This month's "Anti-Gun-Nut-Of-The-Month" is our President, William Jefferson Clinton. Now, it's true that in any given month -- as our most anti-Second Amendment President in history -- Mr. Clinton could have been given this dubious achievement award.
But, we have chosen him this month because of his exceptionally idiotic interview on the NBC Today show (3/2/2000) in which he was unusually absurd and, at times, incoherent.
In fact, Mr. Clinton's replies in this preposterous interview reminded me of something said in Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland where "Alice" says it is no use trying, that one cannot believe impossible things. To which the "Queen" replies that this requires practice and "sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
So it is with Mr. Clinton. Whether it was his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or his arguments for "gun control," he is an expert at asking us to believe impossible things. And he did this with a vengeance in his Today interview.
Let us count some of the ways:
* Trigger Locks For Handguns. When asked about the tragic death of the little 6-year-old girl in Michigan who was shot by another 6-year-old, Mr. Clinton repeatedly chanted his "trigger lock" mantra, implying that such a device would have saved this young child. He said, at one point: "If we had passed the child trigger lock provision and we had applied it to all new guns, then at least those guns would not be used by 6-year-olds to kill other 6-year-olds."
A few days later, he said, again, "I'm not at all sure that even a callous, irresponsible drug dealer with a 6-year-old in the house wouldn't leave a child trigger lock on a gun." (The Washington Post 3/9/2000)
Mr. Clinton even went so far as to say on the Today show: "And then when all those kids were killed at Columbine I thought, surely, we can... have child safety locks.... we need the public to be aroused on this."
And it should be noted that Vice President Al Gore, also on the Today show (3/8/2000), has declared: "I can't understand why anyone would not be in favor of mandatory child safety trigger locks -- not voluntary but mandatory child safety locks -- after that horrible tragedy in Michigan."
But, what I don't understand is why anybody would believe that trigger locks would have in any way prevented either the tragic shooting in Michigan or the slaughter at Columbine. I mean, the kid who killed the little girl in Michigan got his handgun from under a blanket in the crack house where he lived among drug-using criminals who would not have had trigger locks on their guns even if they were mandatory (sorry, Al).
And the murderers at Columbine were not children; they were young adults hell-bent on mass murder and would in no way have been deterred by trigger locks.
Get real, please!, Mr. Clinton and Vice President Gore.
* Guns And Cars. This phony analogy I am really getting sick of and will explore in some detail in a future column. In any event, the President says: "Ultimately, what we ought to do is license handgun owners the way we license people who drive cars."
But, of course, if this was done, would the President then favor letting all who have licensed guns take their weapons where licensed car drivers can take their cars? -- to work, church, to school. No way! And this is why the gun-car analogy is phony, a total fraud.
When it is noted that one opponent of gun licensing says that criminals are not going to stand in line to get their photos taken (like car drivers do), Mr. Clinton says, incoherently: "Well, you could say that about people with automobile licenses, too."
Huh? What, exactly, does this mean? In fact, it is undoubtedly true that all kinds of criminals have driver's licenses with their photos on it.
The President says, referring to the man who stole the gun that was used to kill the little 6-year-old girl in Michigan, that if handguns were licensed, "he could never get a license." Maybe, maybe not. But, the real-life point is: Such a criminal would never apply for a gun license!
Finally, denouncing those who oppose the licensing of handguns like car drivers are licensed, Mr. Clinton says: "They're saying guns are special, guns are different than cars.... That's their argument and I just disagree with them." OK. So, at long last, the President gets one right.
Yes! In fact, he is exactly correct! We, along with our Founding Fathers, do say guns are special! You bet. And their specialness -- our God-given right to keep and bear them -- is guaranteed and legally protected by the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
But, our Constitution is so irrelevant that neither Mr. Clinton nor his interviewer, Katy Couric, mention it in this lengthy interview. At one point, all Couric wants to know is if it would be "practically possible" to "check every gun owner in America to see if he or she is carrying a license?"
To which Mr. C. replies: "Well, none of these things will happen instantaneously, overnight. But, yet, they will begin to make a difference." Well, yes. Such checks would "make a difference." They would turn our country into a police state!
But, forget about practicality. What about the Constitutionality of such checks? - their obvious violation of the Second and Fourth Amendments? Silence. About this, the President and Couric say nothing. Zip. Zilch.
In conclusion, the President referring to what he has proposed in this interview, says: "We need to... just systematically go do them. None of them interfere with the right of any lawful citizen to hunt or engage in sport shooting." But, again, what about the U.S. Constitution?!
The Second Amendment does not recognize and legally protect just the right to hunt and sport shoot. It recognizes and legally protects the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, what Mr. Clinton proposes does interfere with the Constitutional rights of our citizens. And this is why he is this month's "Anti-Gun Nut" -- a very dangerous man.