of  "the Children."

The Left tries, and they try mightily, to get to the moral high ground while accomplishing their political objective of destroying the Bill of Rights, so we get the nauseating excuse for their politics that has been expressed, "If even one child's life may be saved, etc"

There are more than a few things wrong with a sentiment like this, and it's hard to even know where to start to counter it, but I'll try:

• This seemingly-lofty statement is ALWAYS made in aid of negating individual liberty in some way. Just now, it's made in aid of creating un-Constitutional limits on the Second Amendment, but it could just as easily be used to attempt to curtail any of our other Civil Rights.
• This seemingly-lofty statement is made despite the historical fact that those making it constantly ignore their own plea: Why, oh Why, Mister President, have hundreds of Chicago children died violently at the hands of criminal street gangs, some composed of the very children we must protect? Why haven't the Chicago and Illinois and Federal Governments intervened effectively in THAT sorry mess? Oh, I forgot, those Governments HAVE "intervened", by seeing to it that the good and upright citizens of Chicago may not bear arms in defense of their children (or themselves).
• This seemingly-lofty statement is made despite the fact that this Federal Government engages in policies directly leading to the slaughter of "The Children". Those policies would be either direct warfare against some children (Waco, Ruby Ridge), or policies that catch up children as collateral damage (war, generally), or various failures to protect children generally (mass shootings generally).
• This seemingly-lofty statement ignores History itself. This is the same Federal Government which made a clear choice between life principles: we ended Slavery and we condemned many, many Children to death when we launched the War Between the States, a General War carried on with NO enforceable "rules of engagement".

It can be argued, in the cases of the Chicago children, the Waco and Ruby Ridge children, and the children killed as a result of the Civil War, that the Federal Government was caught between a "rock and a hard place", that it had few options but those resulting in those childrens' deaths. Yes, those deaths may have occurred while REACTING to circumstances at least somewhat beyond the control of even the mighty Federal Government. Yep, reactive collateral loss is hard on everyone.

Collateral loss becomes harder to take when it is caused by direct, KNOWING action of the Government. When those tragedies happen, especially when the Government has long-contemplated actions which violate it's stated principles, that collateral damage MUST be laid completely at the feet of the Government.

More children will die as a result of insane actions such as weapons bans and pandering to the fears of those who are simply scared of firearms. THOSE deaths will be completely inexcusable, totally intolerable.

Let us defend our own children, Mister President, let we parents assume that terrible duty of moral men and women. We alone are responsible for our children's lives and well-being. YOU may try to make laws purporting to keep our children safe while they are in your charge for educational purposes, but in the end, their safety is OUR responsibility.

We MUST and DO have the right to be in charge of our own children, Mister President. Even if you want to "relieve us" of our moral responsibility, you can't, and in any case, most of us refuse to surrender our parental authority to you, anyway.

God will judge you if you try to stand between parents and the defense of their Children, Mister President, and God will NOT be on your side.

Comments

[Joe]

They say "if it saves one life, then it is worth it."

You should say, "If it can cost even one life, then you must not do it." This puts them on the defensive, and they must prove that they will do no harm.

[Fred]

On point Sir. If a piece of paper would keep one safe then every woman having a restraining order against an aggressor would never be harmed. The pres and the press admit the actions taken and proposed will not prevent evil from occurring.
They want a compromise yet fail to state what they will give up.
The danger coming is the BS common sense universal background check. The only way that would work would require complete registration of all firearms. The claim that 40% of all sales are made without back ground checks is bogus. How is that number derived when there is no record?
Well I am preaching to the choir; thank you for having a place I can vent.
Fred