The Cindy Sheehanization of Sandy Hook

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Anyone here remember Cindy Sheehan? Anybody? Anybody at all? Back before the war in Afghanistan became Obama's and the casualties really started to mount, the Main Stream Media found a champion against the war in Cindy Sheehan. Cindy's son had been killed during the Iraq war, and Cindy would camp out by the side of the road in Crawford, Texas, to see if she could waylay President Bush on his way to or from his ranch. As an IED of the MSM (Improvised Exploitative Device), Cindy was supposed to have moral authority to oppose the war, perhaps more than any other, because she lost her son in the fighting.

After a while, her fame at being a gadfly, escalated to where she could rub shoulders with dictators, and demagogues like Jesse Jackson, up until there was a Democrat in the White House. After that, it didn't matter how many mothers lost their sons in the escalation of deaths in Afghanistan, because protesting a Democrat president simply isn't done, except by the far Left wackadoos, and we try to keep our distance from them!

The reason I bring up dear, forgotten Cindy, discarded by the Left like a Kleenex in an influenza ward, is it seems to be happening again to a lesser degree with the parents of Sandy Hook. The Left doesn't have a logical argument for implementing a new regiment of gun control laws. They are exhibiting the "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality that they tried with Gabby Giffords* and the Aurora theater shooting and now with the Sandy Hook shooting, to stir people emotionally to the point that they do not recognize that none of the proposed measures would have stopped any of those tragic shootings. Not one.

It seems that flying the parents, or at least some of the parents, out on Air Force One and squiring them around to twist the arms of law makers is an attempt to make use of this same supposed "moral authority" that Cindy Sheehan was supposed to have. "Who better to judge whether or not we should be at war than someone who lost a son?" translates to "Who better to judge what is a good gun control law than someone whose child was a shooting victim?" Well, in Ms. Sheehan's case, perhaps someone who was an expert on military strategy, or someone familiar with the security and defense needs of our country, or the intentions of our adversary? People also lose loved ones in auto accidents every day. It scarcely makes them authorities on automobiles, road construction or advisability of traffic laws.

While we have deep feelings for those surviving family members of the Sandy Hook shooting, grieving for their loss, it doesn't make them an authority on gun control or the Second Amendment, or give them some moral authority that should supersede the rights of fellow citizens. I truly feel sorry for their loss, but it does not make them experts on guns or legislation, it merely makes them political pawns.

And when all the President's men are through using them, they will find themselves abandoned, by the side of the road, alongside Cindy Sheehan. And any actions taken by this administration will have been to further their own political agenda.

*Remember the shameful "memorial" service/ pep rally Obama had in Tucson for those who were killed? All the attendees were given a "Together We Thrive" t-shirt, because what's a proper remembrance of the dead without a slogan for the President's reelection campaign?

Cross posted at Proof Positive


  1. Biting post!

    You have mentioned the unmentionable truth.


  2. Frankly I fail to see how extensive background checks, restrictimg high cap magazines and semi automatoc assault weapons is a problem for any legitimate law abiding firearm owner.

    Sure the NRA and gun manufacturers have an issue. For the NRA it is poloyical, for the manufacturer it is economics. Bottom line both want to stimulate gun sales.

    The emotional play is evident on both sides of this issue. However hyperbole is more prevalent on one side.

    1. "Frankly I fail to see how extensive background checks, restricting high cap magazines and semi automatic assault weapons is a problem for any legitimate law abiding firearm owner."

      Your failure is duly noted. For starters, there is no such thing as a "semi automatic assault weapon". The firearms they seek to ban are nearly identical to any number of hunting rifles that they claim they don't want to ban. The differences are cosmetic. Once precedence is set, what's to stop them from banning the rest? They are by no means "assault rifles".

      Did you happen, by any chance, to read about the five shot revolving rifle they banned in California? It was neither semi-automatic, high capacity, nor high powered: "When Idiots Write Gun Control Laws, We Get Idiotic Laws"

      Read it and tell me if any 'legitimate law abiding firearm owner' should have a problem with the idiots on the Left banning the .45/.410 Circuit Judge rifle? (or any other firearm that they arbitrarily choose to ban.)

      As far as background checks, I have no problem with anyone checking my background. Background checks are already nearly universal. I have suffered through 15 day checks in California and 15 minute FBI checks in Ohio. My problem is what they do with the records after the check. Does the new "background check" become de facto gun registration? That, I have a problem with. Read the fine print. I believe they want to hold onto the records and create a national registry of firearms. Neither a background check nor a national registry would not have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

      High capacity mags? One of the shooters at Columbine had 13 10-shot magazines. My personal experience is that aftermarket, high capacity magazines are more prone to jams than their smaller, OEM magazines. Smaller capacity magazines may be even more lethal in a mass shooting because of greater reliability. Restricting the size of magazines is similar to banning weapons with bayonet lugs. If the government gets to choose how large your magazine is, can they also guarantee to limit the number of people who might attack you at one time, and under what circumstances? If I shoot you, for no reason, with a single shot musket, the capacity was one too large, however, if you were in the process of assaulting me, the capacity should be whatever I need to stop you.

      Consider, too, the shopkeepers during the LA riots who protected themselves and their property with semi automatic, AR-15 style rifles: how large is "too large" a magazine, when the police withdraw from an area, refuse to respond to calls and you are left on your own?

    2. Here's perhaps more than you'd care to know about some of the proposed legislation: The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control

  3. Want to make a wager that each of the people flown on AOne and squired about and testified on the Hill, have not read their Constitution, the Amendments, the Bill of Rights or The Federalist within the last twenty years? There are reasons we have what we have and why they have remained the foundation of our Republic.
    My sincerest sympathies go out to these parents for two reasons - they not only have loved and lost a child, but now will be used as pawns and discarded like old trash when they have been sucked dry and are de trop.
    The Administration is correct in using these parents now, and not after the first year of mourning. More malleable, and the tears are more authentic. But, then there was Cindy, and she was useful for quite a while.

    1. No bet. The Founding documents never made it to Oprah's Book Club list.

    2. And, she never found what she was looking for - her son.
      I have a son. He will be 39 tomorrow and I adore him. Each day I pray that God will keep him safe, as he drives that double tanker bomb on the freeways of SoCal. I honestly do not know what I would do if ...., so a great part of me feels deeply for Cindy.

    3. Tell your son 'Happy Birthday' for me. Love 'em while you've got 'em!


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.