|
|
This came from textsfromlastnight.com which is a site that users submit humorous (sad?) text messages.
I have no reason to believe this isn't true. Sounds like the logic of an Obama supporter.
0 Comments
How do we know this?
Simple. The gun used in the Connecticut school shootings would still have been legal under the assault weapons ban that liberals want to bring back. Via Reason: "In fact, as I noted yesterday, the rifle Lanza used is not covered by Connecticut's "assault weapon" law or by the federal ban, which used similar criteria. Both laws ban the Colt AR-15 by name, but rifles not on the list of forbidden models are banned only if they have detachable magazines plus at least two of these five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The gun used by Lanza was legal in Connecticut, so it did not meet these criteria, which means it also would have been legal under the federal ban that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) promises to reintroduce next month (a bill President Obama supports)." Knee-jerk reactionaries on the left are proposing a gun ban that would have not prevented the very tragedy they have hijacked to push the gun ban. But what more would you expect from emotional, irrational Democrats? "Never let a crisis go to waste."
This statement made headlines when it was uttered by Barack Obama's former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel. Reading this statement begs the question: how do you ensure that a crisis does not go to waste? Simple. If you are a Democrat, you expand government. Democrats always use turmoil and crises to push their big government, anti-individual agenda. From recessions and fiscal cliffs to mass shootings, the anti-liberty forces are constantly on the move. The fiscal cliff is being used by Democrats to seize more private property from individuals with the hopes of using this "revenue" to transfer it to others. This in turn will create more dependence on government (read: Democrats). Thus leading to a reduction of liberty for all involved. The same thing is happening this weekend in the aftermath of the horrific events in Connecticut. The smoke hadn't even cleared yet and liberals are already out attacking the Second Amendment. Barack Obama came out in favor of "meaningful action" in response to the shooting. Of course we all know what this means- gun control. A reduction of liberty via an expansion of government. The Democrats do not value liberty. They do not value freedom. They do not value independence. They want a strong state and a subservient people. And what better way to push this than using a crisis as a trojan horse filled with new regulations and an expanded governmental role in our lives? Via The Weekly Standard: "Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level," writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. "By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed."  |
AuthorConstitutional conservative and free-market defender blogging about national and Tennessee politics Blogroll
|
RSS Feed