Thursday, April 24

A Tale of Two Rights - Voting and Bearing Arms

During the last couple of elections, the Democrats have been calling out demanding that every voice be heard when it comes to voting. This way all people can take advantage of their right to vote. Too bad that they seem to have no problem with legitimate votes being nullified by votes made by those not entitled to do so. (Given their absolute refusal to accept verification of status through photo IDs.)

This year, the Democrats have decided to give extra meaning to this right by actually denying their own Democrat voters in two states, Florida and Michigan, a voice in the primaries for their party's nomination for President. This was due to those states not meeting their responsibilities to follow the primary rules set up by the parties. Of course, this does not sit too well with Mrs. Clinton, who claimed 'victory' in both states.

Now politicians, ESPECIALLY DEMOCRATS, are so very 'concerned' about making sure that voters, ESPECIALLY MINORITIES AND THE POOR, are not disenfranchised from the voting process. This has been why they claim to be against the presentation of photo IDs when appearing to vote due to some idiotic belief that there are people out there who have no ID and cannot afford one. (That of course is the biggest load of bull, especially considering that these people are receiving unemployment or welfare and can use some of that money to get a license or ID.) This is why they are for extending the vote to people who are not able to prove their right to vote, or even their identity. This is why in some states, convicted felons are allowed to vote. This is why in some states, Maine and Vermont, even prisoners are permitted to vote. However, we all know that their only concern is to get more votes, any way they can, and they believe that these illegitimate votes are mostly going their way so they are fair game, damn the rest of us.

Yet, these very same politicians are very eager to restrict the people from enjoying another right, the right to own a gun. Look at the Washington, DC area. It is possible to purchase a handgun in both Maryland and Virginia without first obtaining a permit nor is there any license required unless you intend to carry the weapon concealed. In Virginia you can even carry your handgun without a permit as long as it is clearly visible.

Compare this 'liberal' view of gun ownership with the near impossibility of legally obtaining a handgun in Washington, DC as they are banned in the District. But who lives in these urban areas that are more likely to have very restrictive gun ownership laws? Blacks and other minorities.
( - Second Amendment experts say current gun control laws are preventing law abiding African Americans from acting in self-defense against the illegally armed criminals that infest their inner-city neighborhoods.

"Racism still is a big part of gun control," said Kenn Blanchard, a former federal law enforcement officer and author of Black Man With A Gun, A Responsible Gun Ownership Manual For African Americans. "Anywhere that there are no concealed-carry's, there's also a predominant black population," he said. - CNSNews
Washington, DC is a 'Black City.' Might it be that DC's gun ban is a racist law? (The ban also discriminates on age as you can legally own a gun in DC if you legally owned it in 1971.)

So when the Bush Administration came out and supported Washington, DC's right to have a gun-ban, it was met with confusion as President Bush is a pro-gun ownership President. On any other issue you could bet that Reverend Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would be out there declaring the President's position in this matter biased against blacks or simply labeled 'racist.' But since it is about guns, and perhaps they fear that permitting blacks to legally own guns will make democrat politicians have less sway over this voting group, they are silent on the matter.

Now, blacks don't just live in these urban areas, so why not also target banning guns that are most likely to be purchased by poor minorities

When wolves hunt, they pick out the easiest targets at the fringe of the herd. Gun control proponents also specialize in picking the most vulnerable targets, those who are least able to fight back politically. In the United States, the strategy of picking on the most vulnerable targets has often resulted in gun control being aimed at the poor (which generally means minorities, particularly blacks).

A case in point is the ban on small, inexpensive handguns proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Proponents of the Boxer ban emphasize that they are not targeting expensive hunting rifles but merely want to ban the small guns that they wrongly call "junk guns" or "Saturday Night Specials". - NRA-ILA (From 1999)

Washington, DC is not the only place where this is happening. Take New York City. Handgun ownership is severely restricted, yet permitted unlike in DC. However, the rules are much more stringent in the City than elsewhere in New York, including on Long Island, where it is relatively easy to purchase a long gun/shotgun there, provided you live there.
New York's laws are not uniform throughout the state. Any city with a population of over 100,000 people is allowed to pass additional laws. Some of the cities with stricter laws include, Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and New York City which is known for having some of the strictest gun laws in the country. All firearm owners there must have a permit and rifles and shotguns owned by a permit holder must be registered with the Police Department. Handgun owners must apply for a separate license that cost $340 every 3 years to renew and all handguns must be listed on the license. Handgun licenses issued in New York City are not valid in the rest of the state and all licenses issued outside of New York City are valid throughout New York State except New York City. Rifles and shotguns are not licensed in the rest of the state. - Wikipedia
Now lets take Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who actually worked to deny American the right to vote on easing gun control:
Forty states currently allow most law-abiding adult citizens to carry concealed handguns for lawful protection, after a background check and (in almost all such states) a safety class. Of course those laws only apply to carrying within the relevant state. Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry, to "prevent other states' laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Mrs. Clinton campaigned against a licensed carry referendum in Missouri. - WSJ
So not only is she in favor of not allowing to own a gun, she is also against having the population vote on whether they want restrictive gun ownership or not.

Not to just pick on her, her fellow Senator, Barak Obama, is just as bad when it comes to wanting to take away your right to firearms:

As Corner contributor Dave Kopel and David Bernstein note, Barack Obama proposed a few years ago a federal law against licensed firearms dealers operating within five miles of a school or park. As Kopel notes, "Every town I've ever visited which has more than a few dozen inhabitants has either a school or a park. Hypothesizing that the ban would apply to city parks (e.g., Central Park in New York City) but not to National Parks, pick a geographical region, and describe where a licensed firearms dealer could operate. Or pick a geographic point (e.g, Houston)and identify how far a peson would have to drive in order to get to the closest point where a gun store could legally be located. Extra credit for illustrative maps."

As the commenters noted, this would effectively ban gun shops from most of the country, and just about every city. - National Review

These two Presidential hopefuls are morally bankrupt when it comes to any sort of responsible political leadership when it comes to gun rights and gun control. I can throw in one more irresponsible area of leadership, that is law enforcement. The US would have nowhere near the problem it has with guns if the Democrats would just stop doing everything possible to keep criminals from doing serious jail time. Really, if illegal handgun ownership is so bad, why not put people in jail for 20 years if could with an illegal firearm? Instead they face watered down charges and are given a slap on the wrists, if that. Theres the problem.


No comments: