Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative for Illinois 9th Congressional District, was recently speaking at the "One Billion Rising" rally in Washington DC on February 14th, when Jason Mattera[1] was able to have a brief conversation with her regarding gun control. Jason presented himself as someone who seemed to agree with her views and she was more than happy to talk to him.
Among other things, she spoke of the proposed assault weapon ban being just the beginning. She mentioned background checks, according to the Brady Campaign, being one of the "most effective" tools to reduce gun violence. We know that "reduce gun violence" actually means "increase gun control". She went on to say, "we are going to push as hard as we can, as far as we can". She stated, "I mean, I'm against handguns(I know, big surprise there)". She then backed up her stance with the very factual sounding comment, "In Illinois, we have the Council Against Handgun... something". I'm guessing here, but I think she means The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV), "the oldest and largest statewide organization in the U.S. working to prevent the devastation caused by firearms, founded in 1975".
I find it odd, that in support of her being against handguns, she couldn't remember the name of that organization, the oldest in the nation, based in her home state. You would think someone in her position would have been working hand-in-hand with an organization like that for years. It wouldn't seem so since she can't even remember the name of the group. The part she could remember was "council against handgun", that's the important part I guess.
She goes on to talk about a possible way to be able to ban handguns being the rights of municipalities, communities and states. We can see how well this has worked in Chicago over the years. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation has resulted in one of, if not the highest murder rate in the country. Meanwhile, the ICHV website states:
ICHV successfully advocates for policies designed to minimize the impact gun violence has on Illinois residents. As a result, Illinois has some of the most progressive gun laws in the country, and we are recognized as a model for other state based gun violence prevention groups. Over our long history working together with our dedicated members and coalition partners, not only have we defeated many of the gun lobby’s key measures, we have also made numerous other accomplishments...Of the accomplishments they list, one is [c]ontributing to a 20% decrease in the number of Illinois residents killed by guns since 1995, and a nearly 60% decrease in the number of children and teens killed by guns during that time. That stat must not include Chicago's, roughly, 10,500 murders since 1995. Chicago apologists will tell you that crime has been on the decrease since the gun ban, and they are right, sort of. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Additionally, Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.
So, beyond this, the ICHV, which is so endeared by Schakowsky, has accomplished, according to its website, six other notable things, five of which are directly tied to gun control and the suppression of our liberties. The sixth is a poetry contest...
While Schakowsky is more than happy to talk to Mr. Mattera about taking away our rights, another Congressman, Jim Moran, during a townhall meeting recently, was less than eager to speak up[2]. He was asked by a participant in the audience why lawmakers are less than eager to support a woman's right to defend herself. His response was to ignore her question completely and move on to the next guy. When someone asked why he wouldn't answer, he responded, "I'm choosing to move to the next question".
There is really no other way to describe his actions other than cowardly. He could have dodged her question in any number of ways. Don't they teach these guys how to avoid the tough questions in Liberal Logic 101? Instead, he basically told her to shut up.
A tale of two liberal positions. They speak up when the opportunity to quash freedom exists and they tell you to shut up when you dare ask a question that makes them uncomfortable. The bully pulpit is alive and well.
We need to continue to expose these people for who they are. They don't care about freedom. They don't care about people. They care about power. They care about progressive, statist agendas. They care about themselves, plain and simple.
If we care about the future of our country, we better start speaking up about it. also, when we are told to shut up by bullies, we need to stand up to them. The only way to stop them is to fight back.
No comments:
Post a Comment