in 2009 everyone knew how anti-gun Eric Holder was but so-called pro gun politicians still voted for his approval. And they are about to do the same thing with Loretta Lynch. Why do they vote to approve someone that stands for everything they claim to be against, and is against everything they claim to be for?
This was written in 2009 and it applies even more now!
On the national front it is all bad news. Eric Holder is our new US Attorney General – the man tasked with enforcing federal laws. He has a long history of anti-gun efforts including filing a brief in the Supreme Court stating the 2nd Amendment is a collective, not an individual right and being the point man on the implementation of the Clinton Administration Assault Weapon ban. Both Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson voted to confirm his nomination.
Senator Isakson justified his vote by saying Holder promised to enforce the Supreme Court decisions on guns as the law of the land. And that many politicians praised Holder as a lawyer.
Even ignoring the lawyer part, Holder has already called for a renewal of the assault weapons ban. He somehow thinks you can ban guns because of the way they look without stepping on the Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment means what it says and is an individual right to own guns.
Senator Chambliss said much the same thing, that Holder said he would support the Supreme Court ruling and that President Obama deserved deference in his nominations. If only the democrats observed such deference to conservative nominations.
Both Chambliss and Isakson are politicians and should know you can not trust what politicians say; you must look at their record. And Holder has a long anti-gun record. But he is now the Attorney General and they voted for him. Keep an eye on Holders statements and actions to see how wise their vote.
There has been a rash of insane killings with guns in the past few months so the anti-gun groups and the media are in a frenzy to pass laws that restrict our rights. An example is this from a Brady Center fundraising email on April 6:
“Enough is enough. I am outraged by the senseless deaths in these mass shootings — but more so, because Congress fails to act to prevent them.”
The Brady Bunch’s solution, of course, is to outlaw guns and, by the way, send them money.
60 Minutes did one of their usual hit pieces on guns on their April 12 broadcast. They seemed shocked that support for a gun control had gone down, from 60 percent in 2000 to only 49 percent today and seemed determined to do all they can to reverse that trend.
An anti-gun rights editorial from the Atlanta Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker, which can be expected on a regular basis, ran on April 12. She justified he call for a ban on assault weapons because her father hunted deer and he didn’t need an assault weapon.
The New York Times has been running a series of editorials calling for gun control. Some of the comments get scary. For example, in an April 8th blog editorial Timothy Egan talks about guns and claims:
“American life in the spring of 2009 is full of hope, peril, and then this: the cancer at the core of our democracy.”
So guns are the “cancer” of our democracy? Even scarier is March Abraham’s March 25 Huffington Post blog:
“And as for the argument that we will never get rid of all these guns in this country; it is plain wrong. We will get rid of them if we start banning them for real.”
We must fight back or we will lose our rights. Don’t let anti-gun comments, whether from people wanting to ban guns or from people who just don’t know any better, go unanswered. Speak out for your rights and contact politicians, or lose your rights.