Her claim that, since the Democrats are not saying a thing about gun control, there's trouble brewing is right out of the Wayne La Pierre play book. It's contrived nonsense for the express purpose of driving gun sales and resisting gun control initiatives.You didn’t hear the word “guns” voluntarily pass the lips of any Democratic speaker at this week’s convention in Charlotte, N.C. Liberals may be smart enough to avoid alienating the almost half of all Americans who have guns in their homes, but the same can’t be said for their party platform.The Democratic policy statement approved this week calls for enacting “common-sense improvements — like reinstating the assault-weapons ban and closing the gun-show loophole.” The so-called “assault-weapons ban” in the 1990s banned scary-looking guns and magazines that held over 10 rounds. The platform does toss in a line that claims to recognize the right to bear arms, but it is “subject to reasonable regulation.” The left wants “an honest, open national conversation about firearms.”I asked many Democratic leaders about the party’s position on firearms at the convention, but almost all claimed not to have read that section of the platform. Jesse Jackson was one of the few willing to come out and say he wants to ban all guns except bolt-action rifles, shotguns and revolvers.“You have the right to have a gun in your castle to protect your house. You have the right to have a gun to hunt,” the reverend said in an interview in Charlotte. “Semi-automatic weapons — military-style weapons — are beyond the zone of reasonableness.” The civil-rights leader asserted, “These mass killings in Aurora and Milwaukee … we must end easy access and ban these assault weapons.” He added, “Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.”
And it's working. Many gun owners are susceptible to this transparent manipulation. They're buying more and more guns and ammunition. The gun-rights fanatics are extremely vocal and well-financed.
Honesty and truthfulness is not required when one is defending the sacred 2nd Amendment. Take this example, her explanation why the word "guns" is not even mentioned by Democrats.
"Liberals may be smart enough to avoid alienating the almost half of all Americans who have guns in their homes,..."
The fact is, the "almost half" of Americans who have guns in their home includes many who are in agreement with the gun control side. Many more are apathetic and couldn't care less.
To claim allegiance from every person who owns a gun is misleading to put it mildly. I'd say it goes far beyond that into the realm of blatant dishonesty. But, it's what we've come to expect from gun-rights advocates, isn't it?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Obviously you have never paid attention to any previous political campaigns.... Get a life Mike.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind, please explain.
DeleteWe can play your game. Look at how the Un-reverend Jackson is spouting Brady Bunch nonsense. See how easy that is? You get too worked up about who said an idea first, rather than discussing the idea itself.
ReplyDeleteWe've already seen Frank Lautenberg and Chuck Schumer try to pass the kinds of limits named here, and Dianne Feinstein is talking about the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, let them run their mouths. In fact, please do go on television regularly and say these things. Your side will lose big if they do.
By the way, have you read Miller's reporting about how hard it is to buy a gun in D.C.? That's the kind of regulation that you want across the nation. We'll keep our freedoms, thanks.
The fact is, the "almost half" of Americans who have guns in their home includes many who are in agreement with the gun control side. Many more are apathetic and couldn't care less.....
ReplyDeleteThen put full blown gun control in the DNC platform don't hold back, gun owners "are apathetic couldn't care less", why all the hemming and hawing, you want to know why because the democrat party is 60 days away from an epic electoral beat-down.....
I mean come on they had no problem putting God and Jerusalem back into the DNC platform....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg&feature=youtu.be
And it was not at all rammed up the delegates backsides....
http://babalublog.com/wpr/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/teleprompter-500x551.png
I think both sides are sometimes guilty of thinking most of the nation has the same values they do because people naturally associate with people with the same values. And if you are always talking to people with the same values, they reinforce your thinking and your perception that just about everyone thinks the same way.
ReplyDeleteNote that the Heller (and McDonald for that matter) decision establishes constitutional protections for the possession of certain weapons by civilian non state-actors, as necessary to defend one's dwelling. It expressly does NOT extend protections to the carrying of concealed weapons or the possession of said arms outside the home or licencing requirements (for simple possession) so restrictive that they are tantamount to a firearm prohibition. It is curious that while upholding statutes which sanction against the concealment of weapons upon the person, the court invalidated the provision of the Firearm Ordinance Regulations Act (1975) which barred possession of weapons designed for the express purpose of concealed carry. This potentially creates a situation in which the state (in any particular jurisdiction) may once again bar the possession and ownership of the instruments of concealed carry by non state actors, on the grounds that they are a manifestly inappropriate utensil for the defense of ones home, and are constructed for the express purpose of concealment or other means of transport upon the person.
ReplyDeleteTherefore the argument as stated by Mr. Jackson that a right to own a handgun such as "revolvers" as a means of proper and constitutionally protected "right to have a gun in your castle to protect your house" is like the Heller and McDonald decision(s) as well as the currently accepted legal perspective of this matter a cruel and dangerous logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead, Anonymous, try to get a handgun ban passed. Put it in the campaign pledges across the country. Then watch how your side goes down in flames.
ReplyDelete