Well, it would seem that yet another Democrat, this
time Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has chosen to enter the gun control fray
declaring, just this past Friday, that, “We’re not living in the Middle
Ages.” He made this brilliant statement
as part of his call for national gun control legislation. Democrats, assisted by their many minions in
the state-controlled media, have expended, and continue to expend, a great deal
of time and effort to create the perception that gun the level of gun violence
continues to worsen in this country.
And if one is truly interested in seeking out the
evidence, which is truly all around us, that their plan for greater gun control
would only serve to make the ‘problem’ which they claim to be trying to
resolve, so very much worse, then we need to look no further than to those
places that already have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. And it’s many of those very same places that
are currently under the control, and have been for decades, of Democrats. I mean, look at nearly any big city or any
Blue State and the facts literally speak for themselves.
And when looking at that country as a whole the
level of gun violence has continued to decline over the years. Now granted there has been a spike of gun
shootings over the course of the last seven years, shootings that those on the
left have been only too happy to exploit to the greatest extent possible. But what exactly is it that can be said to be
behind that spike? Might it be the
unwillingness on the part of current president to properly enforce current gun
laws all in the hopes of actually increasing the odds of more gun violence
taking place.
Gun control activists constantly clamor that there’s
a “gun violence epidemic” in the United States, but the numbers simply don’t
reflect that. In fact, the argument could be made that as the firearms
ownership rate increases there’s a correlation to a decline in the murder rate.
So perhaps, more guns equal less crime?
That’s the position taken by a study from Virginia that showed a
decrease in violent crime as the number of firearms being sold increased, and
while it’s an interesting possibility there’s no good way to decisively prove
it.
And it’s more often than not that those who are
focused the most on restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun
rarely, if ever, even mention the those instances, and there are many, of where
a life was saved because someone had a gun.
Because in so doing they would, and in pretty short order, prove the
fallacy of their own argument that guns are ONLY ever used by those who commit
crimes and NEVER in a way that can be, even remotely, seen as being defensive
in nature. And to make such a claim,
they say, is simply propaganda on the part of gun rights advocates.
So, back to this boob, Shumlin. He said, “My view on
gun legislation is this: You will not solve this problem state by state. You
need a 50-state solution, and we better come up with one fast.” Shumlin made
his comment while attending Politico’s
Sixth Annual State Solutions Conference at the Microsoft Innovation and Policy
Center in Washington, D.C. Shumlin
pushed for what he called a "50-state solution" despite coming from a
rural state where guns are commonly used for hunting. No matter what state we’re talking about, it
should have no impact on one’s right to own a gun.
Scumlin was taking questions from those on line
because it was in responding to a question that was posed via Twitter about
balancing public safety with Second Amendment rights that he said, “There’s no
question there’s a different culture with guns and a different challenge for
politicians in urban and rural states.”
Since I am not a Democrat, it would seem to me that when it comes to
those rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution, regardless of topic, it
matters not in the least whether we live in an urban or a rural state.
Shumlin went on to say, “You know, Vermonters treat
guns, we use guns to manage our deer herd, to manage our natural resources. And
you know, you learn about guns at a very young age from, like me, my dad.” He added,
“You know, I’m a hunter. I’m a Democrat, but I hunt deer. I know I’m not
supposed to as a Democrat, but I do.” So
by his choosing to make such an admission are we all somehow supposed to
believe that that makes him more of a supporter of the Second Amendment? Nope, I don’t trust these people as far as I
could throw them.
Shumlin, who was elected to his first two-year term
as governor in 2010, signed into law a bill just last May that imposed restrictions on gun ownership in
Vermont. And then, oddly enough, it was
the following month that he announced that he was not running for reelection. So obviously what we have here is yet another
Democrat who, while perfectly willing to restrict the rights of the people,
lacks the courage to defend his actions.
These Democrats, you can never really believe anything that they
say. They really are a pack of political
low-lifes.
No, Mr. Shumlin, thank God we are not, as you say,
living in the Middle Ages. And yes, it
was taken for granted during the Middle Ages that the peasants wouldn't be
allowed to own their own weapons. You
see, it was back then that arms were the privilege of the elite and how they
held on to their power. Such is the
mentality behind this effort by the Democrats to gut our Second Amendment. And by the way, something being missed by
Shumlin, as it tends to be with all Democrats, is the fact that we already have
a fifty state solution. It was ratified over two hundred years ago and it’s
called the…CONSTITUTION!
And while Shumlin can said to be correct when he
says we're not living in the Middle Ages, what we are living in is that era of
human history which has produced the worst forms of government tyranny
imaginable, starting with the emergence of atheistic Communism; the monstrosity
of Nazism; the virulent spread of international Communism; the insanity of
modern progressivism; and, of course, the death loving cult of Islam. And yet what is seen as being of the highest
priority is the disarming of law abiding American citizens. Who but those of the Democrat Party thinks
this way?
It was the Founders of our great nation who, in
their infinite wisdom, truly understood the inclination of certain types of
people to be drawn to exercising what is nothing short of dictatorial rule over
their neighbors. The Second Amendment acts as a guarantee that no tyrant can so
easily subdue us as has been done so often to defenseless people in the rest of
the world. In that regard we who are so
blessed to live in this country remain unique among all the peoples of this
planet. And it is our modern day
Democrats who represents exactly who is was that the Founders were most concerned
about.
No comments:
Post a Comment