Think about it. President Obama, his staff, Congress, the Media all work, live, and were educated in the very bastions of America's most liberal anti-gun jurisdictions--so they think the rest of America feels the way they do. Our president is from Hawaii. Hawaii has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA. It is also among the most liberal states generally with healthcare and social programs for all. the homeless population and the unemployment rate is also tops for the states. Not surprisingly Hawaii also has huge debt problems.
Senator Feinsein is from San Francisco. California in general and San Francisco is arguably hosts the most liberal government in America. The Senator herself is the daughter of a Socialist Mayor of San Francisco. Gun laws in California are the most restrictive of any state in the USA. I enjoy visiting San Francisco occasionally for its weather, its diversity, its food. It is a great place for me to visit. I could not live there. It is so dissimilar to the rest of the nation that it truly is like another country. It is almost like another planet. I think most people who live in San Francisco like it. They live there by choice. It has long been a gathering place for the free-spirits among us who relish the government's making hard life decisions for them in lieu of individual rights. I stick up for the right of the people who live in San Francisco to make and live laws as they will. But I don't want them imposing their odd laws upon the rest of America. Why should Feinstein have that right?
California in general, with unsolvable social debt due to their liberal laws is also home to Holiwood. Holiwood, always a bastion of communism, socialism, free-thinking, liberalism, extremism, weird-ism, nudest colonies, cults, dope-culture, and all things anti-social, including socialism takes liberties to influence us all with their vivid depiction of violence all the while decrying and distorting American Second Amendment gun rights. This is the resident state of the most notorious liberals in Washington. this is the home of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinestein, and the former Democrat House Majority Leader with the highest national disapproval rating of anyone in Congress--I can't even bring her name to paper she is so over the top who famously said, You have to PASS the Healthcare Bill to find out what is in it.
Okay, I'll invoke her name--Former House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi [current Minority Leader]. She also famously helped get certain guns banned in California--against the wishes of most residents--by repeating over and over again such things as, "These guns could bring down an Airliner," although none never had or has--even in war. These are the people who brought us legal pot and gay marriage as normality. This is there norm. I don't live there. I could have several times. I don't want to. Why should these extremists living off in La-la land of pot an honey make laws for the rest of us? They don't know what we want. Ony in California and Oz. There is no place like home. But it does not make it true--it does not make it right--and it does not make it fit the desires of the rank and file of the rest of America.
Chicago has long been anti-gun. This has its roots in attempting to disarm the out-of-control Dillinger-style gangs from the first part of the last century. Chicago has also long been recognized for both corrupt and heavy-handed machine politics. It too is a longstanding liberal hang-out. Even when the Supreme Court and even when the State legislature has ruled that people can own guns--local politicians and law-enforcement don't allow it. They also feel that they should be able to impose their rules upon the rest of the Nation. There is little that I admire about Chicago. I don't want their over-reaching rules imposed upon the rest of America. As it is, I seldom have occasion to go there. Suits me fine.
Chicago has a huge gun-violence problem. Chicago law-enforcement organization claims the highest number of gun seizures in the nation. This in spite of their draconian gun laws. They are making the case for gun-ownership. In jurisdictions where American laws uphold and promote the Second Amendment enjoy the safest areas of all. Over and over again, the areas where gun ownership is prevalent and especially where private citizens are allowed to own and carry guns upon their persons and where people are allowed to defend their homes with the use of firearms, reflect the lowest violent crimes. The Chicago stats of guns seizures and high violent crimes do not tell you that it is illegal firearms that are being seized--arms that did not come from Chicago. These illegal firearms are part and parcel to organized crime via gangland including the violent drug cartels South of the Border.
Claims that firearms flow from the USA to Mexico are just bogus. Operation Fast and Furious is a fine example of the AFT trying to manipulating the facts by themselves encouraging illegal gun-running into Mexico bought from legitimate gun dealers. Isn't it obvious by now that there would be no reason to run guns into Mexico if there was ever truly a problem of guns legal American guns being sold into Mexico. It is a readily known fact that one of the biggest contraband assets of the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels is the immense stockpiles of Chinese, Russian, and American guns left-over from those given to them by various governments during the Cold War. Also, specifically, both Brazil and Argentina have long been known for their own firearms manufacturing industries. Chicago and the Obama Administration have it wrong. Their own misconceptions can be traced to the misguided gun laws that have so long surrounded the Chicago political unrealities.
