Preventing gun violence

Via email a few weeks ago from “longtime reader” Mike H. we have Taking executive action on guns, McAuliffe bans firearms in most state offices:

After facing resistance to new gun-control measures in the General Assembly, Gov. Terry McAuliffe used his executive authority Thursday to bolster prosecutions of illegal gun sales and ban firearms in most state offices.

In an executive order signed during a morning news conference in Richmond, McAuliffe established a task force that will direct state resources toward gun prosecutions, ordered the Virginia State Police to create a tip line to let people collect rewards for reporting gun violations and enacted an immediate ban on openly carried guns in executive branch offices.

“Gun crimes are not acts of God,” McAuliffe said. “But for too long, certain politicians and lobbyists have told us that gun violence in America is some sort of natural phenomenon, something we cannot do anything about. Today, we are gathered to recognize that we are not helpless to gun violence, that we can prevent it.”

Really? McAuliffe is “recognizing” he can prevent gun violence? Citation needed.

Is he also going to “recognize” he can prevent religious violence by restricting religions?

I’m in agreement with Matt Irwin.

 

Share

5 thoughts on “Preventing gun violence

  1. “…certain politicians and lobbyists have told us that gun violence in America is some sort of natural phenomenon, something we cannot do anything about. “

    I don’t know of any politician or lobbyist, or anyone else, ever saying anything like that. His wording suggests that his personal definition of “gun violence” is “the right to keep and bear arms”. If you do the substitution, or the translation from Left-Speak to English, the statement becomes;
    “..certain politicians and lobbyists have told us that the right to keep and bear arms in America is some sort of natural phenomenon, something we cannot do anything about. “.
    THAT is true, and so he’s using an old Progressive trick of changing the meanings of words and hoping no one will notice. He would have you believe that respecting a human right equals death and destruction, that the second amendment is a protection FOR violent criminals when in fact it is a protection AGAINST violent criminals (which naturally makes politicians nervous).

    I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it; politicians and common criminals have a common interest. They’re both interested in keeping us weak, distracted and intimidated so that they can live by eating out our substance. They are soul mates.

    • Yes. Professional courtesy. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn recognized it in his magnum opus, The Gulag Archipelago, when he described how the at the camps he was imprisoned at the thieves and murderers were treated better than the political prisoners, and the thieves and murderers took every advantage of that. They need one another like the Pied Piper needed rats.

      • Notice also the long-standing and on-going fascination with gangsters among Progressives and the left media.

  2. “[B]olster prosecutions of illegal gun sales and ban firearms in most state offices.”
    Is this his idea of compromise? One order that might be productive combined with another that is demonstrably not and merely provides a pasture of de-clawed sheepdogs and de-horned and de-hoofed sheep for the wolves to prey on? Or is he trying to provide a source of safe gun crimes to prosecute so his numbers can go up?

  3. Of course none of those pontifications will pertain to the “only ones” protecting the gov and his sycophants. Only for the usual “little people and proles, of course.

Comments are closed.