Pelosi’s Gun Backfire

2009-04-24
By

The lamestream media told you:

“On Feb. 26, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration,” according to The Hill, a leading federal news source. “Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.” News outlets everywhere ran the story. http://tinyurl.com/chfvff
Less than six weeks later, on April 7, speaking on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Pelosi continued, “The ball is in Congress’ court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons. We have to find some level of compromise,” she said, using 53 murders by suicidal psychopaths in less than a month as a reason. “And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means.” ABC failed to ask her to reconcile this with her previous statements, or what misconceptions she might be referring to.

The only conditions she mentioned, adding to huge lists of recommendations already made by Democrats, were gun registration and bans on transporting “some” guns across state lines. She also expressed displeasure at the idea that under a bill now in Congress, D.C. residents might regain the civil right to keep and bear arms, at the same time they regain the civil right to vote, calling the right to vote “a civil-rights issue” and dismissing gun rights as an unfair “price to pay.” Both rights are included in the pending law.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

“Everyone who took Pelosi and Reid at their word several weeks ago, when AG Eric Holder called for new federal gun infringements, were suckers,” according to the Uninvited Ombudsman. “Cockeyed optimists and dreamers thought they lucked up. What they really got only rhymes with that.”
In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”The nation is now enduring a waiting period to see what sorts of violations of the Bill of Rights the unethical lying scoundrels running Congress concoct. Helatious draft legislation has been in place since before Obama’s inauguration. http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm

For perspective, during the month when 53 unarmed people without police protection were horrifically slaughtered by deranged law breakers before police arrived, 3,100 people died brutally without warning in their automobiles before police arrived.

Critics say that’s comparing apples and oranges, and the 3,100 dead people deserve no news attention and no federal action, but the 53 other dead people really do. The dead people, uniformly surprised at their untimely deaths, could not be reached for comment.

2,261 views

  • Jim T

    Comparing auto deaths to violent murder is a bit of a stretch. I will say that I would bet that if any of the 53 had a concealed weapon, less, not more, would have died. When the bad guys have weapons and the good guys dont., the good guys lose. We all lose. Responsible, trained citizens with concealed weapons are a peace-keeping force in society.

  • Shane S.

    I like the way you think Jim T and I agree with you. Its just sad that they dont list all the good self defence situations in the news only the (fewer) bad situations.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Totina John_Totina

    The reason I carry a gun for self and family protection is really simple. Cops are to heavy to carry, so i opt for the lighter gun.

    I don't shoot to kill, I shoot to stay alive. I am 63 years old. I am too old to duke it out or run away froma criminal inten on doing me or mine bodily harm.

    Sadly the criminal gets to win in a sitation whereby CONGRESS in their Inept Thinking chooses to deny law abiding citizens by passing more laws to curtail gun posession.

    Continued in next comment

  • John_Totina

    HOW MANY LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS NOW? Maybe if the courts use those laws to prosecute CRIMINALS to the fullest extent of the law, then maybe the ill-thinking person intent on doing harm MAY NOT, If they know their ASS is going to prison for the rest of their life, or the possibiolity of being shot DEAD ON THE SPOT might curtail them from thinking about using a gun.

    Get rid of the ACLU. they do and have done more harm than good. Also get rid of the bleeding heart liberals. They do more harm than god also.

    The best thing to do is GET RID OF THE POLTICIANS that are raping this country and have no clue as to what is really the problem. The problem IS NOT a law abiding CITIZEN. The problem is the criminal, and the hibitual criminal.

  • Rob

    The liberal democrats tell us that they want "common-sense gun laws".
    Common sense tells us that criminals don't obey any laws.
    So, exactly whose rights are they trying to restrict?

  • Ron Richardson

    youre wrong John these politicions know exacly what their doing they have since before woodrow willson tried to enact the league of nations, and harry truman got us tied to the united nations. It's all part of the socilized government that king obama is about to lay on us.

  • JimInMT

    "The reason I carry a gun for self and family protection is really simple. Cops are to heavy to carry, so i opt for the lighter gun."

    Could never have come up with a better analogy. You made my day! Thanks.

  • JimInMT

    We already have a common sense gun law, based on common law dating back to Magna Carta: the Second Amendment defines a specific entity which is forever proscibed from preventing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms": Congress has no right, power, or authority when it comes to "regulating" guns or any other arms. Even the Commerce clause is abused; its intent was to make certain that each state acted fairly with all other states and did not prevent trade among the various states. It has little or nothing to do with manufacturing and trade among the people, who are free to conduct commerce without interference from government. Or at least that was once the hope.






Search