|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
June 2007 - Posts
-
|
New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg took another tiny step towards a third-party presidential campaign this week by attacking candidates on the left AND the right.
Speaking in California, Bloomberg said, "The press really is not doing its job of holding their feet to the fire. ... The tough questions are not what are you in favor of, but how are you going to get it through Congress?"
I guess if you're Mike Bloomberg, the answer is “whatever it takes, including lying.” Bloomberg has been demanding that Congress not renew the Tiahrt Amendment, a piece of legislation that restricts ATF trace data to law enforcement only. Bloomberg says the Tiahrt Amendment "restricts cities and police from accessing and using ATF trace data from guns recovered in crimes." What a bunch of bull. It's political opportunists like Mike Bloomberg who are denied access to this information, and Bloomberg doesn't like that.
Instead of Congress, maybe Bloomberg should be blaming Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. A few years ago, Daley and some other big-city mayors tried to get ATF trace data so they could sue firearms manufacturers. ATF tried to block public access to the data in part because it contains the names of innocent people and law enforcement officers. But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, under the Freedom of Information Act, everyone is entitled to this information ... Mayor Daley, Mayor Bloomberg, or the head of the largest street gang in Chicago.
Congress responded by passing the Tiahrt Amendment. Back in 2002, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelley wrote then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for his help in keeping this information in the hands of law enforcement only. He wrote that public access to the trace data "would be catastrophic for law enforcement, would compromise national security, and would signal the end of the trace program, as law enforcement agencies would no longer be able to rely on the current ability to share critical information confidentially."
Now Commissioner Kelley's got his marching orders from Mayor Bloomberg, and he's singing a different tune, pushing Congress to end the law he supported just five years ago.
This campaign of misinformation and falsehoods is shameful enough coming from the mayor of America's largest city. But to think it might be coming from a presidential candidate is even more despicable. Americans not only want honesty from our elected leaders, we demand it and deserve it—but we're not seeing it from Mayor Mike these days.
|
-
|
The Supreme Court finally began to correct a monumental wrong the other day. In a judicial smackdown to campaign finance laws, the justices ruled that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was too broad, and that groups like the NRA can indeed run some ads related to legislation in the days and weeks before an election.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said in the decision, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
It’s great to see the court recognize that this is a free speech issue, not an issue about spending limits on advertising. Because when you see it as a free speech fight—which is what it is—it becomes painfully obvious that some members in Congress were simply trying to shut up the NRA. But now they've been smacked down by the Supreme Court.
This is a good first step, and a great day for Americans. But it's not the end of the fight. The decision by the high court doesn't wipe BCRA off the books, and those who want to stop the NRA from speaking to its members and fellow Americans will keep trying their best to shut us up, which we'll never let happen.
|
-
The Washington Post recently ran a big story about the fact that young people aren't getting out in nature these days. But a close reading of the article reveals the anti-hunting bias of the paper, and of the nature advocates they spoke to.
Not once in the article is hunting mentioned. Hiking, walking, fishing, going to the beach and gardening were all discussed, but not hunting? That's ridiculous. If parents, educators, politicians and policymakers are so interested in getting young people outdoors, why are we ignoring such a huge opportunity?
The Post says that twenty companies, including Disney, Sesame Workshop, DuPont and others are launching a $20 million campaign to get young people outside. How about directing some of that money to the National Shooting Sports Foundation's "Families Afield" program? Or to the NRA's Youth Hunter Education Challenge? How about supporting hunter mentoring bills in all 50 states? Or lowering the minimum hunting age, so young people can get out and learn to hunt before they get snared by an Xbox or PS3?
If these people are serious about getting young people to appreciate nature, they can't ignore the positive impact that hunting can have on young people. It will be interesting to see if their anti-gun, anti-hunting bias is more important to them than their quest to get young people interested in the great outdoors.
|
-
Jesse Jackson Arrested… June 24, 2007 Jesse Jackson was arrested Saturday while protesting outside of a local gun shop in South Chicago. The charge was one count of criminal trespass. When asked, Jackson refused to move away from the entrance to Chuck's Read More...
|
-
|
What happens when an anti-gun mentality collides head on with an anti-military bias? You get the administrators at a public school in California.
For ten years, the students "graduating" from elementary school have been decorating mortarboards. This year, two students decided they wanted to honor the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they decorated their mortarboards with plastic soldiers. Administrators at Cornerstone at Pedregal School refused to let the boys graduate with the decorations, and instead forced the students to snip the tiny plastic guns out of the hands of the soldiers.
