When Andrew Cuomo beat Carl Paladino to become Governor of New York, I knew my state would eventually have to deal with a really bad decision from the “liberal-in-chief” , I just didn’t know when. He made a pretty bad decision right off the bat by signing into law a bill that legalizes gay marriage, but soon afterward quieted down and did nothing very controversial for a what seemed like a long time. Then Hurricane Sandy hit and Cuomo was…really good; he fought for the people and kept on Con Edison’s case for not getting people’s power back on time. He even had people who did not like him giving him praise; it was during this time that it seemed he could do no wrong…and then Sandy hit, Sandy Hook that is.
Everyone knows the story; a mentally ill gunman walked into a gun-free school zone in Sandy Hook Connecticut and opened fire, killing twenty kids and six adults before killing himself. The entire nation mourned this tragedy and a national debate sparked over gun control; coming off of his Hurricane Sandy victory, Gov. Cuomo had another chance to shine bright, but instead, he did the exact opposite. In a speech calling for “common sense gun control”, the Governor had this to say:
So we don’t need 10 bullets to kill a deer huh? Well, what if we want to kill two deer? Not only does Cuomo show his arrogance with this statement, he also shows the complete lack of understanding he has of the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. Governor Cuomo, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, it is about self defense; defense against those who wish to do harm to you, whether they be robber or government tyrant. So while I may not “need” 10 bullets to kill a dear, I am still allowed to have them, and you have no right to tell me that I don’t need that many rounds in my gun to protect myself. And who cares about how many bullets I “need”? The 2nd amendment encodes my right to keep bear arms if I so choose, and if I choose to keep and bear a gun that carries 10-15 bullets in its chamber, that is my business, not your’s sir.
But Cuomo doesn’t seem to care about our rights, and so he signed into law an extremely sloppy and rushed bill that puts a 7 round maximum on guns. (1) Yes, you read that correctly, seven rounds. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I feel so much safer now that if a robber who breaks into my house has a gun with 10 rounds in it (because in case you didn’t know Governor, criminals break the law), I can now defend myself with 3 less bullets than he has…thanks for that. Again Governor, the second amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms; I dare you to show me anywhere in that amendment or the constitution in general that says that you have the right to regulate what kind of gun I own, because you are not going to find it.
The Founding Fathers spoke of the citizen’s right to arm and defend themselves, if Cuomo thinks that the right to bear arms is about hunting, he really needs to look back on his history lessons. This bill is simply unconstitutional at its core; a violation of the 2nd amendment is pretty darn serious, but there may be a second constitutional violation in the text. There is concern that not only does this law make it illegal to own guns and magazines with more than 7 bullet capacities, it may also punish you for having bought these guns when it was legal to do so. (2) Punishing you for doing something that was legal at the time is called an “Ex Post Facto Law” (law after the fact), and according to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution:
“No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.”
If this law really does contain an ex post facto clause, then Cuomo and the New York government are guilty of at least two counts of violating our supreme law of the land, a serious crime indeed. Not only is this bill unconstitutional, its downright sloppy as well; these geniuses in the New York government were so anxious to get this bill passed and signed, that they forgot to exempt police officers from the 7 round maximum. (3) Thats right, if the New York legislature fails to amend the bill (which they are currently trying to do) (4), then New York’s finest will be breaking the law with their 15 round guns…can you imagine the chaos of them having to all arrest each other? Another thing we keep hearing from the Governor and his supporters is that “assault rifles” are too dangerous for our streets; but heres the thing, just because a gun is semi-automatic and can shoot more than 7 rounds does not mean its an assault rifle.
Many of these guns that liberals want banned aren’t even used by the armed services! But liberals just don’t seem to get it; “the 2nd amendment was about muskets, not assault rifles” they say, but last time I checked, back when the 2nd amendment was crafted, a musket was an assault rifle! Also, if all my American history classes from 1st grade through college serve me right, the framers hunted with their assault rifles Mr. Governor! The truth is that liberal arguments just don’t hold up to logic or history, and yet they will never cease to amaze us with their lack of realization of this truth.
“But under your definition of the 2nd amendment, people will be able to own tanks and bazookas!” No they won’t, no one has ever argued for that; a tank is a vehicle, no one with any common sense thinks that that is a 2nd amendment protected arm. A bazooka on the other hand is todays hand held cannon; this isn’t something anyone has called for the public to have en masse. If my recollection is correct (and if someone can prove me wrong, go right ahead) I don’t think you average Joe had cannons way back in the 17/ 1800s; it was a weapon used by armies, and town defenses. So before you start fear-mongering over what may come into the hands of citizens, why don’t you do use a bit of common sense?
