Second presidential debate: Assault weapons ban
In Tuesday Night's Presidential Debate, someone actually asked the question about "gun violence" ... wow!
And the incumbent president, AND his challenger .. actually addressed the issue! Wow!
NOT!
Obama called for re-instatement of the
Assault Weapon Ban; the original version of which was cancelled after the five-year 'trial period' proved that it had made NO difference in the incidents, injuries, or deaths which it had been intended to do.
You may recall that this cancellation was due to a 'sundowner' provision which had been demanded by Republican Congressmen before they would allow it to be passed. At the time, we howled at the moon because we felt that our elected representatives had betrayed their constitutional rights ... as if
that was something new!
But after 1999, when the law was repealed, we breathed a small sigh of relief because we thought:
"Wow! It was tough, but experience has proved that this is NOT a viable approach to the problem of Gun Violence, so at least we will never have to experience this particular version of Liberal Hope-and-changeism!"
Or something like that.
Stupid stupid stupid us.
The gun-grabbers and the liberals (but I repeat myself here) will never give up. They will
NEVER stop believing in "Hope and Change" even when events prove that their efforts have no greater effect than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. The Crazy's and The Bad Guys will
ALWAYS have guns, and will carry them anywhere ... including (and especially) into "Gun Free Zones".
Let me make this perfectly clear (to paraphrase that great Presidential wimp, George Bush the First). You can NOT manage "gun violence" by taking weapons away from honest, decent, law-abiding citizens. You just cannot accomplish the stated objective. You only make the entire country one great "Gun Free Zone" and we know how well that has been working so far. You cannot reduce Gun Violence by reducing the number of GUNS; you can only reduce
Gun Violence by reducing the amount of Violence. And in this, the country which is viewed by the rest of the world as "The Wild Wild West" .. is just not going to happen without a huge effort and an enormous amount of governmental financial resources (and intrusion) to reduce the violent tendencies of the American (or any other nationality and/or ethnicity) Citizen.
Witness Zimbabwe, Jamaica, Sudan, El Salvador ... well, gee, I guess it's not just Americans after all, is it? It's just "people".
But Mitt Romney, bless his heart, is not as namby-pamby and placating as Obama. He took the bull firmly by the horns, hitched up his britches, stood in front of the American people on National Television and said ...
oh dear. This is awful.
And then he changed the subject, never again to tread amongst area on the Political Map marked HERE THERE BE DRAGONS!
I'm sure there are lessons here, and the first among many are these two:
- Obama will do anything he can to re-institute gun-grabber national policies; ignore the wimpy-fisted acknowledgements of the rights of "... hunters and .. uh .. people who just want to defend themselves ... ". He doesn't believe in it at all, it's all just political rhetoric, and he will do whatever he can do to retain his power.
- Romney is afraid to even talk about the subject. The man has no personal guidelines to ethical action as a man or as the president of the most free nation in the world. He just wants the power.
What are the differences between the two men? Well, for starters ... at least Obama will actually take a stand, even if it is wrong-thinking and politically motivated.
Romney, at least, is lizard-brain smart enough to recognize that Barack Hussein ("
I Am The Only One...") Obama has just shot himself in the political foot, at least as far is the 2nd Amendment is concerned, and is willing to let the point ride; in the meantime, he'll merely preserve the delicate balance and do absolutely nothing to upset it
Presidential? I think not!
Sly? Weasel-Worded? I would never accuse a politician of those
execrable approaches to leadership!
Obama was elected to the office on the campaign platform of: "I Am Not George Bush!"
Romney is running on the campaign platform of "I Am Not Barack Obama!"
The only difference? Romney is playing to a different audience. Other than that, they're both mendacious, without honor, fearful of saying what they really think, and capable of debasing themselves by toadying to the Lowest Common Denominator of political thought.
In other words .. typical politicians.
What a bunch of Maroons!
In the interest of full disclosure .. both candidates discussed the value of, essentially, the "Nuclear Family" and education, as well as increased job opportunities, as important ways that the
crazies can be brought into mainstream America. I do agree that this is an important step. It won't eliminate all of the causes of "gun violence" in America, certainly. But if we ever do get a President who is committed to improving the quality of life of lower-earning families, it will make a difference.
The crazies, however, are still with us. And until we recognize that FACT, we will never acknowledge that the single most effective way to reduce the death-toll from people who just want to kill other people is to get rid of the Kill Zones .. aka "Gun Free Zones".
The single greatest group of "lone killer-type" people in America, those who commit the most atrocious mass murders by guns, are not the disaffected nor the disenfranchised; that group is comprised of the people who just want to go out and kill somebody .. anybody ... out of pure rage.
And they are Evil.
Could it be that George W. Bush had got it right? That there ARE people out there who are so
evil that they will laugh with monomaniacal glee while they conduct the slaughter of the innocents simply because enjoy it?
The only way we can protect ourselves against them, is to kill them before they kill us.
And that .. as Edith Ann has so often said .. is the truth.
