Well, it would seem that yet another Democrat, this time Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has chosen to enter the gun control fray declaring, just this past Friday, that, “We’re not living in the Middle Ages.” He made this brilliant statement as part of his call for national gun control legislation. Democrats, assisted by their many minions in the state-controlled media, have expended, and continue to expend, a great deal of time and effort to create the perception that gun the level of gun violence continues to worsen in this country.
And if one is truly interested in seeking out the evidence, which is truly all around us, that their plan for greater gun control would only serve to make the ‘problem’ which they claim to be trying to resolve, so very much worse, then we need to look no further than to those places that already have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. And it’s many of those very same places that are currently under the control, and have been for decades, of Democrats. I mean, look at nearly any big city or any Blue State and the facts literally speak for themselves.
And when looking at that country as a whole the level of gun violence has continued to decline over the years. Now granted there has been a spike of gun shootings over the course of the last seven years, shootings that those on the left have been only too happy to exploit to the greatest extent possible. But what exactly is it that can be said to be behind that spike? Might it be the unwillingness on the part of current president to properly enforce current gun laws all in the hopes of actually increasing the odds of more gun violence taking place.
Gun control activists constantly clamor that there’s a “gun violence epidemic” in the United States, but the numbers simply don’t reflect that. In fact, the argument could be made that as the firearms ownership rate increases there’s a correlation to a decline in the murder rate. So perhaps, more guns equal less crime? That’s the position taken by a study from Virginia that showed a decrease in violent crime as the number of firearms being sold increased, and while it’s an interesting possibility there’s no good way to decisively prove it.
And it’s more often than not that those who are focused the most on restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun rarely, if ever, even mention the those instances, and there are many, of where a life was saved because someone had a gun. Because in so doing they would, and in pretty short order, prove the fallacy of their own argument that guns are ONLY ever used by those who commit crimes and NEVER in a way that can be, even remotely, seen as being defensive in nature. And to make such a claim, they say, is simply propaganda on the part of gun rights advocates.
So, back to this boob, Shumlin. He said, “My view on gun legislation is this: You will not solve this problem state by state. You need a 50-state solution, and we better come up with one fast.” Shumlin made his comment while attending Politico’s Sixth Annual State Solutions Conference at the Microsoft Innovation and Policy Center in Washington, D.C. Shumlin pushed for what he called a "50-state solution" despite coming from a rural state where guns are commonly used for hunting. No matter what state we’re talking about, it should have no impact on one’s right to own a gun.
Scumlin was taking questions from those on line because it was in responding to a question that was posed via Twitter about balancing public safety with Second Amendment rights that he said, “There’s no question there’s a different culture with guns and a different challenge for politicians in urban and rural states.” Since I am not a Democrat, it would seem to me that when it comes to those rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution, regardless of topic, it matters not in the least whether we live in an urban or a rural state.
Shumlin went on to say, “You know, Vermonters treat guns, we use guns to manage our deer herd, to manage our natural resources. And you know, you learn about guns at a very young age from, like me, my dad.” He added, “You know, I’m a hunter. I’m a Democrat, but I hunt deer. I know I’m not supposed to as a Democrat, but I do.” So by his choosing to make such an admission are we all somehow supposed to believe that that makes him more of a supporter of the Second Amendment? Nope, I don’t trust these people as far as I could throw them.
Shumlin, who was elected to his first two-year term as governor in 2010, signed into law a bill just last May that imposed restrictions on gun ownership in Vermont. And then, oddly enough, it was the following month that he announced that he was not running for reelection. So obviously what we have here is yet another Democrat who, while perfectly willing to restrict the rights of the people, lacks the courage to defend his actions. These Democrats, you can never really believe anything that they say. They really are a pack of political low-lifes.
No, Mr. Shumlin, thank God we are not, as you say, living in the Middle Ages. And yes, it was taken for granted during the Middle Ages that the peasants wouldn't be allowed to own their own weapons. You see, it was back then that arms were the privilege of the elite and how they held on to their power. Such is the mentality behind this effort by the Democrats to gut our Second Amendment. And by the way, something being missed by Shumlin, as it tends to be with all Democrats, is the fact that we already have a fifty state solution. It was ratified over two hundred years ago and it’s called the…CONSTITUTION!
And while Shumlin can said to be correct when he says we're not living in the Middle Ages, what we are living in is that era of human history which has produced the worst forms of government tyranny imaginable, starting with the emergence of atheistic Communism; the monstrosity of Nazism; the virulent spread of international Communism; the insanity of modern progressivism; and, of course, the death loving cult of Islam. And yet what is seen as being of the highest priority is the disarming of law abiding American citizens. Who but those of the Democrat Party thinks this way?
It was the Founders of our great nation who, in their infinite wisdom, truly understood the inclination of certain types of people to be drawn to exercising what is nothing short of dictatorial rule over their neighbors. The Second Amendment acts as a guarantee that no tyrant can so easily subdue us as has been done so often to defenseless people in the rest of the world. In that regard we who are so blessed to live in this country remain unique among all the peoples of this planet. And it is our modern day Democrats who represents exactly who is was that the Founders were most concerned about.