Liberals Have the Wrong Response to Gun Violence
By RICK JENSEN
June 20, 2016
The Orlando massacre reignited spokesperson Gwen Patton's passion for gays to protect themselves, inspiring her to reach out to any and every media outlet that would listen to her.
The message is quite clear: arm yourself and train with a professional to deter anyone who threatens your life.
The idea for the group emanated from a 2000 column by Jonathan Rauch, who used the phrase, "pink pistols," playing on the presumption that all gay men are limped-wristed and weak.
She tells the story of another Philadelphian being followed down the street and harassed by a gang of men wielding metal pipes, exhibiting behavior that would not be described as "brotherly love."
The intended victim turned on his would-be attackers, aimed his .38 pistol at them in self-defense and the thugs exited the scene in a cloud of dust.
The gun is the equalizer.
Meanwhile, liberal Democrats would rather ban gays from defending themselves.
They don't care that crimes in which the criminals used guns dramatically increased when the gun bans went into effect in Washington, D.C. and Chicago.
They don't care that overall crimes involving guns have actually decreased over the past 43 years.
The Pew Research Center, a favorite among political progressives, published a study based on research by the Centers for Disease Control showing there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans in 1973.
That has now been reduced nearly fifty percent to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013.
The total firearm homicides in 2013 was 11,208. In the same year, over 30,000 people died because they lost their footing somewhere.
Liberals don't care. They want to ban guns, especially the scary-looking ones they call "assault weapons."
The most stunning move made by left-wing American politicians happened this past week.
Democrats like Ted Deutch of Florida, Diane Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York fought to pass a bill that would ban civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and anyone named Robert Johnson from buying a gun.
That's because those names, and nearly 50,000 more, are on the United State's No Fly List.
CBS's "60 Minutes" found a dozen men named "Robert Johnson" denied travel or interrogated because, well, there was some guy named Robert Johnson who once threatened to blow up a Hindu temple in Canada.
Liberal logic dictates everyone named Robert Johnson should be banned from flying... and therefore banned from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to own a weapon.
You see, these Democrats don't really care if innocent people or women protecting themselves from stalkers need a gun for protection.
If they did, they wouldn't come up with such a ludicrous scheme as tying the inconclusive No Fly List to a constitutional right.
This scheme is typical of Feinstein, Schumer and their crowd as it completely ignores your constitutional right of due process. They want you to be presumed guilty before spending thousands of dollars to prove yourself innocent.
Do they even know that air marshals, whose jobs exist to protect Americans from terrorists, have been refused seats on planes because some of their names are on No-Fly Lists?Of course they do.They have well-paid staff researchers.
One of my erudite radio listeners wisely suggested that if being on the No-Fly List is so important that it justifies abdication of your constitutional rights to due process and bear arms, then the No-Fly List should be tied to Article 2 of the Constitution, forbidding anyone on the list or under criminal investigation by the FBI from running for president, aka Commander in Chief.
In related news, Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan confirmed Hillary Clinton's email scandal is, indeed, an FBI criminal investigation.
© Copyright 2016 Rick Jensen,
Rick Jensen is Delaware's award-winning conservative talk show host on 1150AM WDEL and 93.7FM HD3, Streaming live on WDEL.com from 1pm - 4pm EST.
This column has been edited by the author. Representations of fact and opinions are solely those of the author.