Who Are The Deniers of Human Rights To Self Defense? They Are The Immoral Gun Control Advocates

[M]

Source;http://clashdaily.com/2015/12/self-righteous-gun-control-advocates-...

SELF-RIGHTEOUS GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES: The Dangerous Enemies of a Basic Moral Truth

 

The sanctimony of the gun-grabbing Left is so thick it’d stop a close-range .50 caliber round. Yet, ironically, it’s their hostility toward Americans’ self-defense rights which ends up egregiously defiling bedrock morality. 

Consider the response to the recent San Bernardino mass-shooting: Like insufferable clockwork, Barack Obama and his fellow anti-Second Amendment stooges reacted with demands for expanding gun control. More specifically, that would be “common sense” gun laws, as our president and his press spokesman Josh Earnest folksily styled it; or “sensible” gun laws, in the similarly tedious verbiage of uber-Lefty Senator Barbara Boxer. 

Put another way by our antinomian commander-in-chief: “[I}t’s … important for all of us, including our legislatures”  to “make it a little harder for ” miscreants to carry out violent acts with guns.

The malfeasant Obama, and the Leftist, self-defense-sapping agitprop he and his party embrace, strike directly at the heart of a principle smoldering beneath the entire debate: human beings’ right to protect themselves, their loved ones and others when potentially lethal danger looms. 

Our magnificent founders grasped this axiom exuberantly and formally; thus: the Second Amendment to our Constitution. At best, progressives pay vacuous, disingenuous lip-service to it, at worst, they candidly snarl at it. (Then again, denizens of Liberal precincts habitually give short shrift to principle whenever it inconveniences their vast, soul-shriveling, liberty-quenching schemes.)

Meanwhile, there’s a sizable cohort of citizens who’d very much appreciate being permitted to protect themselves and their families unhindered; who, in fact, regard it a sacred duty to do so. Robert Knight snarkily made the point in a recent Washington Times column: “You mean we’re allowed to resist criminals or terrorists? All by ourselves?”

Two millenia ago, a fellow named Paul leveled the harshest possible denunciation at neglecters of  hearth-n-home (1 Timothy 5:8). You’ve gotta wonder what he’d think — furthermore, what our founding titans would think — of a government regime eager to make it as difficult as possible for persons to obtain the basic means of safeguarding their households

This is not just a pragmatic issue  — it’s a moral one. 

Voters have grown numbingly accustomed to the gargantuan arrogance of the statists, but this deathless dispute over “the right to keep and bear arms” offers a helpful refresher: Think about it! Current firearm laws regularly force hard-working citizens, responsible parents, concerned business owners to cower, cap in hand, before a tribunal of elected and appointed State agents, begging leave to bolster their security and peace of mind.  These officials, meanwhile, are forever hoisting another hurdle to surmount, concocting one more hoop  to jump through, for Americans concerned about their and their families’ safety.. 

Furthermore, the multiplicity and complexity of these regulatory obstacles effectively neutralize thousands of citizens’ 2A rights. Under the pummeling of bureaucratic dithering, vertiginous paperwork, unjustified delays and daunting fees, the owning of — and ability to use — a firearm becomes, functionally, prohibitive. 

Did you hear about Carol Browne — the Berlin Township, New Jersey woman who, fearing her ex-con ex-boyfriend Michael Eitel, filed both a restraining order against him and an application for a firearms permit? Although the Garden State maintains some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, requests are supposed to be processed within a month. That deadline had passed and Browne was still awaiting her permit in June of 2015 — six weeks after applying for it — when Eitel attacked her in her own driveway, stabbing her to death.

The gun-phobic obsessives, however, can breath a sigh of relief — at least she died without possessing one of those devilish firearms which cause them so much sleeplessness.

One employer/rental-property owner I know, also residing in a northeastern state, applied for a handgun in his town and waited over a year to get the legal go-ahead. Over one year! Fortunately, while paper-pushers dawdled over his case, he didn’t meet the same fate as poor Carol Browne. 

Or take the unconstitutionally intolerable situation in our nation’s capital where, for years, the District has been, toquote Bob Knight again, “stacking the legal deck against gun ownership.” In that city of well over 650,000 residents, only about 1600 semi-automatic handguns had been registered between June 2008 and January 2013; since October 2014, a mere forty-eight permits have been approved. By the way, even if one ultimately snags a rare firearms license, D.C.’s law magnanimously grants  the weapon can never leave the licensee’s domicile; it certainly can’t be carried onto the street. Armed or unarmed, then, law-honoring habitues of Washington, D.C. are essentially rendered sitting ducks for rod-packing hoodlums who’ve no intention of bothering with legal niceties. 

