It’s always refreshing to hear liberals tell the truth – and never more so than when the subject is gun control. The standard liberal rhetoric includes “common sense” gun laws and safety measures, tinker around with magazine capacity and stuff. They’re really quite reasonable, you see. Nobody wants to take guns away. That’s just crazy talk from right-wingers clinging to their guns and Bibles. Or is it?
Salon reported approvingly on President Obama’s gun control comments after the Oregon shooting. “When Australia had a mass killing … it was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did. And it hasn’t happened since[.]”
Salon cited a highly suspect study from an anti-gun group that found guns are used more often for murder than for self-defense and asked, “[s]o if Americans aren’t using their guns for self-defense, does it make sense to do away with the charade of ‘sensible gun restrictions’ talk and just get real about banning at least some guns outright?”
Even more recently, Hillary Clinton took her gun control stance up a few notches and also referenced Australia as the go to model for gun control. National Review reported her comments:
“Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings” she said. “Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.”
By the way Australia’s “praise worthy” gun control program was a mandatory nationwide buyback of firearms – aka gun confiscation.
Writing at CNN on October 5, college professor and novelist Jay Parini proclaimed, “I'm tired of hearing about this ‘well-regulated militia’ that is so necessary for American freedom.” Parini further wrote, “[l]et me dream for a moment: I would much prefer to live in a country where only hunters who pass appropriately strict tests for mental competence and a knowledge of gun safety can still acquire rifles that are appropriate for hunting. Handguns and assault rifles would be banned, period.”
Ultra-liberal feminist Barbara LeSavoy took it a step further. According to the Democrat & Chronicle she wrote, “I urge President Obama to ban firearm possession in America. He is the president of the United States. He can change the country. He can do it today. I believe in him.”
LeSavoy, who is so smitten with Obama that she eats her meals off placemats bearing his image, continued, “[f]irearm possession should be banned in America; President Obama can orchestrate this directive. His presidency can be remembered as a remarkable turn in United States history where a progressive leader forever changed the landscape under which we live and work.” Constitution be damned.
Even better was the take by D. Watkins in Salon:
“I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice. If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop.”
Liberals can cry wolf all they want in saying they only want stricter gun
laws. The truth is different. Case in point is actress Julianne Moore, who protested that she is no gun-grabber and that a “belief in the Second Amendment and a belief in gun safety are not mutually exclusive.” A few days later she threw in her lot with gun-grabbing (and soda-banning) zealot Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown Gun Safety.