Believe it or not, administrators are citing the federal "Gun-Free Schools Act" as justification for their actions, even though the federal law has nothing to do with toys. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District is also pointing to its "zero-tolerance policy" on firearms, but in order to believe that, you’ve got to have zero intelligence.
Truthfully, I think administrators were so offended by the sight of a tiny rifle in the hands of a tiny soldier that they completely overreacted. This anti-military bias isn't unusual in our schools, but it's still outrageous that a principal would make a child choose between supporting our troops and taking part in a graduation ceremony.
As for the kids, they protested in their own way by snipping off the hands holding the rifles and painting bandages on the plastic stumps. These toy soldiers, disarmed and dismembered by our public schools, never came off the mortarboards of the elementary school students. And I have a feeling these kids will never forget the day their school told them their expression of patriotism violated school policy.
|
-
|
You know, it's not every day that someone risks his own life to help a stranger. And when that hero is "rewarded" by losing his job, there's something terribly wrong. But that's exactly what's happened to Colin Bruley.
Bruley lived and worked at an apartment complex in Jacksonville, Florida. Late one evening just a few nights ago, Bruley heard a neighbor scream that she'd been shot. Bruley could have kept his door locked and turned up his television, but instead he rushed to help his neighbor. And Bruley wasn't stupid. He brought along his shotgun in case the criminal was still there.
When Bruley arrived at his neighbor's apartment, the criminal was gone. Bruley handed his shotgun to another neighbor for safekeeping and began treating the young woman's injuries. After police and paramedics arrived, Bruley returned to his apartment. Just a few hours later he was fired.
His employer says that bringing that shotgun was "brandishing a weapon," and that's a workplace violation. Never mind the fact that Bruley wasn't on the clock when he responded to the emergency. Never mind the fact that Bruley may have saved a woman's life. Never mind the fact that nobody in the apartment complex is complaining about Bruley bringing a shotgun along in case the criminal was still there. The company has its policy, and Bruley's now out of a job.
Colin Bruley, you're a hero. And to the Village Green Companies, Bruley's employer: You should be ashamed. Colin Bruley should have received a promotion, not a pink slip. You should do the right thing and give him his job back. In fact, that's the least you could do.
|
-
|
A few days ago, I told you about Bakersfield College in California, where the campus police only carry mace - and the college president proudly advertises that fact. There's another college in California with an anti-gun attitude that puts your children at risk, and the problem is so bad the college's chief of police has quit in protest.
I'm talking about City College of San Francisco, where an armed attacker on campus means the on-duty police have to call 9-1-1 and wait for armed officers from the City of San Francisco to arrive.
Carl Koehler, the chief of police at City College, recently resigned after the college told him his officers couldn't carry firearms, and instead had to make do with batons and pepper spray. Many of the officers are frustrated that the college's anti-gun policies are putting their lives, and the lives of the students they're supposed to be protecting, at risk.
So if your child is looking at colleges, cross City College off your list. Why on earth would you want to send your loved one to a campus that welcomes violence with open arms and a "gun-free" zone?
|
-
|
In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy last April, a lot of schools and universities are talking about security on campus. They keep saying, "All options should be on the table." But the truth is, any discussion of armed security remains largely off limits.
In the name of some bizarre political-correctness, firearms are still taboo at school.
This month, the University of California-Davis is holding workshops to teach faculty and staff how to respond in the event of a rampage by a homicidal, suicidal maniac. According to the Sacramento Bee, some of the instructions include:
"Try to escape ... seek cover ... hide or play dead."
So if you're chain-locked in a classroom, facing a deranged maniac who's armed to the teeth and bent on murder and suicide ... you're supposed to play dead?
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should arm every teacher, student and staffer at every school. But I am suggesting that any open discussion about school security must include evaluation of armed security, at least as a potential local option for individual campuses and schools.
After all, from Columbine to Virginia Tech to the next fatal school tragedy, every one of these violent rampages is ended by a firearm - in the hands of either a good guy, or the bad guy who knows the good guys are coming. That's the reality most politicians, school officials and reporters don't want to talk about.
What the head-in-the-sand crowd does talk about is the Gun-Free School Zones Act, enacted by Congress a decade ago. They argue that this law bans guns from schools, as if that's enough to keep a deranged attacker from inflicting tragedy.
There are two problems with that argument.
First, thanks largely to the media, every potential homicidal, suicidal, deranged maniac knows that schools are the most unprotected institution in the country. If you want to commit the most horrific violence in the least amount of time, an American school is your best target.
