Tuesday, January 22, 2013

"If It Saves Only One Life..."

Vice president Joe Biden is heading president Barack Obama's panel to institute legislation in wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragic evil shooting of elementary school children and teachers.  Of course, it looks like the vice president is focusing all of the legislation on gun control [restrictions].  In talking about the legislation that might be proposed the vice president said: "If it [new legislation on gun control] saves only one life, it is worth it."    I heard on the Mike Huckabee show on the Fox News Channel that president Barack Obama when talking about legislation for gun control also said: "If we can save one life it will be worth it."   This rhetoric from the vice president and the president is reprehensible demagoguery because it implies that anyone who doesn't agree with any proposed legislation would not care about saving a life, especially a child's life.

If the president and vice president really believed in their demagoguery about saving one life, wouldn't they apply it to all situations?  Would "saving one life" only apply to gun deaths?

What about all the deaths that result in automobile accidents?  Sometimes tragically whole families have been killed in tragic car accidents. Shouldn't the president try to put the vice president in charge of creating legislation that could save at least one life.  That would be worth it, wouldn't it?

I can see it now: President Barack Obama is surrounded by kids who wrote personally to him that they didn't want to lose their mommy and daddy in a car accident.   He would have each 6 year old read their heart rendering pleas to save the lives of their parents and or siblings by making congress enact restrictions on those death machines. One beautiful little girl in reading her letter told the president that if there were no more automobiles, no one would ever get hurt in a car accident again. Ah, from the mouths of babes.  All of the adorable children would surprisingly end their letters with a PS: "you are doing a great job, president Obama."   I guess even when it comes to little children it proves that great minds think alike.

Then president Obama, wiping a tear from his eye, would talk about how it is time for the congress to act immediately. He could say, to ease the mind of those automobile loving extremists, I mean car owners, that "I am not out to take your cars...no matter how much the AAA tries to scare you".  "Any law restricting certain types of cars would be grandfathered in". Whew, thank you Mr. president.  The president then would propose that we could restrict any future car made to be able to only go 20 mph.  That surely would save one life, and the president would continue, "who could be against that?"   President Obama, the bi partisan compromiser could say to the congress, "if you don't like that idea, you could pass legislation to limit the speed limit on all freeways and highways of America to 20 mph", "and if neither of those "reasonable" options are adopted by this recalcitrant congress, at least  think about doing this: Pass a law that says there can be only one individual in a car at one time. Then if there is a deadly accident, it would involve only one person per car."   "Think about all the lives that could be saved then." The president would then add emphatically, "You never again would have a family wiped out in an automobile accident".  

The generous president giving the congress all of these available options still would add one final option to congress"If the congress can't agree to all these reasonable ways I've given them to stop all of these tragic deaths in car crashes,I hope congress will agree with me that the least thing we can do is to make all interstate highways automobile free zones".   Genius.  Who could possibly disagree with that logic, except maybe an uncaring evil Republican congressman.

Yes, the benevolent Mr compromise himself, Barack Obama, would be giving many sensible automobile regulations to congress. It would be up to them to do their duty and choose at least one of those options because  "if it can just save one life, it would be worth it".

Next in saving at least one child's life, abortion restrictions.....oops, can't go there.


bradley said...

Putting criminals who commit crimes with guns into prison without parole will save MANY more lives than any gun control , I am certain of that!!

Big Mike said...

You got that right bro!! Thanks Brad!

Anonymous said...


Krissy in ATX

Big Mike said...

Thanks Krissy-my weak attempt at satire :-))

Anonymous said...

there is simply not enough capacity in the prison system with all the other criminals punished for less life threatening crimes. Should we build more? Where? In your backyard?

Anonymous said...

Saying "If it saves one life, it is worth it" is correctly labeled as rhetoric because it is most assuredly able to save many, many lives. Look at Australia: no mass shootings since gun control; suicides, murders, and other crimes significantly dropped. Comparing the restrictions on guns with registering books, or limiting the use of vehicles is absurd. The purpose of a book is not to kill or wound, the purpose of a car is not to drive through crowds of people (plus don't we have to register are cars?). What is the purpose of guns? I'll tell you, causing violence or the threat of violence, there is absolutely no other purpose for guns.

Big Mike said...

Maybe build one in place of the Solyndra plant Obama wasted money at. :-)

Big Mike said...

The federal government doesn't register cars...we do that through the states. If a state, through their representatives, wants to register their citizens in purchasing a gun that is their right.