Second Amendment Foundation president Alan M. Gottlieb summarizes: “Cumbersome firearms regulations have never prevented criminals from getting their hands on guns. They have only inconvenienced law-abiding citizens, or deprived them outright from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment.”(emphasis added). Ted Cruzput it even more succinctly at a recent South Carolina town hall, “You don’t stop the bad guys by taking away our guns; you stop the bad guys by using our guns.”

Contrast that situation with a freshly minted court ruling in Puerto Rico — a constitutionally, legally and morally upright ruling — which junked the territory’s firearms registry and licensing requirements altogether. The finding identified the Second Amendment, all by its lonesome, sufficient warrant for open or concealed carry. 

For many, liberty to keep and bear arms plausibly implicates literal life and death concerns. Newsflash: stripping decision-taking about such matters from individuals and depositing it into the hands of box-checking functionaries is an affront to fundamental decency;  just plain wrong by any measurement. Which is why I reject any broadening or intensifying of the 2A-hampering status quo — no matter the “sensibleness” of whatever regulation du jour has captured firearm-haters’ fancy. “Make it a little harder”? I’ll pass — rights-cramping laws are obnoxious enough already, thank you very much. 

Determining whether or not I can be adequately equipped to protect my family? Sorry, legislators, political appointees and law-enforcement authorities — that ain’t your call. The Bill of Rights — and more importantly my heart — settled that question a long time ago. 

Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:March_on_Washington_for_Gun...
051.JPG

Share if you think the moral argument is on the side of the Second Amendment

[M]

Source; http://clashdaily.com/2015/12/obamas-quiet-new-attack-on-the-2nd-am...

Obama’s Quiet New Attack On The 2nd Amendment Should Have Gun Owners MAD

Proving once again that President Obama and the Left’s motto is “just when you think you know the answers, we change the questions”, the current Amnesty in Chief has determined that he needs to change his tactic to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

You see, President Obama’s dilemma is, as Market Watch and evenThe New York Times among others have reported, whenever he directly attacks legal gun ownership with preposterous “links” to terrorism, not only does the American public roll there eyes like a Millennial at Starbucks, but gun purchases sky rocket in response.

Clearly, assuming Americans are idiots and will lap up whatever schlock he spews is no longer working for the Prez. Instead Obama switched tactics and is now going after the gun manufacturers directly. As the New York Times reported, there is a movement to get the Securities and Exchange C omission to file charges against Smith & Wesson for… are you sitting down….not reporting how many of their guns are used by criminals.

The New York Times writes:

The New York City public advocate on Monday asked federal regulators to investigate whether the gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson had made adequate disclosures in its financial statements….[according to advocate, Letitia James], “The “Securities and Exchange Commission should examine whether Smith & Wesson misrepresented or omitted information about how often its products are involved in crimes and what it has done to keep its guns out of the hands of criminals.”

So, just so I’m clear, what purchasers of a product do with said products is now the fiscal reporting responsibility of the product’s manufacturer? So, should Ford expect a notice to start reporting how many of its cars are involved in drunk driving accidents?

Why stop there, how about Land ‘O’ Lakes being held responsible for people’s heart attacks? Clearly this information is a key data point in the annual financial reports to shareholders. I mean why wasn’t this required years ago? Oh wait, I know why, because the demand couldn’t be any more brainless if Forrest Gump wrote the proposition down in crayon with stick figures and a smiley-faced sunshine included.

Of course, Ms. James’ threat isn’t really intended to get a lot of traction…yet. Obama and the Left are crafty enough to realize sometimes destruction takes time but can begin just by floating out the idea. Here’s what I mean, The Federalist Papers reported that Smith & Wesson stock prices climbed steadily even after the San Bernardino attacks, and especially after President Obama’s initial attempts to link the terrorists to gun owners. Then, when the New York Advocate threatened them with an SEC investigation, S&W’s stock prices plummeted.

You know what I think about that? It’s never been a better time to buy Smith & Wesson stock.

Share if you want Obama’s hands off your guns