Democrats deserve a gold medal… for mental gymnastics

Guns

As the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil finally come to a close I wonder if we might see a gold medal awarded to the Democrats.  What?!  I know what you’re thinking: One Nobel Prize is more than enough!  But, for many years liberals have argued – with increasing success I’m afraid to say – that Americans have too many guns, that we are a violent nation because of them and that events such as mass shootings will cease if only they are allowed to enact “common sense” gun laws.  It is only the evil National Rifle Association and its culture of violence that stands in their way (thank the Almighty!).  I should mention at this point that the anti-gun agenda is wholly propaganda driven.  Every single reason the Left has for wanting to ban guns can be (and has been) logically and factually countered.  But history has proven that propaganda is an effective means of herding the masses.  The strength of the anti-gun movement in America only proves the truth of that idea, even in a free and open society.

Now, Democrats will tell you that the first and most important step to reducing gun-violence and needless gun-related deaths should naturally be universal registration.  After all, if you have to report your gun you are not likely to use it to commit a criminal act.  Right?  Of course to pro-gun advocates (that is to say, free-range un-herded Americans) that sounds instead like the first step towards gun confiscation, such as occurred in Britain and Australia.  After all, Dear Ruler President Obama has said himself that it is something we should aspire to.  So pardon me if I’m not comforted by those hollow assurances.  As it turns out, violent crime in both countries has not seriously diminished despite gun confiscation, and London happens to be one of the most violent cities in the world.

The mental gymnastics necessary to arrive at the conclusion that gun-control might actually reduce crime are breathtaking.  Oh!  He ran full speed into the vault!  But give Obama credit for the effort.”  Of course, the NRA and other gun-rights advocates have pointed out to liberals time and again that some of the worst violence in the world, not ironically, occurs in nations with the strictest gun-control laws.  Somehow, though, for liberals those comparisons are apples-to-oranges, even if guns in, say, Venezuela (that socialist Utopia) shoot bullets the same way as guns in America.

Piers Morgan – a meddling British pinhead and the poster child for the anti-gun Left – who drolly Tweeted last week, “Least surprising breaking news ever!: America’s first Olympic gold medal is for shooting” perfectly encapsulates the impossibly farcical nature of anti-gun liberalism.  For him and other liberals America’s guaranteed right of gun ownership, enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, is in and of itself raison d’etre for gun-control.  It’s the answer to the age old chicken-and-egg question – first came the 2nd Amendment then came gun violence.  Well, of course!  And so Democrats like Hillary Clinton (I’ll be the happiest man alive when I can stop writing that name) naturally vow to ban guns as the cure for our national ills.  And it all starts with registration.

Well… not so fast.  Let’s look at the Olympic-sized problems in Brazil: Gun laws in that country are, let’s just say, exacting.  All firearms are required to be registered.  All of them.  Brazilians are not allowed to leave their homes with a gun.  Earning the right to own a gun is a bureaucratic nightmare where a resident must first get a license, which costs 1,000 Brazilian dollars.  That’s approximately 12% of the average Brazilian’s income.  That would be like charging the average American $6,000 for a gun license.  In other words, it’s prohibitively expensive.  Just like in New York City where only the rich and well connected can obtain a concealed carry permit, only well-off Brazilians can enjoy the peace of mind of owning a gun for self-defense.  That leaves average New Yorkers and average Brazilians at the mercy of predatory criminals (who, somehow, still manage to be armed despite draconian gun-control laws).  Go figure!  Brazilians must also re-register their guns every three years and show continued justification for owning a weapon.  Self-defense is not considered justification.  And in recent years, the Brazilian government has used the power of licensing as a tool to put a stop to gun sales.  Gee, do you think the same could happen here in America if liberals are set loose on the 2nd Amendment like a pack of hyenas?  Actually, hyenas would do less harm.

You might recall that just within the past month a report was released that concluded that concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the country.  You might have also seen numerous reports since Dear Ruler Obama has been in power office that gun sales and applications for concealed carry permits have skyrocketed.  Curiously, though, at the same time the rate of violent crime in this country has decreased.  Democrats would like to cry coincidence, but the numbers (those pesky facts) cannot be so easily ignored.  Certainly, the bedrock argument of liberal anti-gunners – that more guns equal more crime – has been thoroughly busted.  But what direction, despite all those pesky facts, do liberals naturally look when crafting gun-control legislation?  Certainly not at the criminals who routinely break a myriad of gun laws when carrying out their crimes.  For liberals, white Christian NRA members, especially those who carry concealed, are the worst sort of criminals; not because they actually are criminals but because they expose the holes in liberal dogma (now that’s criminal).

