The growing resistance to any type of federal gun control law reveals the anemic and and weak position gun control fanatics have over the majority who support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.
Most of the hype is media-induced, and other than liberal conclaves in large urban areas, there aren't many places that really want to do anything to interfere with gun ownership.
As data are revealed as to the real numbers associated with guns used in murders, it is found that there are in fact very few murders a year that include four or more victims. The average per year is only 35 deaths within those parameters, referring to a specific place and time.
The other reason the gun control supporters are losing is the data also obliterate the false narrative that so-called assault rifles need to be heavily regulated. The truth is there is no such thing as an assault rifle, if it's being measured by murders, as it's accountable for under 350 murders a year, according to 2009 statistics.
So when media focus on these rifles, they're clueless or liars as to the danger posed by them. As far as them being banned, the huge number of these types of rifles are so plentiful, that it would be impossible to make a serious attempt to round them up.
It makes no sense whatsoever when the vast majority of murders as a result of guns are not done using a rifle. Consequently, this is a meaningless and fruitless exercise not based at all in reality.
Background checks are also being strongly resisted because there is no will to expand to private citizens the requirement to keep records of sales to other private citizens. This is another unenforceable joke, whether or not it was ever implemented. Politicians would pay a huge price if they attempted it in most places in the country.
Bloomberg's inept and obvious attempt to make U.S. citizens and politicians think there is a rising tide in people wanting to adapt gun control by his spending over $2.2 million for a gun control candidate to win in Chicago, only underscores the feeble and weak movement that it is.
How does a extreme liberal Chicago district which simply replaced one gun control supporter with another translate into a statement of any kind? As a matter of fact, the opponent of Robin Kelly had as good a chance at winning as Kelly did until a last minute media blitz paid for by Bloomberg turned the tide.
What that means if Bloomberg didn't come in to really change the outlook and perception of those that understand the issue and the Chicago political scene, rather it was a desperate move to combat the reality that even in Chicago people preferred a pro-gun candidate. It would have been a disaster for the gun control movement to be humiliated there, which it should have been without the outside interference.
Bloomberg can't buy every election, even with his deep pockets, and it only confirms the extreme weakness and lack of support for trashing the Second Amendment by rich thugs like Bloomberg.
In the end, we will probably see a full retreat by right to bear arms opponents. As people understand the data and facts, they are beginning to smell a rat with those trying to trash the Second Amendment, and that's why even Bill Clinton, whether you like him or not, is politically astute as to which way the political winds are blowing. He warned Obama and the Democrats not to try to attack gun rights and the Second Amendment, and he obviously was right.
The good news is liberal Democrats could take a beating in the next election for daring to shred the constitution even further than they already have.
No comments:
Post a Comment