It is time to confront the onslaught of liberalism and turn it on its proverbial ear. In the wake of the heinous act that we saw in Connecticut, it is clear the Left has positioned itself to act while citizens are still emotional, rather than wait until logical conclusions can be drawn—this is the modus operandi of the liberal left—never let a good tragedy go to waste.
It never fails. Every time there is a mass shooting, liberals run to the cameras screaming for more gun control laws.
Hypocrisy is the name of the game in the liberal party. Take an issue like abortion. No liberal is “pro abortion;” however, they are “pro choice.” What? Why would an individual NOT call themselves a “pro abortion” advocate unless they saw a fetus as more than just a random collection of cells–as a developing person!? Do you see the hypocrisy yet? This is the incoherent left. Try this. Martin Luther King Jr., the great Civil Rights activist preached a biblically sound message of merit based judgement rather than based on skin color. This worked for the 60’s; however, into the 70’s and surely into the present day, groups like the ACLU, NAACP, and other groups affiliated with the left have since decided that racial based systems are indeed needed after all. Today when a young man or woman goes to college, he goes as Tom, Joe, or Bill. When he graduates he is African-American, Asian-American, or Latino-American. No longer is he an individual, he is a part of a group. This is the hypocrisy of the left. It has further been seen most recently with the addition of Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina being added to the Senate. His addition has been met with a torrent of criticism from the supposedly “open to the advancement of colored people” left. Scott being a black American is a republican, which makes him by default–“not for the cause.” We see the same thing with Robert Griffin III. You can read about Scott here and Griffin III here.
NOW for some real hypocrisy!
Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of those hypocrites. She enjoys armed protection being a US Senator. Guys with guns are always around protecting her. It also should be noted that back in the 70′s, Feinstein was a concealed weapon carrier.
“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”
Wow, how times have changed. Feinstein isn’t the only hypocrite. Most liberal politicians are and most enjoy the protection of armed police officers, security guards and bodyguards. Their protection can’t be compromised but the average citizen’s can. Look at anti-2nd Amendment enthusiast, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has around the clock armed protection as he pushing anti-gun legislation. Guns that protect him are good. Guns that protect citizens who can’t afford armed bodyguards are bad.
Here is the problem with Bloomberg. He has already reached into the rights of the citizen and removed their right to buy a 32-oz soda. The result—now the individual just buys two 16-oz drinks. No problem. What will happen with Bloomberg limits the amount of rounds that can go into a clip? Well, nothing. It will just increase the amount of clips that perpetrators buy, the amount of ammo that they buy, and the amount of guns that they purchase. Instead of controlling guns in a positive way, he will instead be controlling them in a negative way. This is how the left works. This is leftist logic 101.
Harry Reid is another hypocrite who screams about more gun restrictions but Reid bragged about carrying a gun all the time.
“We hear a lot about guns and self-defense and that’s good, I understand that. I was a police officer where I carried a gun and as some of you know during my time being Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, I had a lot of bad people after me and I carried a gun every place I went. So I know what a gun and self-defense is.”
Then there is Vice President Joe Biden. This man is expected to lead the White House task force to examine more gun control legislation, but back in 2008 he did everything he could to convince voters that his running mate supported the Second Amendment.
STOP–Simply put he is A and Not A at the same time. This violates the law of noncontradiction. The left is a perpetual ideology of self-defeating principles. This same line of logic would have you beleive that you could be a married bachelor or that a circle could be more than 360 degrees, or that a triangle could have more than three sides.
“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said to voters during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia on September 20. “Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.”
Biden informed the crowd that he was the proud owner of two guns.
“If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem,” Biden added, referring to Obama. Now the tune has changed. Suddenly guns are the enemy of the sate and those who support the right to bear arms are domestic terrorists.
But the biggest hypocrite is President Obama. Again he is protected by armed Secret Service agents twenty-four hours a day, seven days a weeks and will continue to be protected by armed agents until his death. As a Illinois Senator, Obama showed his true colors and pushed for gun control. As president, Obama didn’t do much or call for gun control in his first term. However, now that he doesn’t have to worry about voter’s wrath, Obama is calling for gun control and agenda furthering gun bans.
