“You have a mayor who hates guns…If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.” – Muriel Bowser, Mayor, Washington, D.C.
via ‘You have a mayor who hates guns’ – The Washington Post.
Well, I’ll give her this much…At least Muriel Bowser is honest and upfront about it. She would ban all guns, given the chance. To hell with the People (all of them as opposed to just those who voted for her), the Constitution (you know, the law!) or the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, she’s just going to do it her way! That the seat of government in the “Free World” is a place that seeks to restrict freedom every chance it gets boggles the mind.
It’s worth a read because one needs to know how the other side thinks. It’s enlightening and disturbing at the same time.
“Politicize Disaster, Unabashedly
This may make some progressives queasy….This isn’t complicated: Making a political issue of the tiny coffins of dead children in the wake of a school shooting isn’t just a thing that helps pass strong gun-control, it’s practically the only thing in the last quarter century that’s moved the needle on anti-gun-violence laws. Recall that the catalyst for the 1994 assault weapons ban was a 1989 school shooting in Stockton, California, that killed five kids and wounded 29 other children.
It’s not distasteful to act in the name of victims of gun violence. What’s distasteful to squander the burning anger and intense political focus that such senseless bloodshed inspires…”
via How to Beat the NRA In 7 Not-So-Easy Steps | Politics News | Rolling Stone.
Asked about the mental health aspects of guns, Clinton said “I think we’ve got to rein in what has become a almost article faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime. I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”
via Hillary Clinton: U.S. needs to ‘rein in’ proliferation of guns – CNN Political Ticker – CNN.com Blogs.
And so it begins. Hillary is setting up her campaign platform. As was the case when her husband ran for office, guns will be front and center as the boogeyman dejour. Though I am not happy about it, I think she has a very real shot at being the next POTUS and one who may heavily influence the right to bear arms in ways that will make Barack Obama look like an addled school boy. Condoleeza Rice would make a far better choice for our country but, she is clearly not interested in seeking office…Those who really are qualified and really would have the nation’s best interests at heart never are.
“If, in fact, the NRA will make a public commitment to not stand in the way of the manufacture, distribution or sale of any gun that is limited by technology to the use of only its owner,” Weinberg said, “then I will ask the New Jersey legislature to amend the law.”
via N.J. Democrat: We will reverse smart gun law if NRA plays ball | MSNBC.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t just bend over and open my cheeks. Politicians are all liars. I’m often surprised when Democrats who claim they’ll do anything supportive of the 2nd Amendment aren’t struck by lightning on the spot. But it get’s better as N.J. Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg says of the NRA, “whatever goalposts they set for you, they move them.” Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle, black.
“Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence…”
via Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the N.R.A. – NYTimes.com.
Ugh. What people need to understand first is that “gun violence” is a made up term. Violence is either lawful or unlawful, regardless of the tool used to commit said violence. Far more people are killed and injured annually as a result of what is actually criminal use of a motor vehicle through driving under the influence, speeding, and (increasingly) distracted driving. And yet, no one calls it “vehicular violence” even when there are actual criminal charges such as “vehicular assault.” And we certainly aren’t in a rush to ban private ownership of vehicles. Again, this is a completely made up term to suit a political agenda.
Bloomberg and others of his ilk will say they respect the 2nd Amendment. They don’t. At least not as it’s written. They choose to interpret it as a collective right for the rest of us while reserving it as an individual right to themselves by way of a phalanx of armed security personnel. And yet if you point out this hypocrisy, the answer is usually one of two things. They are considered “high profile” or “high risk,” neither of which would apply if they’d just shut up and stopped sticking their noses into other people’s lives.