Posts Tagged With: Brady Campaign

How Leftists Argue the Gun Control Debate

Well, maybe argue is too strong a word, since you never get a cogent argument out of any gun-grabber anyway. What you see here is what happens when you force a leftist to look at rational facts about gun control.

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Bob Costas, Gun Control, and the Death of the Free Press

In case you haven’t heard yet, a pro football player, the linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, Jovan Belcher, shot and killed his girlfriend and then thanked a few key members of his team management before killing himself. There is talk of Belcher having drug and relationship problems, or that traumatic head injuries incurred during his football career, played a part. I don’t know. It will be weeks before that is all sorted out. What I do know is this: As a gun owner, as an advocate of the Second Amendment, I am not responsible for either of those deaths.

That, of course, runs contrary to what Bob Costas, a long-time talking head for NBC Sports, believes and spewed out during the half-time of the NFL telecast he was working last Sunday night. In a move, matched for tacky political grasping only by Obama himself, Costas began to preach about how the Belcher killings demonstrate the need for more gun control, how terrible it is that we exercise our Second Amendment rights, and how none of this would have happened if on Belcher had not been allowed to have a gun.

Yeah, right.

The report is that he and his girlfriend had been fighting for hours before he shot her. The presence of a gun did not affect that. In fact, had there been no gun for Belcher to retrieve, he would have possibly gone for a knife, a baseball bat, a heavy ashtray, a frying pan, or even his own fists. What would Costas have said if the story was that Belcher beat his girlfriend to death with his fists before laying down in front of an approaching train to complete the atrocity? Perhaps he would have blamed the exercise machines for giving him the strength necessary to pommel the woman to death, and the railroad for being attractive to suicides. I can hear it now: We must have laws in place to keep large men from training to the point where they can kill with their hands; and we must have laws to keep reckless train operators from killing poor, innocently murderous pro football players!

That is absurd, right? So why is the same argument—Costas’ argument—when it focuses on guns, taken seriously? Because the leftist, anti-gun press, parroting anti-gun forces like the Brady Campaign, Obama, Bloomberg, Emmanuel, and their ilk insist upon it.

These forces march in lock-step together. They are interested in disarming the American People, forcing reliance on government by preventing the people from taking care of themselves, and making the U.S. finally safe for them. The mainstream media, with NBC in the forefront, is essentially their propaganda wing. I am not saying they take their stories from leftist sources; I am saying that with leftist control of the media, they are so ideologically driven that they say insane things naturally while doing their damnedest to silence dissenting voices and quell arguments against their assertions.

Yes, I said insane. Bob Costas, and the other useful idiots trying to use this tragic event to further their anti-gun agenda are, in fact, nuts. They ignore the simple fact that this tragedy was authored entirely by Jovan Belcher and that no one else, gun owner or not, has any responsibility to the situation. They ignore the fact that for every Jovan Belcher, there are hundreds of people who use their guns to defend themselves against violence every day. They ignore the fact that more guns equals less crime and violence. The leftist media ignores all of this in order to hang onto a narrative that has lost all credibility with the majority of Americans; that guns, and not the people who use them for evil purposes, are the problem.

If there was really a free press in this country, that narrative would be up for pretty severe argument. The fact that it isn’t, that only a handful of fringe media outlets call the leftists on their anti-gun fallacies, is proof that we no longer have a free press. Instead, we have a media culture that insists that you can say whatever you like as long as the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, the Democrat National Committee, and Barack Obama, approve of it.

The Belcher incident was tragic, no question of it, but so is every other instance of domestic violence; every car crash, plane crash, train crash; fire, flood, tornado; accidental electrocution; every instance of child abuse and molestation. We never speak of surrendering rights with any of those, and they are far more prevalent than what happened with Belcher. I put it to you that just because a gun is involved, that is no reason for the armed and the innocent to start surrendering anything.

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gun Control Laws to Blame For California’s Rise in Crime

More support for the argument that an armed society is a polite society and proof that gun control does not protect the citizenry! As California’s leftist leaders take step after step to disarm the people of California, the people are paying the price in violence, crime and loss.