And secondly, the media and anti-gun politicians have hidden an important truth about this law. The Gun-Free School Zones Act actually allows for- and, in fact, provides for- a strategy of armed security at our schools!
The law permits schools to allow armed persons on school grounds. And it allows persons to be in a school and armed, if they have been licensed by state or local authorities.
The more schools and universities discuss and consider strategies to keep our children safer, the better. But it's far past time to talk about "hide and play dead" strategies. It's time to put armed security back on the table.
|
-
|
Parents, listen up! Because what they're not telling you today could put your child's life at risk tomorrow.
Bakersfield College is dangerous. They won't tell you that any parent with a college-bound child should avoid this California campus, but I will.
As you know, in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, colleges across the country are taking a closer look at campus security. Trained, professional, armed guards have been a critical part of the security measures at many campuses.
But not at Bakersfield College, where campus security means guards armed with mace.
No firearms ... just a can of mace.
According to published reports, Bakersfield College President Bill Andrews thinks an armed security presence would make his campus more dangerous.
So he's sticking with mace ... as if that will protect students from a deranged, homicidal, suicidal maniac bent on violence. As if a can of mace would have prevented Columbine or Virginia Tech.
If my child was interested in attending Bakersfield College, I'd say no. Hell, no! And if I had a child already enrolled at that school, I'd be on the phone with President Andrews today. And my child would be home by tomorrow.
Because Bakersfield College is publicizing to every homicidal nut case that it's a killing ground waiting to happen.
|
-
|
Washington, D.C., can't seem to get its story straight. It turns out that violent crime increased last year instead of falling like D.C.’s police chief said.
A report released by the city late last year claimed that violent crime dropped by 2.4 percent-when in reality, violent crime actually increased in the city by 9 percent last year.
That's a discrepancy of almost 900 violent crimes!
Instead of dropping by 5 percent, robberies increased by 3 percent.
Sexual assaults jumped by 10 percent. Aggravated assaults spiked by almost 16 percent.
In real-life-and-death figures, what that adds up to is 100 additional robberies and 600 additional aggravated assaults in 2006 over 2005!
Now, if you're like me, you wonder how in the heck the D.C. police could have misplaced almost 900 violent crimes. That's a lot of skeletons to hide!
Well, it turns out that the former D.C. police chief, Charles Ramsey, was getting ready to retire and wanted to declare victory over violent crime in the city.
At the end of 2006, Chief Ramsey was claiming credit for supposedly reducing crime in the city while crime in many other cities was rising.
But it turns out it was all smoke and mirrors.
The Fraternal Order of Police's Kristopher Baumann said, "They were playing with the numbers. Sooner or later, it catches up. You're going to find a lot of manipulation and cherry-picking of numbers."
And it's true: Four audits over the past year have found literally thousands of discrepancies.
Yet former Chief Ramsey has the gall to call even that a victory!
After those 880 uncounted violent crimes were accounted for, Ramsey said, "This shows our system works. It is a good safeguard for accuracy."
Wait a minute! Ramsey isn't the police chief anymore. And it wasn't on his watch that the foul-ups were found.
I guess it's just more of the same old D.C. doubletalk, where they say crime is falling, when it's rising out of control...
... where they say it's safe to walk the streets, while families are being raped and killed in the shadow of the Washington Monument ...
... and where they say the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is part of the Bill of Rights-but the Constitution doesn't apply in the capital of the United States.
|
-
|
The anti-gunners in this country are so desperate to claim victory over the NRA that they're going to great lengths to declare that the NICS improvement bill is a "gun-control measure." They've even been able to get some members of the mainstream media, including anti-gun hysteric Katie Couric, to parrot their nonsensical claims.
After the U.S. House passed the NICS improvement bill earlier this week, Couric had Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign on the "CBS Evening News." She lobbed softball after softball at Helmke, and he was able to lie about the NRA and this bill in front of an audience of millions.
Couric called the bill "the first major gun-control bill in over a decade." That's baloney. This bill improves the accuracy of the NICS system, while allowing people who've been denied their right to own a firearm to get their rights restored. If anything, this bill's going to lead to MORE law-abiding gun owners, not less.
And Paul Helmke said the NRA supported this bill because of what happened at Virginia Tech. That's another bunch of bull. The NRA's supported these reforms for years, not weeks. If Paul Helmke wasn't so busy trying to rob you of your freedoms, he might be aware of the fact that the NRA has always supported measures to make NICS more accurate and up-to-date, as long as legal gun owners aren't harmed in the process.
