H/T Bearing Arms.
Wasn’t Babs was going to go to Canada?
I won’t say entertainers shouldn’t have opinions on politics. After all, they have the same rights as anyone else.
Unfortunately for everyone, they feel the need to share them, and because of who they are, they get a bigger podium to speak from. They have people who want to know about what they’re doing, and many of them will put up with listening to what they think to know the latest about their favorite stars.
Too bad for everyone that most of them are idiots.
Take the legendary singer and actress Barbra Streisand.
Oh, I know, most Bearing Arms readers aren’t fans, but a lot of people are. Even many who don’t count themselves as fans respect her body of work.
So when she posts a tweet like this, of course, people see it.
To be clear, no one is trying to amend let alone revoke the Second Amendment. How many innocent people, especially children, have to die before it’s OK to have sensible legislation?https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-nyc-license.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share …
Supreme Court Will Hear Second Amendment Case
The case concerns an ordinance in New York that prohibits people licensed to have guns in their homes to transport their guns outside the city.
First, as Breitbart‘s AWR Hawkins notes, Babs failed to tell us just what form “sensible gun control” would take.
In fact, California, where Streisand lives, has every gun control law Democrats are pushing on the federal level and then some.
In addition to red flag laws and universal background checks, California has gun registration requirements, a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a one-gun-per-month limit on handgun purchases, a minimum firearm purchase age of 21, a ban on campus carry, a “good cause” restriction for concealed carry permit issuance, and ammunition purchase controls. The ammunition controls limit law-abiding Californians to buying ammunition from state-approved vendors–all of whom are in-state sellers. It also adds a fee to any ammunition bought online, also requiring that ammunition to be shipped to a state-approved vendor for pickup.
He’s right, of course.
Further, despite Streisand’s claims that “no one is trying to amend, let alone revoke the Second Amendment,” there are some who want to do just that. I’d hardly call a former Supreme Court Justice a no one. Furthermore, a survey found one in three Democrats supported such a move. While that may not be a majority of the Democratic Party, it’s a significant portion of them.
To say “no one” is a horrible misstep at best.
Frankly, I don’t want to be quite that charitable.
Additionally, while Streisand wants to go on about how many people have to die before we pass gun control, I feel obligated to point out how many more times per year a life is saved because of a firearm. Even the CDC found that around 2.4 million people defend themselves with a gun each year. That’s a massive number, far more than the number murdered by gun-wielding criminals who have already bypassed at least some gun laws in the first place. After all, we know that criminals aren’t getting their guns through legal means.
What more could gun control do?
The answer is that it can continue doing what it’s done so far, which is nothing but make life difficult for the good guys.
My question to Streisand is this: How many people will need to die because they couldn’t defend their lives before you and yours give up the idea that you can make the world safer by disarming the good guys?