Gun Control Laws to Blame For California’s Rise in Crime.

Categories: CPL Law, Gun Control, Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is the NRA on the Ropes?

The left-wing mainstream media seems to think so. An article on Examiner.com says this:

The Washington Post editorial board yesterday used the sentencing of a shooting rampage maniac in Tucson to amplify a growing post-election theme that the National Rifle Association has lost political clout and is no longer an impediment to passing “gun control” legislation.

Using Brady Campaign election result and expenditure numbers, the Post concluded “This evidence that the association’s ability to influence elections may be exaggerated should stiffen the spines of Mr. Obama and congressional leaders to take on this important issue.”

I cannot say that the NRA is my favorite organization, but I will say they have staunchly fought the good fight for Second Amendment rights for decades. I will also say that Left have been itching for years to be able to write a headline like that, so we can’t blame them for jumping the gun a bit.

The gun issue was hardly mentioned in the Presidential election, which was a shame, but not unexpected. The Republicans conducted a single-issue campaign that left them unable to properly speak to pretty much anything else, such as gun rights. For Romney, everything he talked about was somehow linked to the economy. That, in and of itself, is not bad, as long as he also talked about other issues in their own right. Had the NRA been able to get him to discuss gun rights as well as the economy, it would have been good. More than that, it would have been a miracle.

Where you saw strength in the NRA was in the congressional and state-level races. There, where the candidates are closer to the people, the rights of the people are considerably more important to them. In that environment, the strength of the NRA and other gun rights organizations comes through. More than that, when specific pieces of legislation are up for votes, the NRA can bring great pressure to bear on sitting politicians in defense of our gun rights.

The editorial board of the Washington Post are every bit as wrong as the demagogues of the Brady Campaign if they think the NRA is down and out. It isn’t, and over the next four years, the NRA will prove that.

Categories: Guns and Politics, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Window into the Mind of an Anti-Gun Liberal

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently got up in front of an October 15th lunch meeting sponsored by the Brady Campaign and, for lack of a better description, told them what they wanted to hear. “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside,” he told the crowd, “and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

There it is: You have a right to a cell phone that you can use to call for help; but you have no right to defend yourself. This should surprise no one. The Left is always looking to strip power and rights from individuals and bestow them on the State, and the right to self-defense has always been one of their favorite targets. The more dependent they can make the people on government, the more power they can garner for themselves.

Heller applied Second Amendment protection to individuals, which was step forward. However, it only applied to the Federal Government. McDonald saw the Second Amendment incorporated into the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment, thereby applying the Second Amendment to the states. The upshot of all this: As an individual, you have the right to keep and bear arms, free from unreasonable gun bans at either the federal or state level. To make it even more plain: Neither the federal nor the state government can ban the ownership of handguns. As you can imagine, that set the gun grabbers in both Washington D.C. and Chicago (not to mention their comrades and fellow travelers in other places as well) into a frenzy.

Stevens, always a leftist stooge schilling for the liberals every chance he could get, was every bit as exercised as then-Mayor of Chicago Richard M. Daley was when his pet gun ban was struck down. He wrote the dissents in Heller and McDonald; dissents that have drawn biting criticism for their vapid reasoning and ignorance of history. He is right about one thing, though: Heller and McDonald allow the State to restrict or eliminate the right to carry outside the home, ban certain styles of firearm, and require background checks for private gun sales. So does the Second Amendment. The question is, what does someone like Stevens, and the Leftists he speaks for, consider reasonable and properly constitutional regulation of firearms?

Go back to the retired justice’s remark (you have a right to a cell phone that you can use to call for help; but you have no right to defend yourself), and answer the question for yourself. Then answer this one: Is this the kind of person you really want in a position of power, the kind of person you want deciding what rights YOU should have?

As you stand in the voting booth next week, ask yourself those questions and vote accordingly.

Categories: Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Blog at WordPress.com.