Look, I expect the Brady Bunch and other anti-gun groups to try to spin this as a victory for gun control. What do they have to lose? They already have little to no credibility with the American people, so what's one more falsehood?
But this should be a lesson to all of us... you can't trust the media to report these issues fairly. Katie Couric has shown us just how far the media's willing to go to prop up these gun banners, even if it means turning a network newscast into a propaganda arm of the Brady Campaign.
|
-
|
Did you see that full-page ad that Mayor Mike Bloomberg bought in USA Today on June 6?
In it, he and the other mayors in his anti-gun coalition urge national politicians to not renew the Tiahrt Amendment, saying Congress is "undermining police work by quietly refusing to allow police and prosecutors access to crucial crime-fighting information."
That's a lie, and Mike Bloomberg knows it.
The text of the Tiahrt Amendment states in part that "no funds appropriated under this or any other Act ... may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives … to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution ..."
In other words, not only does law enforcement have access to the ATF trace data that Bloomberg says is off limits, they're the only ones with access.
The ad in USA Today featured a picture of several law enforcement officers carrying the flag-draped coffin of one of their fallen comrades. Bloomberg wants Americans to think that the Tiahrt Amendment is leading to the deaths of officers, but the rank-and-file know that it's actually protecting them. Chuck Canterbury, head of the National Fraternal Order of Police, recently said, "The release of such data to non-law enforcement entities-namely civil litigants-could compromise the safety of law enforcement officers and the integrity of law enforcement investigations."
Mike Bloomberg should be ashamed of himself for lying to the American people on this issue. The other mayors in his coalition should be ashamed their names are attached to this lie as well. And gun owners everywhere need to get out the word: The Tiahrt Amendment protects cops, plain and simple.
|
-
|
It's summer. And as America's kids begin to enjoy the break from school, we must begin a national dialogue on the most serious issue the media is not telling you about—that when it comes to safety, school is out.
Think about it: When you walk into a bank, you're surrounded by armed guards, security cameras and silent alarms—layers of security measures. Go to a ballgame or a concert or a shopping mall—all protected by all kinds of security.
But if you walk into virtually any school in the country, you'd be hard-pressed to find ANY measure of security.
And the media, for some bizarre reason, aren't reporting this reality.
They aren't telling you that, in America, we protect our money, our offices, our shopping malls, and our stadiums more than we protect our children at school. Far more.
What's worse, we advertise the fact that our children are not protected at school. It's called the Gun-Free School Zones Act, passed by Congress a decade ago. Anti-gun politicians held national news conferences to support it, the news media breathlessly hyped it, and the word was out: The safest place for a deranged killer to go on a rampage is an American school.
Are there solutions to this problem? Is there anything we can all do to help protect our kids at school?
Yes. And while most of the media and our elected officials refuse to talk about it, I will. Because our children deserve at least as much protection as our money.
Over the next few days, right here in this blog, I intend to open a national dialogue about school safety and protecting our children.
I also want to hear from you and get your thoughts. Because when it comes to safeguarding America's children, every reasonable solution should be on the table for consideration.
|
-
|
There's been a lot of confusion and questions surrounding NRA's position on a NICS improvement bill that's being written in Congress. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the anti-gun media is portraying this as a "gun-control" bill. Let me make it clear: It's not.
The NICS bill, as written, wouldn't expand the definition of a prohibited person. It wouldn't disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm. In fact, it would provide an opportunity for people who've been disqualified to clear their name. Right now, folks don't have that ability. Gun owners lose nothing in the bill as it's currently written, and in fact the bill improves the system for those who've been caught in the bureaucratic red tape.
So why is this being called a gun-control bill? In part because one of the bill's authors is anti-gun Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. It's easy to call any piece of legislation from McCarthy anti-gun, even if it's not. But the biggest reason the media's calling this "gun-control" is because they're desperate to report on a gun-control victory in Congress.
Here's the simple truth: If this bill turns into a piece of gun-control legislation, the NRA will withdraw its support. We won't stand idly by while the bill is amended by the anti-gunners in the House or Senate. This is a bill that's designed to improve the reporting by states to the NICS system, as well as provide an opportunity for people to clear their names once they've completed treatment for an illness, and that's it. The addition of any anti-gun provisions will turn this piece of legislation into a poison pill, and the NRA will actively oppose its passage.
