Thursday, January 10, 2013

Why Do Politicians Hate Guns?

Dirty Little Secret
Sorry kids, the title is a trick question. The truth of the matter is that politicians love guns, so long as they're not in your hands. What our Founding Fathers knew all too well is that an armed populace was all that preserved a fragile truce between the powerful and the masses wishing nothing more than to be left alone in peace. It's a simple truth that has worked splendidly well here in the U.S. for over 200 years, much to the chagrin of the various forces who have served us in leadership. (Note the use of the word "served").

Our Founders considered the issue of gun ownership of such import that they made it the second order of the Bill of Rights, right after freedom of speech and religion. And while some on the left will argue that guns were much different in that time, I would argue that so was speech. Liberals -- or Progressives as they now wish to be called -- will say that the Founders never envisioned the weaponry we see today. If that is the basis of their argument, then why is the internet so different for speech? The Founders never imagined our wired lives, either.

Yesterday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo gave a speech that sounded as though he was every bit as agitated as Barack Obama during a stump speech, or Adolph Hitler in the old tapes we hear to the German people. Cuomo said, "No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer"! That might be a true statement for most hunters, but it has nothing to do at all with the Second Amendment. Sadly, most people in his audience are unaware of that fact, and reacted only to his emotional rhetoric.

Self defense, our most basic right under the Constitution, sometimes requires more than ten bullets. If two people under the influence of bath salts or PCP decide to attack you, for example, five bullets each may not be enough to stop either one of them. Police can attest to the resilience of the drug-crazed.

But I'm not here to defend the right to own arms, as that right is inalienable and needs no defense. I'm here to discuss the hypocrisy and treachery of the left in their attempts at subverting our Founding document.

The Obama Administration is sending out signals that Obama is considering Executive Orders to deal with the gun issue, and while the nature of what such an order might be is anyone's guess, it must be noted that in any event, it would be unconstitutional. Of course, if no one stopped him, the matter is moot.

What's interesting is the reaction of our lapdog media, who have rushed to Obama's defense over the prospect of unilaterally banning guns. While the talking heads pooh-pooh the language Vice President has recently used, Rush Limbaugh today made an excellent point.

On his show today, Limbaugh asked this hypothetical question: "Imagine that George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney and AG Alberto Gonzalez were floating the notion of banning abortions by executive fiat? What do you think the media reaction would be"? Very good question, indeed. For while the left uses murdered children as props for their anti-gun agenda, they stand behind Roe v. Wade as a method to murder them before they are born. The hypocrisy is too rich even for me.

But the truly scary part is that most people -- reacting in stunned horror to tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre -- are instantly eager to facilitate the same on an even grander scale to make themselves feel better in the present. If the media did it's proper job, people would see the nightmare they willing participate in inflicting upon themselves. But the media is largely made up of public school and university products, most of which are comprised of the whims of Progressives' twisted ideals.

Perhaps these folks -- both media types and their gullible consumers -- need to read a bit of Pravda, the Russian publication. Stanislav Mishin has recently published an article titled Americans Never Give Up Your Guns, and it spells out the dangers the former Soviet Union faced when disarmed. Both Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler fooled their people by promising to care enough for their safety to seize their weapons "for their own good", and we all remember how that worked out for the people.

While our own U.S. government is busy buying billions of rounds of hollow point bullets for a variety of agencies -- including the weather bureau and Social Security -- its front men tell the rest of us of the evils of firearms. If anyone reading this believes that your lives will be safer when only the government has enough ammunition to pump five hollow point bullets into each and every person in the country, while none of us have a method to defend ourselves, I pray for you, for you might as well be dead already.

It's time for the American people to wake from this deadly dream and think what will happen if we are all disarmed. The nuts who perpetrate crimes like the Sandy Hook massacre will still find ways to kill a bunch of people, but it would be nearly impossible for a large segment of the population to arm up fast enough to respond to a tyrannical takeover, which is precisely what the Founders meant by the Second Amendment.

Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

SuzyCVT said...

Only now do we begin to see what damage was done after our "last" Civil War.

The Constitution is not now, nor has it been in effect since the incorporation of the UNITED STATES. Any such notion that you are now protected by the Constitution is nothing more than an illusion constructed by the Lawyers and their handlers, the Central bank.