While Obama commutes the sentences of black prisoners actually convicted of gun crimes, he and other Democrats seek to restrict law-abiding citizens’ right to own and carry guns… in an effort to “protect” you, don’t you see?  And while Democrats surround themselves with small armies of armed guards, they tell the average American that running away or peeing on yourself is a better form of self-defense than carrying a gun. Brilliant!  We should’ve just peed on the British in 1776 and that whole, messy Revolutionary War thing wouldn’t even have been necessary.  You might also recall recent reports from Rio of random shootings and some Olympians being robbed at gunpoint.  Hmm… interesting.

So what I’m getting from all of this is that America, which protects the right to bear arms, has been experiencing a decrease in gun-related violence even though more guns are now on the street, while Brazil, a country with some of the strictest gun laws in the world, experiences some of the worst gun-violence.  How can that be?  (Hint: It might have something to do with an age-old adage.)  In a country where guns are no longer allowed to be sold, where registration is mandatory, and where government controls the ownership of guns, gun violence is soaring.  Really, you could’ve knocked me over with a feather!  And yet liberals bitterly cling to (do you like what I did there? Thanks Obama!) the idea that there is such a thing as common sense gun-control.  “That’s a perfect score of 10 for the leftist American politician!  He’s definitely in the running for all-around ass hat!”  As it turns out, gun-control is all too common but it still makes no sense.

But wait, it gets worse.

In 2014 Brazil experienced about 60,000 gun-related murders.  That number apparently does not account for suicides or accidental gun deaths.  Just murders.  In America, at about the same time, approximately 33,000 people died at the business end of a gun.  That number does include suicides and accidental shootings.  So, if Americans are experiencing about 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and Brazilians are experiencing about 30 murders at the point of a gun per 100,000 people, then one must assume strict gun-control ain’t workin’ in Brazil.  And if it ain’t workin’ in Brazil (just like it ain’t workin’ in most countries where it has been tried) why would Democrats assume it’ll work here?

Well, the reasons are as many as the day is long, but they all boil down to one basic element: political control.  While the average Democrat who long ago stopped thinking for himself might actually believe that gun-control makes common sense (because the mother ship says so) it is very likely that the leadership of the Democratic Party has no such delusions.  They are privy to the FBI’s gun violence statistics.  They are continually briefed on crime rates along with their causes.  More importantly, though, they are, to a person, politically ambitious.  In layman’s terms, leftists crave control.  It is in their DNA.  Whereas determining a genetic male from a female might be problematic nowadays (I realize it’s really not.  I’m just making a point.), if it were available, a blood test would reveal Hyperactive Control Disorder coursing through the veins of every liberal politician.  (Protect your kids from HCD.  Inoculate them with conservativism!) Of course, there are plenty of Republican politicians suffering from the same malady, but at least they fake an affinity for that pesky thing called the Constitution.  Nevertheless, here’s something you’ll never hear a conservative politician say: “After we win this election, it is payback time.  For those who supported us, there will be rewards.  For the ones who opposed us, they will get what they deserve.  There will be hell to pay.” – Valerie Jarrett, adviser to Dear Ruler President Obama.  To be fair, there is a certain Republican who might say something similar, but he’s not an actual conservative.

What Democrats crave is putting a boot on the neck of every American who doesn’t see things their way.  The only way to do that is to enact gun-control measures.  More gun-control equals more political control.  The formula is deceptively simple.  Geez, when you look at it that way, it sure seems like the Founders thought of everything!  But give ‘em credit.  Balancing on that thin beam of deceit in those heavy jackboots has got to be worth a medal.  Right?

John Konya

John Konya graduated from college with a degree in Journalism and Mass Communication and then ran away from that line of work as fast as he could, recognizing a liberal bias in the media before there was actually a term for it. He joined the Air Force instead and flew fighter jets, which, as it turns out, is a considerably more satisfying endeavor. John grew up in a household of (legal) immigrants who escaped communism to find a home in the Party of Eisenhower. He is a veteran, airline pilot, former business owner and lifelong conservative. He is also now officially a middle-aged curmudgeon who draws the ire of both Democrats and Republicans alike. And that’s just the way he likes it.

1 Comment
  1. This well written article lays out the rationale for an important reason, perhaps the most important reason to vote for Trump. As I’ve said before, Clinton will effectively abolish the second amendment by appointing that 5th radical to the Supreme Court which will then reinterpret said amendment so that there is NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to bear arms.

Leave a Reply