As the bill is introduced, the NRA will be keeping a close watch over the language, and I'll be the first to tell you if its original intent is corrupted. But it's not gun control, no matter what the media say.
|
-
|
Earlier this week, the FBI released its latest figures on violent crime. For the second straight year crime is on the increase, although violent crime climbed by a modest 1 percent. Don't be surprised if the anti-gunners start their frenzied calls for more gun control based on this small increase.
The truth is, the FBI says the increase in violent crime can be attributed to just a few factors: a rise in juvenile crime and gang activity. Often, these two factors are one and the same, as juveniles in the inner city turn to a life of crime at an early age.
In Los Angeles, for example, gang-related crimes jumped 14 percent over the last year. Many of these gang members are juveniles, and Los Angeles seems to go out of its way to treat these young criminals with a slap on the wrist. A visit to an L.A.-based criminal defense attorney's website shows that he was able to get boot camp for a defendant charged with armed robbery!
A few years ago, California voters approved a law that says juvenile gang members can be charged as adults for their violent crimes. But Los Angeles County doesn't seem to be using this tool. Back in October, a gang of teens viciously assaulted a group of women in Long Beach. Months later, some of these ladies still haven't recovered from their injuries. But instead of charging the teenagers as adults as the law allows, prosecutors went after them in juvenile court. And instead of years behind bars for their assault, most of them got off with probation, community service, and two months of house arrest.
What type of message does this send to violent criminals? Assault people within an inch of their lives, and you're going to be "grounded" for two months? Is that going to make any criminal think twice before he breaks the law?
Gun control is not the answer. Criminal control is.
|
-
|
The global anti-gun movement is ramping up again, and this time it's the Dominican Republic that they have squarely in their sights. And get this: In their push for disarmament, they're actually saying that you don't have a right to defend yourself.
Taking a page straight from the United Nations, one of the anti-gun Dominican leaders said guns in the hands of civilians only lead to confrontations and are never used for self defense.
That's baloney. You've read enough armed citizen stories in this blog and in the pages of NRA magazines to know that armed citizens defend themselves every day in this country. But this anti-gunner goes even further, saying that only the State should be involved in the fight against crime, not ordinary Dominicans.
This same attitude is being promoted by the United Nations. In fact, not only does the UN oppose the human right of self-defense, the bureaucrats there are pushing the idea that unless countries support strict gun control, they're violating human rights. It sounds crazy, because it is.
Obviously the government has a responsibility to work to reduce crime. But when a criminal attacks me in my home or on the street or anywhere else, I also have the right to protect myself... no matter what the United Nations and the global gun-ban crowd might think.
|
-
|
We've seen gun bans based on cosmetic features before, but Harry Jaffe of the Washington Examiner wants to go one step further: He wants to ban certain colors of firearms. Specifically, Jaffe thinks that pink guns need to be banned.
Jaffe says pink guns are a "marketing gimmick." That's the anti-gun way of putting it. The neutral way of saying it is that firearm manufacturers see a market for firearms that come in a variety of colors, and for a variety of reasons.
Jaffe also suggests that pink pistols are leading to a rise in crime among females. Sorry, Mr. Jaffe, but that's like suggesting people speed because they have red cars.
The real reason we might be seeing an increase in young females committing crimes is the same reason we're seeing a rise in juvenile crime: a juvenile justice system that lets young offenders off with a slap on the wrist, a culture that seems to condone or even reward violent crime, and a lack of strong parental or mentor role models that can steer teens in the right direction.
The sad thing is, as long as people like Harry Jaffe are willing to ignore the real problems in favor of placing blame on a color, it's only going to get worse.
|
-
|
A few years ago, Los Angeles police were after Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin. One of the leaders of the 18th Street Gang, believed to be L.A.'s largest street gang, Marroquin was eventually arrested on weapons charges.
He was later acquitted, and supposedly turned from his life of crime to life as a gun control advocate. His organization, No Guns, eventually received a lucrative contract with the City of Los Angeles, bringing in over a million dollars a year.
But this anti-gunner couldn't stay away from the firearms he wasn't supposed to have. Marroquin has now been arrested on weapons charges, even as his son (also a paid employee of No Guns) gets ready for his own trial on weapons charges.
It's a black eye for the city, and a black eye for the anti-gun crowd as well. Gun control advocates are so desperate for support that they'll even trust a guy named "Big Weasel." Meanwhile, the city has given millions of dollars to a guy who, if authorities are correct, was never anti-gun or anti-gang. How many more officers on the street could that money have paid for?