This is the same hypocrite whose administration has allowed the illegal trafficking of high-power firearms into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (Fast and Furious). He wants weak-minded Americans to believe that more laws will stop the flow of firearms into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, yet his ATF can’t stop these weapons from crossing the border because they are allowing it.
Even more recent is how Obama has used the tragedy in Connecticut. “Team Obama” is actually raising money off the victims of this disaster!
What may be even worse is his press conference today, where he actually used this tragedy to push his insane tax hikes.
And then we get to the crux of Obama…Here is what he THINKS his mandate is: “I am betting vast majority of responsible gun owners would back efforts to stop irresponsible users from obtaining ‘weapons of war.'” Weapons of War? Really? Ok Barrack. Ok.
This brings us to the argument. May citizens arm themselves? Is this an over-reach by the founders or is this an inalienable right? The 2nd Amendment states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Here are the implications of the statement. The founders weren’t talking about hunting, nor were they talking about recreational target shooting. They were talking about the citizen protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. At the time of the Revolution, there was a strong mistrust of the government of Great Britain. Colonists knew that the only way to protect themselves from the same type of tyranny in the future was for citizens to be able to form a militia to protect their freedom. When The Bill of Rights was written, this protection was included. Since that time there has been a disagreement among constitutional scholars about whether this right was for individual citizens to protect themselves or for states to maintain a military presence. According to current interpretation of the Second Amendment, the government does not have the right to prevent it’s citizens from owning guns. However, this amendment is argued about quite often, and is mentioned in the news almost daily.
Here is the problem with an interpretation that does not allow its citizens to have the right to bear arms. “…being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Simply put, if you take the right to bear arms away, one no longer lives in a free state. The Republic becomes a true dictatorship.
That guns deter crime is well known to liberals, especially those who make the loudest public opposition in favor of gun control. Take Richard Daley (former Chicago mayor) or any number of the Hollywood folks (Quentin Tarantino–he surely would never glamorize violence). Many of these people claim that there is absolutely no positive to owning guns. While they say this, they themselves have full-time (armed) bodyguards who follow them everywhere they go. Hypocrite? The former Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley or even the current one, Rahm Emmanuel wouldn’t even consider setting foot in some of the crime-infested neighborhoods in Chicago without their gun-toting bodyguards. While this is fact, the people who live in those areas, mostly the poor, continue to face danger, and yet the left wants to take guns out of their hands and possibly take the ability to protect themselves away?
Why is it that Obama himself, the anointed one, is in favor of stringent gun control laws but yet enjoys the blanket of protection provided by the very thing he despises? Do you seriously think if a gunman tried to come within 300 yards of his daughters’ school that a bullet wouldn’t be in the guys head? If the secret service shooter missed, all the major news networks would label the sharpshooter as a racist for missing. They would instantly be FOR guns and for high skilled marksmanship.
The biggest and sickest implication is this. Is your life, the life of your family, and the life of your child less valuable than the life of Mr. Obama and his family? In a word, no! Why then must you surrender the ability to protect them in the same manner that they enjoy this security? How is this logically coherent? When will a real journalist ask Jay Carney, the VP, or Obama himself if they will surrender their armed protection as they do away with the citizens’ right to bear arms?
What is the solution? Well, we must first understand how to deal with this incoherent logic. Who do we turn to? Well, Thomas Sowell.
Now, once you watch that video I think you will see there are some clear differences in ideology that make it clear why two different citizens could have such different reactions to the same situation.
“Truth, of course, must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for we have made fiction to suit ourselves.”–G.K. Chesterton
Is the truth enough or must we fashion a fictional account of the situation to fit our agenda? This is precisely what the left consistently does. Benghazi, for example.
So the solution: Dr. Thomas Sowell offers 3 questions that destroy most liberal arguments:
Gun Control–or a reinterpreted 2nd amendment–or more strict gun laws
1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?
I think you will find that most arguments run on emotion–this is why the voices are so loud today, just a few days after the horrific act. Once logic and reason is able to sink in, the left knows that their moment will pass. If they are able to capitalize on the tragedy, they will win. This is their M.O.