By Douglas V. Gibbs
Leftism is always looking for a way to disarm the American Public. Gun control is usually pushed under the guise of trying to curb gun violence, when statistically it has been proven that violent crime actually increases whenever gun rights face stricter government regulations.
The Obama administration, staying true to its liberal leanings, has begun a series of sessions designed to explore the gun control issue in the hopes of increasing government intrusion into the private ownership of firearms.
The Justice Department's plan to hold meetings with people from all sides of the issue comes after President Obama called for greater enforcement of gun control laws and better background checks in response to the January shooting in Tucson that killed six people and injured 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The claim is that Obama is calling for an “instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks” and better record-keeping to “stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.” As with anything the government initiates, this may very well be the next step in the incremental progression of removing our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Similar gun control measures have proven to be disastrous in other cultures, both in the past, and the present.
Conservative lawmakers are expected to oppose this proposal of tighter federal gun control measures.
Gun control advocates have been urging Obama to make a move on this issue, considering this recent decision to be ". . .the most significant statement any president has made on gun violence in over a decade."
Obama's modus operandi, however, is that when the going gets tough, Obama pretends to move to the center, so one would expect that if opposition to his assault on gun rights becomes heavy enough, either the effort to push for more gun-control limits will cease, or continue under the radar with little or no media and presidential attention.
The effort to increase gun control regulations in America may be difficult for Obama, since due to past setbacks the Democrats have largely abandoned their efforts to implement greater gun restrictions. In the past, supporting such measures have turned off voters that the Democrats need in order to be elected, while also reinforcing strong divides.
One must remember that gun control measures tend to take firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, not the criminal element. Also, from the point of view of the Founding Fathers, an armed populace are a free people. An unarmed populace becomes subjects at risk of losing their freedoms to an authoritarian system of governance. Historically, the first move of any dictatorship has been to remove the guns from the population.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners - Jewish World Review
White House to work with both sides on gun control measure - Washington Post
Gun Facts - Your Guide to Debunking Gun Control Myths
2 comments:
Most liberals really don't care about guns anymore. Many, however, do agree with James Brady, your Lord and Savior's press secretary who was shot in the head during the assassination attempt on Reagan.
It might be a good idea to prohibit certain types of guns and ammo in order to minimize the chances of wholesale slaughter of people.
Liberals also think that it might be a good idea to prohibit students from carrying weapons in classrooms. It might distract from the learning environment.
The issue seems to be who whould be allowed to own a gun, and what types of guns are to be allowed. I suppose you think anyone and anything.. for example, a convicted felon with an AR15 and armor piercing rounds would be fine. That sort of thing.
I'm not positive about that though, because you're just whining about Liberals coming after your guns and not actually articulating any specifics.
Nobody is after your glock. In fact, my partner sometimes has to go to some dangerous parts of Dallas on business, and his entire office is having a professional instructer in to get them certified to carry concealed weapons in Texas. This time next week, we'll have a 9mm in our house, which I never thought would happen.
It might be fun to go to an indoor range and fire off a few boxes. I haven't fired a weapon since boy scouts.
Prohibiting certain types of guns and ammo does not minimize the chances of wholesale slaughter, it increases the chances by taking arms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the criminal element with less obstacles in a wholesale slaughter. Underage, guns by students may not be necessary in classrooms, but that does not mean kids should be chastised for, say, having their unloaded hunting rifle in the trunk of their car. The teachers should have the option to be armed, though. College campuses should not be "gun free zones." We saw the error of that at Virginia Tech, where for the shooter it was more like target practice, since there would be no opposition. I don't think anyone should own a gun, but that is up to the States to determine, not the federal government. The 2nd Amendment is clear, the federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms of anybody. It is a state issue. In California, they are after my Glock, and my 11 other firearms, to the point that it is nearly impossible to buy ammo here anymore. Besides, this move to increase restrictions goes with the ol' camel nose in the tent concept. If the camel gets his nose in the tent, before you know it his whole body is in the tent with you. Gun control may seem innocent enough to people like you right now, but it won't take long before such unconstitutional policies progress to the full confiscation of every firearm in America. Creeping incrementalism.
Post a Comment