Do you think Los Angeles will admit its mistake? Don't hold your breath: So far no one from the city has made any comment.
|
-
The following is a message about guns to the children of America. Please realize that children are a lot smarter than you might think. Give them the information they need so that they can carry on the American way better than what we have been able to Read More...
|
-
|
Over the past couple of days, I've talked about how celebrities like Jesse Jackson and Kevin Costner have called for more gun-control laws, and fewer guns in general. Well, I'd like Jesse and Kevin to hear a story.
May 27, 2007. Jackson, Mississippi. It's early in the morning, around 1:15 a.m. At a convenience store on Bullard Street, all is quiet. Two clerks on duty and not a customer in the store.
That's when four men burst in, all armed. Two of the robbers had shotguns, and the other two had pistols. Four armed men against two unarmed convenience store clerks. Sounds like a slaughter, right?
But there would be no slaughter of innocent victims in Jackson that night. One of the clerks decided he wasn't going to die without putting up a fight, and he wrestled a pistol away from one of the armed robbers. The other clerk pulled out his own legally-owned handgun. One of the robbers was shot and killed, and another was wounded. The other two got away, but the clerks were uninjured.
There were six people in that convenience store, and five guns. There were no "good guns" and "bad guns" there, just people who made good and bad decisions.
The decision to defend yourself? That's a pretty good decision. The decision to commit armed robbery? Those four made a really bad decision, and they'll be paying the consequences for the rest of their lives.
|
-
|
Look, I don't think Kevin Costner is a bad person. But his recent comments about gun control show me that he's one of those actors who's more interested in hearing himself talk than actually having something useful to say.
Costner said we need "a lot of gun laws." Kevin, we already have 20,000 state and federal laws on the books. What types of laws would you like to see?
Costner also said, "My gun is an heirloom to me and my son, one day, when I'm gone, is gonna know, 'Your dad hunted with that.' But, even though with the connection that I have to my gun, can I look at the NRA and say, 'I think you're out of line?' I can say that."
You can always tell when a Hollywood celebrity's trying to get back in the spotlight. Either they become a vegetarian and join PETA, or they start bashing the NRA.
The truth is, people like Kevin Costner will always find a way to have any gun they want. I have no doubt that Costner could even get the rare California concealed-carry license without too much trouble. But what about the single mother in Washington, D.C., or the father of five in Chicago?
The truth is, I don't think Kevin Costner cares much about those folks at all. To him, the Second Amendment seems to begin and end with his grandfather's shotgun. No offense, Kevin, but the freedoms protected by the Second Amendment go back a lot further than two generations, and a lot wider than Hollywood celebrities.
|
-
|
You'd think Ed Rendell would have figured out by now that Americans overwhelmingly want their gun rights protected. But what they're not telling you is that the Pennsylvania governor, who headed the Democratic National Committee in 2000, just doesn't get it - still.
And now he's whining, because he can't convince the Pennsylvania Legislature to adopt his gun-rationing scheme. Rightly so - most lawmakers want to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Pennsylvanians. And they know that Rendell's gun rationing won't have any effect on violent criminals.
According to the Pittsburgh Tribune, Rendell repeated the tired complaint, "This Legislature, for too long, has been in control of the NRA. This Legislature, for too long, has done things favored by lobbyists, not things favored by people."
I'd say the governor has become "delusional," but House Minority Leader Sam Smith said that. And then Smith pointed out that he has never received a penny from the NRA, and that he opposes gun control because "... a majority of my constituents see things this way."
The Senate leader, Joe Scarnati, called Rendell's comment "... a crazy statement." Scarnati explained, "The lobbyists I listen to are constituents back home. I hear from them on gun issues on a regular basis."
State Representative Daryl Metcalfe corrected the governor, saying, "Rendell and his allies need to recognize that gun control as a solution to violent crime is just an illusion, not a solution, and that the majority of Pennsylvanians are not willing to give up their right to bear arms."
What Rendell won't recognize ... and what the media conveniently ignores ... is that Rendell should have figured out a long time ago that most Americans want their freedom protected. After all, this is the same Ed Rendell who chaired the Democratic National Committee in the 2000 elections.
You remember 2000. That's when Al Gore got whipped by gun-owning voters all over America - even in his home state of Tennessee. Virtually every political observer in the country, including then-President Bill Clinton, admitted that the NRA and gun owners were the reason for Gore's defeat.
Maybe Rendell forgot that lesson. And now he's getting a reminder from the people of Pennsylvania who are standing fast for their rights. Even if Ed Rendell and most of the media continue to ignore it, the fact is that most Pennsylvanians and most Americans vote freedom first.
|
|
|
|