Whether by Gun or Abortion, Murder Is Murder - Period

[Draggingtree]

American Thinker:

January 14, 2013

Whether by Gun or Abortion, Murder Is Murder - Period

 

By W.A. Beatty

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) plans to introduce (or has already introduced) gun-control legislation in the 113^th Congress, ostensibly to protect the lives of children, and to curb mass murders, like the one that occurred in Newtown, CT. At the same time, Feinstein is very pro-choice and supports taxpayer funding for abortions. She opposes bans on partial-birth abortion. She has spoken about the constitutional right to an abortion and, in 2003, on the Senate floor, spoke in support of Roe v Wade. She, in 2005, opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

[Draggingtree]

For the Record

 

 

 

"Here's a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued: In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the U.S. evening news or hear politicians disseminating this information." --columnist

Doug Giles

http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2013/01/06/can-you-imagine-king-george-iii-telling-our-nations-founders-they-couldnt-have-muskets-n1479608/page/full/

[Draggingtree]

A Rational Gun Discussion?

 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." --Cesare Beccaria

Twice this week, Barack Obama graced us with his pontification on both his fealty to the Second Amendment and his desire for "common sense" gun control measures. With the Left, however, those two things are mutually exclusive. He's merely repeating the siren song of every other socialist tyrant during the last one hundred years.

On Monday, Obama goaded Republicans to go along with his schemes. "f in fact ... everybody across party lines was as deeply moved and saddened as I was by what happened in Newtown," further gun control measures are the only reasonable solution, he concluded. Furthermore, "As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns," he said, "I think that we've seen for some time now that those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government's about to take all your guns away. And, you know, there's probably an economic element to that. It obviously is good for business." He should know -- he's the Gun Salesman Emeritus, presiding over the sale of 67 million guns in four years.

So to recap, if you don't support gun control, you hate kids, and if you're buying or selling guns, you're a greedy loon. Now who's ready for a rational discussion?

Then on Wednesday, Obama laid down the gauntlet http://patriotpost.us/editions/16346/

[Draggingtree]

White House Gun Policy: Like Ignorant Emotional Appeals From 8-Year-olds

 

Matt Welch|

Jan. 18, 2013 7:44 am

It really has come to this: The president and vice president of the United States are trotting out the emotional appeals of ill-informed elementary school children in order to sell the administration's emotional, ill-informed policy response to the Sandy Hook school shooting. Is there a word that combines embarrassing, grotesque,unseemly, and kind of cute? Well, that would describethis campaign.

Lil' Hinna, for example, opines that "if there are no guns on the street, no one could get hurt" (just like in England!), and concludes her White House-posted video address with the plaintive, elementary school-style plea for "No guns, no guns, no guns, no guns":

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/white-house-gun-policy-like-ignorant-emo

[Draggingtree]

1/17/2013

 

Barack Obama: Don’t Use My Children As Pawns in the Gun Control Fight! And Now, Let’s Hear from the Children!

 

Filed under: General— Patterico @ 9:43 pm

The NRA recently ran a television ad accusing Barack Obama of believing his kids are more important than other Americans’ kids:

Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.

The ad’s claim appears to be wrong; Sidwell Friends, the elite school Obama’s kids attend, has security guards, but they are not armed. The error seems to trace back to this Breitbart.com piece.

Yet the NRA is right on target when it asks: “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” Here’s why.

Start with the reaction to the NRA ad from Jay Carney:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney excoriated the National Rifle Association Wednesday for a TV ad released by the group that called President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” because his daughters have armed protection at school.

“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” Carney said in a statement.

Note that Carney didn’t say children should not be used as pawns in a political fight. He said “a president’s children” should not.

Because, you see, the White House is all good with using other people’s children as pawns in a political fight: