Once again, ProgressNow New Mexico’s executive director pushes their gun control agenda immediately after a shooting, this time in Roswell. Why can’t they just pray like the rest of us?
The immediate response to a tragedy by pushing an agenda is troubling. Does the Left know how to operate without using times of tragedy and emotion to convey their point?
Pat Davis has a history of doing this. Just a month ago Davis was among the first to shout “gun control” while the smoke was still clearing after a shooting in Colorado. Really? Is this the best he can do?
* * *
If it weren’t enough for Davis to push his agenda immediately, he comes out with an attack piece on the Albuquerque Journal for their use of gun ads. It’s a free country, right? I would suppose that there are more pro-gun people who read the Albuquerque Journal than there are anti-gun activists.
Insensitive? Really? It is the height of insensitivity and hypocracy to push one’s agenda immediately after a tragedy– but, hey, Pat Davis doesn’t look in the mirror often, does he? Anybody can see the double standard he has for himself verses the high standard he hold others (and especially conservatives) to. Think Davis is a hypocrite? Tell the Albuquerque Journal you think so by sending a letter to the editor telling them YOU support the Albuquerque Journal and that you support THEIR use of the first amendment in choosing any ads they wish! (Email here.)
* * *
Lastly if Pat Davis actually wants to solve the violence problem, why doesn’t he try to help fix societies problems which breed this activity, instead of going after our guns which are mere inanimate objects?
Where is Pat Davis going after gangs which kill many poorer people and minorities in our cities and drive up the crime numbers? Where is Pat Davis condemning violent video games and violence in movies that our culture lauds?
Pat Davis is an example of what the Left really is– we do not see care for the victims and their families, but an agenda. Wouldn’t Davis have a well-rounded perspective and not rely on a constant anti-gun mantra if he did truly care?!
* * *
Don’t forget to subscribe to my updates (blog widget on the upper-right of my blog). “Like” my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter here! Your support is appreciated!
Political Fireball 
https://www.youtube.com/embed/FeTCkoXslsE?rel=0
Commentary from Paul R. Beane on KFYO radio on 1/24/2013:
Good afternoon, I’m Paul R. Beane and I’m your right wing gun nut. You know me and fellow gun owners are responsible for all the carnage in our streets and our schools. Never mind that Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my entire collection of firearms. Most of which I have owned since childhood when I saved my pennies and nickels in order to purchase them and each and everyone is in perfect working order.
It is the responsible gun owners of today that are being blamed for all the shootings. Obama calls us the right wing gun nuts, clinging to our guns and to our religion. But lets take a little closer look.
The Fort Hood shooter, a Muslim, and a registeredDemocrat.
The Virginia Tech shooter, he wrote hate mail to George Bush and his staff and was a registered Democrat.
Aurora Colorado shooter, he was a staff worker on the Obama campaign and took part in Occupy Wall Street.
He was a progressive liberal and guess what? A registered Democrat.
The Newtown , Conn shooter hated Christians and was a registered Democrat.
The Columbine high school shooters were too young to vote, but both of their families were progressive liberals and registered Democrats.
And one more thing, not a single one of these killers were members of the National Rifle Association.
So I have got it figured out how to make this country much safer; leave the guns alone and lock up all the Democrats.
I’m Paul R. Beane and that’s the way I see it
AMEN ! !
LikeLike
Hmmm… Comments placed between those “less than, more than” brackets get rejected by the site. Closing comment: I’ve seen longer lists, with similar data and same conclusions.
Also longer lists suggesting “register” rather than “lock up”.
Bottom line: You draw your own conclusion, and don’t miss the video.
Maybe all the noise from the Left is because they’re anticipating they’ll finally get a Rightie shooter. In Roswell. I can hear Rod Serling already.
LikeLike
INTERESTING OBSERVATION
BETWEEN THE LINES
Where everyone agrees guns belong
Exclusive: Joseph Farah exposes foolish values of anti-firearms crowd
Published: 19 hours ago… (Feb.2013)
by Joseph Farah
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators News Service.. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and his classic, “Taking America Back,” now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.
Much has been said about so-called “gun-free zones” created in the name of protecting people from gun violence.
As anyone open to evaluating overwhelming evidence should now be able to see, this evil and misguided idea is a total failure.
That’s what Sandy Hook illustrates.
That’s what Aurora illustrates.
That’s what Columbine illustrates.
But let’s look at the other side of coin for a moment.
Even Barack Obama and those who want to disarm American citizens agree there are certain places and situations in our society that should not be “gun-free zones.”
Let’s look at those for the sake of comparison:
Barack Obama and his family would never think of going anywhere in America without armed guards. That is a given. I do not begrudge him for that choice. I just want the same choice for me and my family. Barack Obama’s life and the safety of his family are precious to him. My life and the safety of my family are precious to me. Unlike Obama, I don’t expect taxpayers to provide a virtual army of guards equipped with fully automatic weapons to provide for my family’s safety. I just expect to be able to take protect myself and my family in the dangerous urban areas Obama and his friends have helped to create and anywhere else I sense a potential threat.
Does there exist anywhere in the United States a bank that labels itself a “gun-free zone”? I don’t think so. I would be shocked if there were one. Why? Because it would make it easy for bad people with guns to enter and steal money without the fear of resistance. I haven’t even heard Obama suggest guns should be banned from banks. Does this suggest Obama cares more about money than he does about elementary school children? I’m just asking. Why is it that guns to protect the money in banks are fine, but guns in elementary schools to protect little children are bad?
I live near Washington, D.C., and sometimes visit government offices. What I find, almost without exception, is that citizens like me are forced to enter those buildings by going through metal detectors not unlike those we face at airports these days. Once inside, you will see armed government agents stationed presumably to protect the government employees and government property. But if “gun-free zones” make people safer, why is it that the federal government doesn’t declare all of those edifices “gun-free zones”? I think you know the answer: “Gun-free zones” are the most dangerous places in America today. They literally invite murder and mayhem.
While many gun-phobes choose not to arm themselves or protect their homes with firearms, I have never seen one of them label their dwelling as a “gun-free zone.” Have you? Have you ever seen any American put up a sign on their front door advertising the fact that the occupants of the home are unarmed? Of course not. Yet, these same people believe banning guns from entire cities will somehow make them safer. Go figure.
Speaking of that, which are the most violent cities in America? Where does the most gun violence take place? Chicago? New York? Washington? What do these cities have in common? They all have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Are they really “gun-free zones”? Of course not. In fact, they are teeming with guns – illegal guns. They are failed experiments in the utopian notion that making it harder for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves somehow makes us safer from gun violence.
So, without question, even the most ardent firearms-phobes see the absolute necessity of firearms in certain locations. They recognize that without armed guards in places where things of great value are kept, there is a need to protect them with guns. But those same people evidently don’t believe that private homes where precious human beings sleep, schools where hundreds of precious little children are taught for much of the day and ordinary private businesses where precious people work eight hours a day are worthy of protection.
What does that suggest to you about the values of those who detest guns?
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/where-everyone-agrees-guns-belong/#jwwy2gqikFlPW94P.99
LikeLike
once again the leftist “never let a tragedy go to waste” method has been invoked. Sure hope y’all have the firepower to get rid of Davis one day in the near future. <==and yes I absolutely mean at the polls. 🙂
LikeLike
Why would you ask the comments be G rated? How many children peruse your blog?
LikeLike