The New York gun debate is only part of the national gun debate, and in this national debate Texas Senator Ted Cruz makes a great point about these gun bans that can be applied to our case in New York. The point he makes is that functionally speaking, the differences between many of the guns that are banned and many of the guns that are legal, are nothing more than aesthetics. He makes the point that the guns that are being banned are being outlawed due to the fact that they look scary and have a different piece of plastic on them than guns that remain perfectly legal under these new laws:
We can only hope that the consequences of violating the Constitution with this law come back to bite the Governor in his political hind quarters, but already some political consequences are taking place. As a result of this new law being passed, a group of nearly 50 gun manufacturers have chosen to boycott the government of New York, and to not sell them any firearms; yes, because of the actions of the Empire State’s leaders, New York Police Officers will not be able to buy guns from nearly 50 manufacturers. (5)
The second consequence is one that hits Gov. Cuomo personally as due to his signing of this bill, his approval rating has plummeted a startling 15 percentage points, from 74% to 59% (and this is in the liberal state of New York of all places). (6) This is one of the only bright spots of this story, though obviously one that comes at a price; if this law is overturned then it will have all be worth it, but until then, we in New York (and all around the country) must continue to fight hard against what can only be called the beginning of tyranny.
“”Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. ” ; “…when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” – George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment and Founding Father. (7)
Liberal Democrats seem to think, and want you to believe with all your heart, that the GOP is waging a “War on Women”; they accuse us of this simply because 1. we don’t believe that anybody has the right to kill anyone, especially not an innocent unborn child, 2. because we oppose forcing people, especially religious institutions, to pay for other people’s $9 a month birth control, and 3. because we oppose the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which does very little to actually help women. If this constitutes a War on Women, then I don’t want to live on this planet anymore; if you want to see a real War on Women, look no farther than many of the Middle Eastern Islamic countries who brutalize and murder women for supposed immodesty and for wanting the freedoms that come with being human; but that is a whole different topic. Today we focus on two issues in America; this is by no means a complete list or critique of liberal’s anti-women actions and policies, but both are certainly relevant.
It is almost ironic that the Obama administration calls for equal pay for women, pushes the Lilly Ledbetter act, and yet continues to be the antithesis of their own message by paying their women staffers less than they do their men:
“Using late 2011 figures, the latest available at the time, The Washington Times earlier this year surveyed 121 White House employees who were paid at least $100,000 and found that 47 were women and 74 were men. That is only slightly better than in 2003, the third year of the Bush administration, when 39 of the top 121 employees were women…When all White House employees are considered, the Obama administration’s record dims a bit further. Female employees earn a median salary of $60,000, roughly 18 percent less than men, whose median salary is $71,000.” (1)
So we see the administration’s hypocrisy; claiming that the GOP is waging a war on women by being against Lilly Ledbetter, and yet doing the exact same thing they accuse us of doing. The 18% wage gap between men and women in the White House simply shows that Obama and the Democrats have forgotten to take the log out of their eyes. But the statistics on their top 20 wage earners shows something else; that of these 20, the majority of them are, wait for it, men:
“Of the administration’s 20 top earners, who each took home a tidy $172,200 for their work in 2011, only six of those were women.” (2)
With 14 out of the top 20 earners being men, it sure doesn’t seem like Obama is honoring his platform of equal pay for women, especially since he signed Lilly Ledbetter over four years ago; how anyone can think he has some kind of high ground and let him and the left get away with accusing the right of supporting an “unfair practice” that his administration actively participates in is beyond me.
The second situation takes place in the State of Colorado; the Colorado legislature is considering passing a bill that would eliminate conceal carry for permit owners on college campuses. On its face this is a really bad proposal, but some of the arguments used in reference to women are downright shameful. While I understand that this bill would disarm both sexes on college campuses, the fact that this bill disarms women, the sex that is more likely to be in danger of rape is really disturbing. If anything is a “war on women”, it is disarming them of guns, their best protection in the case of potential rape; so lets look at some of the comments Colorado Democrats and institutions have been making.
The University of Colorado for example has put out a primer for female students on how to avoid a rape; some of the examples made sense, like screaming, yelling, hitting, and biting, but some of the rest of the tips are so stupid its offensive. One of the tips was passive resistance, which just by its title is disturbing, but two of their other tips were to 1. “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.” and 2. “Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.” (3) Maybe its me, but I think having a gun handy to scare off the rapist is better than telling the freak that you are sick or at that time of the month; also, vomiting and urinating on yourself is totally disgusting, to encourage that instead of allowing guns is totally irrational and degrading to women.
