“MN Democrats Abandon ‘National Conversation’ on Guns — Literally”
A short video from Minnesota (which has been pulled from YouTube since the writing of this article) spotlights shameful behavior by elected Democrats, supposedly interested in conducting a “national conversation on guns.”
At a meeting, two firearms experts came forward to speak, bringing with them two common Ruger 10/22 rifles that had been cleared by security. The purpose of their presentation was to explain how the gun-control laws currently being proposed would outlaw only a gun’s cosmetic features while not affecting the functionality of the firearms in any measurable way in terms of rate of fire and accuracy.
In the video, DFL legislators simply arise and exit without explanation. They avoid learning details from the presentation about the very firearms they seek to legislate out of existence.
Would DFL Rep. Debra Hilstrom exit during expert testimony about restrictions to your freedom of speech? It would be disrespectful to the expert called forth to testify, and her constituents would likely chastise her for arrogance. Would DFL Rep. Shannon Savick simply walk away from a minister, rabbi, or imam speaking about threats to the freedom of religion? Would DFL Rep. Erik Simonson flee the room while a bridge engineer testifies that a law under discussion would leave roads less safe? Would DFL Rep. Dan Schoen bolt if a doctor testified that certain medical procedures actually pose more risk to the patient than the disease itself? Would DFL Rep. Linda Slocum leave a room in another situation to avoid a challenge to her preexisting opinion?
We must now assume they all would after witnessing this exit. They may as well have stuck their fingers in their ears.
In the video, DFL Rep. and committee chair Michael Paymar proudly expresses a contempt for hearing the facts in a technical presentation.
We have also witnessed demagoguery, with claims of a desire to want “weapons of war off the streets” per President Obama — a blatant falsehood. Military firearms are not featured in a single one of the laws proposed nationwide, as selective-fire and fully automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. They have also been banned from future manufacture for the general public since the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act became law in 1986.
These Democrats in the video, and other nationally prominent Democrats including the president, have not demonstrated a desire for a “national conversation.” They have instead demonstrably lied to constituents and bullied gun-rights advocates.
Owens goes on to detail what the presentation would have taught lawmakers unwilling to be taught — namely, that their bans are bans that, because they focus on cosmetic features, would arbitrarily discriminate against the short or the tall, or maybe against those with particular physical limitations or medical conditions that make the use of a pistol grip necessary for the safe use of the weapon, etc. (which strikes me as grounds for a lawsuit, though I’m no lawyer) — but the problem is, the argument isn’t about gun-control as a function of wanting gun-control; it’s an argument for molding and shaping and reorganizing the populace in the left’s preferred configuration. They wish us pawns to their experiments in social engineering and group herding and management, and to assure that we don’t have the arrogance to fight back, they realize that disarming us will at some point be a necessity. This is just the latest push in their socio-cultural evolutionary movement — a kind of punctuated equilibrium approach to long-term incrementalist plans, featuring opportunistic bursts after periods of relative inactivity, a crisis never being allowed to go to waste, naturally.
As JHo notes in the comments to an earlier post:
[…] to the left this has zero to do with gun control.
Stop meeting them on their terms. Ironically, walking out was the more honest thing to do. For both sides.
This, too, references something Rand Paul noted in his response to the SOTU address, namely, that since when did it become too much to ask that Congress actually read and understand what’s in the massive legislative packages they vote on?
The fact that we may need a law to compel Congress to read bills before they vote them into law is positively surreal. And JHo is correct — the most honest thing the Democrats could have done is shown that they care not a whit for any conversation on the putative issue. Because this isn’t about gun control and it never has been.
And it behooves us all to recognize that those who would take away a natural right are willing to do so based purely on their own ideological resistance to individual sovereignty, and they only use events like Newtown as an opportunity to press forward on their larger agenda: create Utopia, with themselves as its benevolent shepherds, and we as its managed sheep.
To those with eyes to see and ears to hear and noses that can detect the smell of ample bullshit, no matter how much perfume is spread over the pile, all of this should be what I like to call clarifying.