We all know how well the government bureaucracy works on major social programs. Now take a look at this:
Notice his mention that "we held an election about change..." and note that the video was from May of '07--seems a bit presumtuous at the time.
But notice the audience, the enthusiasm, the sincerity and the very clear statement of his positions on this issue. Rahm Emmanuel doesn't like handguns, or apparently, the people who own them.
At first glance the concept sounds great: no handguns for folks on the no-fly list. But, are we sure that list is ONLY terrorists? What about SUSPECTED terrorists? Didn't we just see Mr. Emmanuel's party make a huge issue about the folks in Gitmo being innocent until due process is complete?
Then notice the inept contrast between the NRA and suspected terrorist: "if we have to make a choice between the NRA and suspected terrorists, I know which side we will come down on." I know what he meant, but that's not what he said. Or, maybe he did say what he meant.
Then, how many tales have we seen of very innocent citizens being erroneously on the list? And, what protection do we have from draconian action like declaring all NRA members to be "suspected terrorists"? How about just folks who have filled out purchase papers for a handgun in the last fifteen years? You know, that would be those heartland folks who cling to their guns and religion...
By their words ye shall know them.
1 comment:
Hmm. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is mere "ideology" to this fellow?
I wonder where he gets his figures, as what I've looked at (first brought to my attention by a former police officer who was the director of the criminal justice studies dept. at a university where I used to teach) shows that crime goes down where people carry concealed, while crime is up where guns are banned--high-crime zones like the city Mr. Emanual comes from.... Hmmm.
Post a Comment