Back to the Colorado legislature and their gun debate; Democratic Representative Paul Rosenthal argues that women don’t need guns to defend themselves. Instead of guns, they should just learn the art of Judo or walk with a buddy:
“Another point that was brought up a gun is the only method a person, a student, has in self defense. There are other methods. There is mace. What about a taser? The buddy system, other methods of self defense, judo, what have you.”
Again we have the simple question; why not just use a gun? When it comes to protecting yourself from robber or rape, wouldn’t you want women to be able to choose what they want to defend themselves with? Wouldn’t you want to let them be able to choose the best option available for defense? You know Mr. Rosenthal, these women could also learn black magic if it comes down to it, or you know, what have you…
But Rep. Rosenthal was not the only Democrat to speak out against guns, invoking the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, State Senator Jessie Ulibarri (D-enial) made sure to point out that guns were not needed to stop the Arizona shooter, instead, some brave souls used…ballpoint pens. Now I’ve done a little research into this and let me say, I have not found any evidence that ballpoint pens were used to stop the shooter, all I have found is that four people helped to stop the shooter by tackling him and wrestling the gun out of his hand; and just to be clear, one of the four saviors it turns out, had a gun on his person as well. (4) But even if ballpoint pens were used, do we really think this is the best option? Lets take this suggestion and apply it to a woman on a college campus who is about to get robbed or raped; are we really so willing to tell women “you can’t have a gun, but you should carry a pen, it might help you stop the attacker.” Does Ulibarri even hear himself? I hate to break it to you Jessie, but this isn’t an episode of Supernatural:
If pens are all you really need to defend yourself from a rapist or a shooter, perhaps Ulibarri, if he should ever require personal security, should arm his bodyguards with pens; in fact, we should institute that policy with the President’s Secret Service protection, cause after all, who really needs a gun for defense purposes! The idea that we should take guns out of the hands of college students because pens are a good enough defense just shows that the left has no good arguments for depriving students of their second amendment rights; then again, Colorado did just legalize marijuana for recreational use, so perhaps these Representatives are just high.
But don’t worry my friends, the best has been saved for last! In regards to this bill that would ban legal conceal and carry on college campuses, Republicans expressed concerns about women being able to protect themselves; that you are only making it worse for them by not allowing them to bring their legally purchased and registered gun to school with them. But do not worry, Democratic Rep. Joe Salazar believes that women can still protect themselves with call boxes, safe zones, and rape whistles; he also had this to say about why women shouldn’t be able to carry guns on campuses:
“Universities have been faced with that situation for a long time…It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody.”
The stupidity of this statement is absolutely mind numbing; women can’t be trusted with guns on campus because they might get so scared of being raped that they might shoot somebody? Really? Now to be fair, Salazar did admit he shouldn’t have said that, but the fact that it even came to his head shows what he really thinks of women; that they are irrational, easily scare-able beings who can’t be trusted not to shoot innocent people. Some people like to compare this to Todd Akin’s unfortunate comments on rape and the human body, but they are not even close.
While I did not and will not defend Akin, his opinion was not based on an inferiority of women’s minds and abilities; his statements were based on what a (very questionable) Doctor told him about rape and the female body. This is not an attack or a defense of Akin (as that is a whole different topic), I just bring him up to show the difference between the two sides; the conservative said something that many people found offensive, because they think it was stupid, and the liberal said something that is totally offensive, because it belittles a woman’s mental capability to judge if the situation she is facing is one which requires self defense. If anything is a war on women, it is this; that democrats are willing to disarm women based on the fact that they do not think they are capable of being smart and safe with a gun.
There is a great quote that I recently saw on this very issue, one that really gets to the heart of the matter; it said:
“Guns are the great equalizer. They allow someone to be safe, regardless of weight, height, gender, race, religion, or creed. So if there’s a “war on women”, then it’s definitely being waged by people who won’t trust them with self-defense. ” (Anonymous)
These are only two examples of the true American war on women that liberals are waging day in and day out (along with their race war, another topic which we will address soon), but these are not even the worst incidents that we see. This post isn’t even going to cover how abortion is part of the war on women, as not only is it unsafe for the mother, but it has killed an estimated 54+ million children since the passage of Roe v. Wade; with goodness knows how many baby girls have been slaughtered by the practice. (5) Nor is this post even talking about Pornography, which is another big weapon used in the war on women, as all it does is objectify and degrade them, and lower their worth in the eyes of men. The war on women is real, it comes from hypocrisy from the administration, anti-women stupidity from people like the Democrats in the Colorado legislature, and even more so from abortion and porn which last time I checked, we Conservatives are wholeheartedly against.