It's amazing how the credentials of a liberal politician are never in doubt. Liberals tend to be experts at everything, appearing to always use logic and reason to work through the most complex issues of the day. Yet, their ideas never work, and their solutions always fail, requiring further thought and laws. This cycle is by design. The "solutions" are just baby steps toward robbing the American public of more freedom. This can been seen in the gun-control movement.
Chuck Schumer has spent the majority of his professional life in politics after a brief time in the legal profession. Yet his opinion on all matters is sought out, and he is one of the most well known senators. Therefore it is no surprise that his clout is used to promote gun-control (CNSNews.com). Recently he remarked that it is OK for some people to own guns (CNSNews.com). If he does believe this, then will he determine who can bare arms? If so, what are his credentials? Has he performed studies on gun ownership or worked with gun safety officials? What psychological, sociological, or medical training does he have that would support his theories on which citizens can own firearms? What first hand knowledge of proper firearm ownership does he have? Is he a firearm owner and what does he use them for? Does he hunt, target shoot, or skeet shoot? If he does any of those activities, how long and how active is he in the sport? Those are just a list of questions that come immediately to mind.
Diane Fienstein, another gun-control advocate, has spent her entire career in politics. She was responsible for writing the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Shortly after the Newtown, CT shootings she began a renewed effort on a second assault weapons ban (CNSNews.com). Again, like Schumer, what unique information does she have that qualifies her to label something as an "assault weapon?" Has she asked the military, gun distributors and manufacturers, or firearm designers what they may consider an "assault weapon?" Does she have experience using, producing, or inventing new types of "assault weapons?" Has she studied how guns work, the physics behind them, or uses in combat and non-combat situations?
Those who have studied these issues paint a different picture of gun violence in the United States. The statics show that mass killings are in decline (TheBlaze.com). John Lott, a leading authority on gun violence, has written several books showing that firearm mass murders occurs more often in gun-free zones (NewsMax) and points to Israel's armed citizenry as being the most effective in stopping all types of crime (The Mark Levin Show, December 14, 2012). Has he been consulted by either Schumer or Fienstein?
A politician is a human being, not some genius who possesses answers to all issues and questions. Elevating them to expert status on all matters only emboldens them. It provides the opportunity to make wild assumptions and pass laws that limit freedom, not bring about solutions. So, when debating these officials, or those who support them, their knowledge and background should be the first thing challenged.
Unfortunately the vast majority of people confronted have no knowledge or experience with anything they are talking about. They reiterate talking points and fake "facts." Do not be afraid to confront such idiocy and remember that it is easily defeated and countered.
No comments:
Post a Comment