Posted on 01/27/2013 2:49:43 AM PST by Kaslin
You have to give progressives credit. They’re nothing if not thorough. When an opportunity to limit the Second Amendment presented itself in the Sandy Hook massacre, regardless how tasteless it was to exploit that opportunity, they went full bore toward their goal.
Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced sweeping so-called “assault weapons” ban legislation this week that would place unprecedented restrictions on individuals’ rights to own, use, sell and even pass along already owned firearms to family members. But given where things stand now in the polls and political atmosphere, that legislation will go nowhere.
But the Constitution and the will of the people matter little to a progressive with an opportunity.
If they were at all interested in the democracy they routinely claim to champion, they would accept the will of voters and engage in an effort to change minds and the Constitution to reflect their wishes. But much like a three-card Monte street hustler, they pursue the debate over this proposed legislation merely to draw our attention away from what they really seek to do.
While the media focused on Sen. Feinstein’s legislation and President Obama’s dog-and-pony show – complete with children for props and “executive initiatives” that amount to no more than a to-do list for himself –, the real progressive attack on the Second Amendment churns on beneath the radar.
Progressive politicians across the country are attempting to launch a stealth war against gun manufacturers, trying to harm them financially because they can’t legislatively.
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has the city moving to divest its pension fund from weapons and ammunitions companies in an attempt to pressure them to agree to more controls on their businesses. But Nutter isn’t alone, a growing list of progressive politicians from across the country are using their workers’ pensions, their retirement savings, like chips in a game of high-stakes poker.
By pulling, or threatening to pull, hundreds of millions of dollars in investments from manufacturers, it threatens to take stock prices artificially low. They’re willing to play politics with the retirement of their workers in order to advance their agenda. But the full-frontal assault on their stock price isn’t the only stealth avenue they’re seeking.
Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel, mayor of the murder capital of the world, is taking a second line of attack by putting pressure on banks to stop their financial involvement with weapons manufactures until they capitulate to the progressive will.
Emanuel, the president’s former chief of staff, wouldn’t dare make such a move if he didn’t have the blessing of the White House.
Time will tell how well this will work, but the tactic of ignoring the will of the people to advance their agenda is nothing new to progressives. When they can’t get what they want through the electoral process, progressives have no qualms about circumventing the express will of their constituents through lawsuits, activist judges or flat-out harassment.
For years, liberals have sought to silence Rush Limbaugh, to remove him from the radio. They tried offering competing programming, but that proved as fruitful as Betamax every time it’s been tried. They’ve toyed with the idea of reinstating the ironically named “fairness doctrine” to force him off the air, but that idea went nowhere. So they’ve adopted the tactic of harassing companies that advertise on his show, trying to chase them away in the hopes of silencing him through threats and intimidation.
The only step missing from the progressive playbook is the court – almost always the last place they turn when the people flatly refuse to give them their way. Expect an attempt to subvert this soon.
Progressives are never content to win an argument, election or debate, nor would they even be capable if they were honest about their agenda. Instead they focus on the long war, small pieces and coordinated, seemingly disparate actions on different tracks and never stop until they reach their goal. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy contradicting one another, capitulating and/or fighting to be the Democratic Media Complex’s flavor of the week.
In coming weeks and months, we will see still more back-channel tactics, arm-twisting and varying degrees of blackmail and threats employed as more and more progressive groups with more and more liberal money behind them fall in line to do their part to attempt to chisel away at the Second Amendment.
All the while Republicans will go on TV, take abuse while making their case, find support for their principles in the polls…and lose.
President Reagan kept a plaque on the wall in the Oval Office that read, “There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.” It’s a lesson Republicans have forgotten, and a lesson progressives have learned all too well.
The other thread was locked, but I agree with your post to me. I see the same thing over and over again, the same people too. Of course the over and over is also going to end also.
The fight now is more important than any of the others except health care. And we know how that worked out.
People need to hold firm and allow no compromise of any kind on RKBA.
Democrats and RINOS
GOD DENIERS AND CONGENITAL LIARS
SAY YOU MUST REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH
LEAVE FIRST YOUR MONEY THEN YOUR GUNS
BE DEFENSELESS WHEN CROOKS COME
Progressives will never stop.
Our side believes in individual liberty and the success of the individual.
Liberals believe their agenda is more important than the individual.....that is why individual failure among their own is ignored.
Feinstein’s bill was not written after Sandy Hook. This legislation was already written and waiting for the right moment to be revealed.
good read on the root of the campaigns of both sides...
http://cliffsofinsanity2010.blogspot.com/2013/01/information-ideology.html
This person assumes that Republicans will allow rigged courts and illegal EOs rule the issue. I think many understand that a line has been drawn...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if a pension plan divests itself of gun stock, they would have to sell it, right? Which means there’s a buyer. So when they do this, how would this be harmful? Seems to me it’s an even-Steven.
All show I guess...
Evidently the author thinks so
Important to communicate with Rep. Boehner and Sen. McConnell as well as your own state’s Representatives and Senators in the Congress and in the state capital.
The author’s central premise is flawed. Gun ownership is not the province of one political party. Many Democrats own guns as well as Republicans, especially in the South and the West. They are unlikely to support any new gun control measures, much less the blanket restrictions proposed by Ms. (I’ve got my own bodyguards for life, screw the rest of you) Feinstein.
Makers of firearms and ammo are among the strongest performers in the market. So divestment would be stupid on the part of the liberals. In addition, it would create a really sweet buying opportunity for other players in the market.
Not to mention that the gun & ammo makers are working 24 hours to keep up with demand anyway and would probably not notice.
“Feinstein’s bill was not written after Sandy Hook. This legislation was already written and waiting for the right moment to be revealed.”
Just so!
Likewise, Obamacare had been gestating for almost 50 years, awaiting for the right moment.
These LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist bastards wake up every day and ask themselves how they can advance their evil agenda.
Conservatives must come to understand that we are in a war to the death, and begin to plan accordingly.
When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty - Thomas Jefferson
I have only one thing to say:
MOLON LABE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.