Yesterday Elizabeth Warren revealed democrats’ true gun control agenda, which is to incrementally take away our gun ownership rights until we are all completely disarmed. Part of that plan involves continuously expanding the people who are banned from possessing firearms. It started with domestic abusers, moved on to people on the no-fly list, and then went after those convicted of misdemeanor bias crimes. Now the liberals are coming after people who drink alcohol, which is almost every adult in the country.
The editorial staff at Bloomberg helped push democratic party propaganda with this call to disarm: Drivers With DUIs Shouldn’t Be Armed
Despite the headline, that article is actually making a case that anyone who drinks alcohol should be barred from owning a firearm:
The combination of guns and alcohol is especially dangerous, and far too little has been done to address it. Federal law doesn’t restrict access to guns by people with a history of alcohol abuse, and fewer than half of U.S. states impose prohibitions of this kind. The risks to public safety are increasingly clear, and the issue demands more careful attention than lawmakers have allowed up to now.
So if you abuse alcohol, you can’t own a gun? This is such a broad term that it could apply to anyone who ever had a little too much to drink, which is almost everyone who has ever drank.
I wonder who gets to decide what constitutes “alcohol abuse.” Actually, I know the answer to that: democrats.
Today, the links between alcohol abuse and firearm violence are also well established. “The research consistently shows that alcohol abuse is associated with violence toward self and others,” stated a comprehensive 2013 report by a consortium of leading researchers. Millions of firearm owners are binge drinkers — and among American men, deaths from alcohol-related firearm violence are on par with those from alcohol-related motor-vehicle accidents, according to a 2015 study.
Who would have guessed? Drunken gunplay is as lethal as drunken driving.
Nobody beside a liberal with an anti-gun agenda would have guessed that because it’s simply not true. in 2016 10,497 people died in drunk driving accidents in the U.S. In that same year there were 11,004 gun homicides in this country. According to Bloomberg only 507 people were shot to death by sober killers. If that’s sounds like BS, that’s because it is.
The editors of this disaster-piece also tried to counter the argument that criminals are the problem by making it seem like law-abiding gun owners are all a bunch of drunken killers:
Last month, a new study confirmed a link between firearm violence and convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. It tracked 78,878 handgun purchasers over 13 years. Purchasers with DUI convictions were more than four times as likely to be arrested for murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault than those without.
Legal gun owners are the most law-abiding group of people in this country. Numbers on how much crime is committed by legal gun owners are unavailable because it is so statistically insignificant.
After making a case (badly) that people with DUI convictions should be barred from owning guns, the editors hinted that it’s not just the drunk drivers but rather all drinkers who shouldn’t be allowed to keep and bear arms:
Drunken-driving offenses help to identify only a subset of problem drinkers. However, like gun owners with convictions for domestic abuse, gun owners with DUI convictions are a discrete and dangerous group. For lawmakers eager to make progress against gun violence, they’re too good a target to ignore.
See, the editors are saying that drunk drivers are only a small number of the problem drinkers who should be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights.
So where does this end? Should smokers be banned? What about sports fans? How about people who wear shoes?
Democrats will never rest until all gun ownership is outlawed. Today they are coming after drinkers and tomorrow it will be people who made mean social media posts. The key to avoiding this unconstitutional avalanche is to never let them get the snowball rolling in the first place.
