That Gun Argument Again…
Good ol’ Sen. Diane Feinstein (D- Ca). She can always be counted on to reveal the obvious. On Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, she said: “the U.S. is a “gun happy country,…“and I think there are many of us in growing numbers that don’t want a gun-happy country.” Of course she’s wrong but was referring to the annual deaths of Americans by gun fire. She could have said the US is a gun-savvy country but that wouldn’t have fit the Progressive narrative needed to disarm all American, to protect us from gun violence, a la Las Vegas.
Last weeks mass murder in Las Vegas, by a deranged, white millionaire gunman who shot himself to death before his apprehension, gave the anti-self-defense and anti-second amendment crowd another platform of self-serving outrage to attack our Constitution.
Let’s change one word in her sentence and see where that goes: “The U.S. is a car happy country…and I think there are many of us in growing numbers who don’t want a car happy country.” Or, “The US is a hammer-happy Country…etc. & etc.” I substitute cars and hammers because these two inanimate objects account for more killings in America than guns do.
The Progressives, like Diane Feinstein, a multi-millionaire, can hire gun toting bodyguards to safeguard her person but, that’s really only from attempts at assassinations. Most Americans are subject to the sudden armed assault on the mean streets of America, or home invasions, or attempts at car-jacking from mall parking lots. These people need to defend themselves.
One third of all gun deaths in America, apart from the body count occasioned by the Las Vegas murders, are suicides. More people are killed in domestic assaults by hammers than guns and the score racked up by vehicles, jihadists included, outpaces them all.
So, why the assault specifically against firearms and not hammers and cars? All three are inanimate objects. All three require a human being to actuate them and all three are capable of killing, yet it is only the firearm, the possession of which is specifically permitted to Americans, as enshrined in the 2d Amendment, yet still stands as a horror to Progressive politicians.
The Anti-gunners argue that hammers and cars are needed daily by society to grow and guns are not. And there they miss the big picture. Society is growing and as it does it generates its own class of citizens who do not wish to participate. They won’t swing a hammer, or buy a car but they’ll go out of their way to possess a gun. What does a street creep want with a gun except to intimidate others, steal from them the rewards of their labor and leave a trail of dead bodies. Why do Progressives, like Diane Feinstein, want to deny Americans their right to self-defense from such predators?
Worse, the Founders clearly foresaw the dangers of Progressive governments, human nature being what it is, growing into a totalitarian state that, to defend itself, threatens all citizens. They foresaw the indispensable right of those citizens to especially be able to defend themselves from government despotism. And that’s what scares the hell out of Diane Feinstein, et. al..
One statistic I have omitted but is available for confirmation is, that thus far, all the mass shooting outrages committed in the USA, since Columbine, have been committed by either committed Liberals or registered Democrats. Therefore, the logical answer is to prohibit Democrats from owning firearms. Simple, isn’t it? Remember, freedom is the goal, the Constitution is the way. Now go get ‘em! (10Oct1)