While reading about proposed gun control in NY, I read about the state not allowing people on Psychotropic drugs to buy guns. Those sound big and scary, but if you take Zoloft to reduce anxiety, or a sleeping pill, or even some anti-inflammatory medications, or even BENADRYL, then the state says you’re too mentally unsound to own a firearm. You can still drive a car, mind you, but no guns.
Which prompts the question: Are they going to make Police Departments fire all officers on those drugs?
My guess is no, because this is all politics. If they do not, it’s evidence that this is a political ploy to remove guns from law abiding citizens.
Manuel Martinez, who fled communist Cuba, testified in Salem, Oregon before a committee of Senators on gun control.
Dan Sandini at Daylight Disinfectant writes:
Mr. Martinez escaped the brutal Communist regime in Cuba in 1954. His testimony included how citizens under Castro were first disarmed by legislation similar to that being shepherded along by Gun-Grabber in Chief Floyd Prozanski. Defenseless, many Cuban Citizens were later summarily slaughtered.
It’s the same in every county where oppression has arisen. Disarming the public opens the door to oppression. The issue is not hunting, or even self defense per se. An armed populace is intended to keep the Government from ever becoming tyrannical. Mr. Martinez recounts how the Cuban people lost their freedom:
In 1957 a Revolution … individuals … malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats, revolutionaries, established a regime … a dictatorial regime … in my nation. Called Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, and whatever other named -ism you want to put on it. The reason why it was done was to take away the guns from the People. The right of the People to wear guns. That is a God-given Right. It’s not given by anybody. It’s not given by any group. It’s the same thing as freedom, which is a God-given Right. And no one, absolutely no one, has the authority to take it away. To cease to defend the Second Amendment, and my God-given Right of freedom, will cease only with my death.
Here’s the video of his testimony.
It’s not unexpected that those who are most vocal about gun control rely on guns for their own safety.
Piers Morgan, the resident gun control advocate on CNN, protects his own personal property with signs warning that it is guarded by “Armed Response Security Systems,” according to a new investigation by self-described “guerrilla journalist” James O’Keefe.
I watched the trailer for this new video by Project Veritas, and much of it has O’Keefe asking employees of film production companies if they would sign a petition to remove all guns from movies.
O’Keefe also approached other companies, such as Robert DeNiro’s Tribeca Films, and got a few signatures but mostly was rejected.
Thomas Sowell has an article out on how guns save lives, titled….well, Guns Save Lives [link].
We all know that guns can cost lives because the media repeat this message endlessly, as if we could not figure it out for ourselves. But even someone who reads newspapers regularly and watches numerous television newscasts may never learn that guns also save lives– much less see any hard facts comparing how many lives are lost and how many are saved.
Any time spent reading or watching the news backs this up. Defensive use of guns is seldom, if ever, reported on. While the tragedies, regardless of their rarity, are repeated over and over.
If you want to know what the world would look like without guns, read history. The strong prey on the weak, and the weak suffer.
These cities also have some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, as well as the most active mayors in championing gun control. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are all members of the national Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign.
D.C., which also has tough gun laws, was in the lower half of the list in 2012, coming in at 78th.
My own theory is that those in power are so detached and isolated from real world cause and effect, that they think that simply passing laws fixes real world issues. Apparently monitoring the real world effects doesn’t play much into their legislation anyway, so this is actually pretty consistent with their line of (un)reasoning.
NBC reported that the US has made the case for drone strikes on American citizens.
The one aspect of this story that stands out is this part containing a quote from White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan:
Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.”
Just to clarify our Government’s position on the application of the concept of “self-defense”:
- The right is inherent to the government to use lethal force as a preemptive strike against it’s citizens.
- Self-defense does not apparently include stopping potential threats from entering the US via the Mexican border by sufficiently enforcing current laws or closing the border altogether.
- The White House believes the government has the right to use deadly weapons to defend itself, while at the same time advocating much stricter gun control laws. Laws that, should be noted, only really affect the law abiding (i.e. those that wish to defend themselves.)
So to sum up, 2nd Amendment supporters are mocked for believing that they would ever need their guns to defend against tyranny. The question no one seems to ask is, 100 years from now, who will be in the White House with their finger on the drone trigger?
And that’s the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.