Washington DC is another of the few areas in the United States that have historically not allowed gun-ownership. This is their status quo. The recent landmark case that came down from the United States Supreme Court ruled that DC's restrictive gun laws were not constitutional. They have essentially ignored this ruling. They of course are smarter and better than the rest of us. This is home to most of our United States law-makers for much of their lives. This is at least part of their status quo. [District of Colombia vs heller, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]
New York City is arguably the most rabid anti-gun jurisdiction in the nation. Mayor Bloomberg, himself a big-brother big government socialist-minded wannabe thinker feels that his superior views should be imposed upon his city residents. He know best. He know best regarding what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, what to wear--and he darned sure doesn't want guns in HIS city. Never-mind what the real stats say. He commissions his own skewed stats. He has actually used his private money to go after the gun laws in other states. It's his way or the highway. Of course having been born and raised and schooled in NYC, he has no other view about what works in other cities and states. He really doesn't care.
The news business and much of the out-side-of-Hollywood-Hollywood music and motion picture industry is based in NYC. News commentators are born, raised, schooled there. They are steeped in the same anti-gun sentiment, completely without foundation, as is Mayor Bloomberg. Most of them love Bloomberg. Even the so-called Conservative Second Amendment Media Ideologues living in NYC--where their jobs are--don't have any real cultural understanding of guns. They've not been around them. All they know is their own reality--which is very biased against guns. Even when they want to be for guns, they don't know how to be spokesmen for the Second Amendment. Many don't even know that their is an alternate reality in most of the states where people routinely own many guns, carry guns legally without confrontation, while keeping crime down. They cannot conceive of this reality.
These pundits agree unanimously with one another that it is inconceivable that teachers could responsibly own guns, that their neighbors could have guns without being homicidal maniacs, that regular people could possibly carry guns without shooting it up. They say that no one needs semiautomatic rifles they they have erroneously labeled assault rifles--even they have never actually seen one or held one or shot one or been to a range or to a gun club or been hunting or target shooting or thought about the prospects of armed personal or family defense. It is beyond their frame of reference.
It is not their fault. It's just the way it is. But why should they even have an opinion about laws outside of their own happy jurisdictions? Espeically in light of their extraordinarily violent crimes. They are unable to even entertain the idea that more guns in the hands of good citizens reduces crime; but it does--universally. You hear them repeating the same old long-ago-refuted stats and figures and straight up lying about this reality. This is their fault. But to them, the end apparently justifies the means.
The only thing a semi-automatic rifle or handgun is good for is killing people becomes the refrain that liberals and liberally-influenced conservatives sing. But they don't really know for themselves. Although those of us who live in other gun-toting jurisdictions know, there are lots of other uses for semiautomatic weapons other than killing people--hat is wrong with that use.Wherein our poresident once said that some Americans cling to guns and religion, he is the one clinging to worn-out and disproven arguments. He, they, the Western La-la landers, and the North-Eastern elites, journalists in general, and self-declared enlightened Liberals specifically--mostly as a result of biased academia, are the ones clinging to incorrect brainwash. And because they are, and because they suround themselves with similar-minded people, they don't even stand a chance of being corrected. Naked Emperor syndrome? Whatever it is, it is neither truly elite nor truly academic.
Any somewhat objective historian knows without even thinking much about it that at least the main reason for the Second Amendment was to kill people--people who were tyrants who wanted to impose their unfair and dictatorial laws upon them. Of course this is the best use of semiautomatic weapons, to defend ourselves against armed criminals. To own and use firearms to protect ourselves against outlaws and marauders and tyrants and to have guns feel familiar in our hands and to become sharpshooters as were those whose famous Kentucky Rifles out-shot the King's Redcoats who sought to impose their will upon the nearly self-declared free Americans.This involved killing them not scaring them. Thus, the great American turkey-shoot evolved from the right to own guns to protect themselves, not to hunt turkeys.
President Kennedy famously recognized the purpose of the Second Amendment. It was not until radicals from these few odd geographies in America began to export their own limited views of gun ownership to the rest of America, distorting and fabricating stats and sensationalizing rare criminal events in order to push their brand of socialistic anti-gun-ism.
Meanwhile, as President Obama commits to doing everything he can to curb the gun problem, and apparently choosing the recent crisis in Connecticut as the one to not waste--in defiance of Congressional attempts to get to the bottom of his Attorney General's involvement in the botched gun scandal--begins his second term push to ban guns. There is a lot he can do. President Clinton did a lot of damage to our gun rights which have never been returned to us. But his is an ideological argument that is just as skewed as are those of other insular Liberals who either don't know any better or who just don't care. President Obama is coming for your guns. You just watch.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/montana-legislator-proposes-constitutional-amendments-on-gun-rights/article_3e5c890a-ce7c-584d-8756-65b60ffce34f.html
Comments