PROGRESSIVES, THEY NEVER STOP TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS…

Progressive Democrats, let’s just call them what they are since they seem to have ‘evolved’ well beyond anyone’s definition of ‘liberal’, have long tried, and by just about means they could come up with, to take guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans.  They’ve tried bullying us, they’ve tried threatening us and they’ve even tried shaming us into giving up our guns.  And then there have been some at the state level who have gone as far as to force rather draconian gun laws upon us, some of which that, thankfully, have gotten overturned by even left leaning judges.  But now it seems that there is possibly a new move afoot.  A little concoction that that is the brainchild of the more progressive member of Congress from Oregon.  According to his plan, guns, like tobacco products, should be declared as hazardous to your health.   

So anyway, what we have here is Rep. Earl Blumenauer, progressive Democrat, who recently released a plan calling for “more research on the health effects of guns.”  What he’s calling his “Enough is Enough” plan, looks back at how it was that the U.S. government addressed tobacco use and automobile safety in years past and calls for a similar approach to guns.  According to his plan, “The Surgeon General's report on tobacco was a major catalyst for the efforts to reduce tobacco use. Ralph Nader’s research captured headlines and focused public attention on automobile safety. Similarly, we need more research on the health effects of guns. We can start by improving the ability of researchers and the federal government to study and share information about guns.”  What does he see as being the “health effects of guns?”

His cockamamie plan also increases the role that doctors and nurses are to play in the ongoing debate on guns.  The plan states that, “Our doctors and nurses should be part of the efforts to increase gun safety. Just as your physician would encourage you to stop smoking, or to put your child in a car seat, they should be able to ask questions and give advice about guns. People know and trust their doctors; when doctors encourage safe gun practices, people listen.”  I suppose that ‘might’ be true if the physician himself, or herself, was in fact a gun owner.  If not, might anything that they might have to say make things more dangerous than they might otherwise be?  Other aspects of the plan are said to include “Improving the Mental Health System”, “Increasing Product Safety” and “Controlling Access to the Most Dangerous Products.” 

According to, this moron’s plan, “There is tremendous variability in gun designs and features. Some are best used as tools or for sport - specifically designed for hunting or target shooting. Other guns have additional features such as pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and magazines that are detachable or attach outside the pistol grip. These features can allow a shooter to fire a large number of rounds at an extremely rapid pace without reloading. Commonly referred to as assault weapons, they are designed to be highly deadly.”  The plan also says, “Restrictions on assault weapon availability and magazine capacity can be a small but important step in addressing the lethality of mass shootings.”  So would like to see a return to something like an assault weapon ban that proved so ineffective last time it was tried that it was simply allowed to die?

Apparently as the basis for his "Enough is Enough" plan Blumenauer cites Australia’s laws which ban semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, institutes a 28-day waiting period for every gun purchase and requiring every potential owner to show a genuine reason to own, possess, or use a firearm as an “inspiring” example of incremental steps to reduce gun violence that can be effective.  According to his plan, “Solutions in the United States will not look like those in Australia, but the Australian experience shows that it is possible to reduce gun violence significantly while still allowing hobby and sport shooting for responsible owners. We must chart our own path forward, but we cannot be afraid to take the first step.”  Democrats ignore completely the fact that stricter gun laws do little to reduce gun violence.

And it really wasn’t that long ago Barry, too, was citing Australia’s gun laws as being the example for stricter gun laws here.  Just last June Barry said, “My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this.”  He went on to say, “A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, ‘Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”

These two may have been a bit hasty because it was on 15–16 December 2014, that a lone gunman, Man Haron Monis, held hostage ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate café located at Martin Place in Sydney, Australia.  Police treated the event as a terrorist attack, and negotiated with Monis throughout the day.  After a 16-hour standoff, during which areas of the Sydney central business district surrounding the site were cordoned off and nearby buildings locked down, police officers from the Tactical Operations Unit stormed the café upon hearing gunshots from inside. At least one hostage was shot by Monis, who himself was shot dead after police entered in response.  Hostages Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson died, while three other hostages and a police officer were injured during the police raid.  The incident still has many asking, would good guys with guns have prevented this tragedy from happening?

And it would later be that a PRO-guns Senator there in Australia would seem to be of the opinion that his country has now become what is essentially a “nation of victims” because citizens, like the hostages in the Sydney siege, are now unable to properly defend themselves.  According to the Liberal Democrats’ David Leyonhjelm, those held against their will that day were helpless because they were unable to arm themselves.  It was Senator Leyonhjelm who told ABC Radio, “What happened in that cafe would be most unlikely to have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or perhaps even Switzerland as well,” adding at least “one or two” there would have had a concealed gun.  He said, “That nutcase who held them all hostage wouldn’t have known they were armed and bad guys don’t like to be shot back at.”

The bottom line here is that I find it somewhat, oh I don’t know, ironic I guess, that while progressives like this boob Blumenauer and Barry wish to emulate the gun laws of Australia because they are far more strict than those laws we have here, they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in emulating the immigration laws of, say, Mexico, whose immigration laws are also far more tougher than the immigration laws that we have in this country.  Democrats have always been so very selective when it comes to determining into which areas they wished government to force itself.  They claim to be acting on behalf of increasing public safety when pushing for stricter gun laws while at the same time decreasing public safety by working to weaken, or to simply unenforced, our immigration laws.  So it simply makes no sense.