|February 2, 2013
A Jan. 30 column in The Washington Times sent a clear message to those who’ve somehow failed to put two-and-two together in the current gun control debate–gun grabbing politicians want to take our guns away, but leave their guns in place.
In other words, the places in which they live and breath and conduct their business will remain under heavy guard–from police, armed agents, helicopter flyovers, and snipers at various points–while “the little people,” i.e., average American citizens, are expected to get along as best they can without any means to defend life or liberty.
Ironically, this Times column appeared on the very day Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), were presiding over a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where the topics of discussion were a new “assault weapons” ban, a 30 round magazine ban, and the implementation of universal background checks. None of which will apply to the guns or guards that surround the Senators, of course.
As The Washington Times put it:
It is important to remember that while they are talking about disarming you and me, they are not talking about disarming themselves. They will still be coddled in their fortresses. The closer you get to the Capitol the more armed guards there are. Up close, there are bomb proof guard shacks, literally, on every street corner. Squads of machine gun-carrying guards dot the magnificent marble buildingscape at all times.
Leaders in Congress ride around with escorts of huge armed men. Is that because what they do every day is more dangerous than what you and I do every day?…. WTF?
The answer to this question is that it doesn’t matter whose job is more dangerous, because they are the ‘big people’ and we are “the little people.” And this means they get guns and we get a pat on the back every election year.