The Wall Street Journal had an article defending David Gregory on the basis of freedom of the press. But does freedom of the press really include the right to break laws? Especially when you have been denied a request for an exemption from the application of the law from the police? And when this is the very type of strict gun laws that David Gregory supports? David Gregory supports this type of society where guns and their accessories like gun magazines are restricted but he believes that he is above the law. That is a consistent belief of the political elites - that laws don't apply to them. They believe that laws only apply to us ordinary folks.
Have other citizens been held to the same standard that people like myself are demanding of the D.C. Police, that they enforce their stringent D.C. gun law against David Gregory? The answer is Yes.
Now I am not for these laws. I agree with Emily Miller when she stated that these laws shouldn't be on the books. While I know that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute, as far as there can be some limits to it, I believe that laws such as the ones in D.C. are way too restrictive and infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights. If D.C. Police's enforcement of their guns laws goes so far as to arrest a Veteran visiting the VFW who forgot that he had a few rounds of ammunition in his bag why shouldn't these laws be enforced with the same vigor against a person who outright flagrantly refuses to comply with the D.C. gun laws especially after having been denied special permission to do so by the D.C. Police?
Both the House and Senate Republicans are utterly inept spineless twits. They couldn't come together and hold firm on principle on either taxes or spending. It's obvious that the (except for a few) Republicans can't even convey principles of liberty to the American people because they don't believe in Reagan conservatism anymore. They don't believe in our Founders vision for America. They caved into President Obama and the Democrats and handed them a sweet deal. Republicans didn't get one iota of spending cuts. I do get that President Obama has all of the major networks to carry his water for him so to speak but the Republicans didn't even attempt to explain their position to citizens. Thomas Sowell recently wrote an article explaining why Republicans deserved to lose the election. The GOP has been nominating squishy types that believe in big government and don't really believe in conservatism so they are clueless about explaining and promoting conservative ideals.
Thomas Sowell says:
Back in 1948, when the Democratic party splintered into three parties, each one with its own competing presidential candidate, Republican candidate Thomas E. Dewey was considered a shoo-in.
Best-selling author David Halberstam described what happened: “Dewey’s chief campaign tactic was to make no mistakes, to offend no one. His major speeches, wrote the Louisville Courier Journal, could be boiled down ‘to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. The future lies ahead . . . ’”
Does this sound like a more recent Republican presidential candidate?
Meanwhile, President Harry Truman was on the attack in 1948, with speeches that had many people saying, “Give ’em hell, Harry.” He won, even with the Democratic vote split three ways.
But, to this day, the Republican establishment still goes for pragmatic moderates who feed pablum to the public, instead of treating them like adults.
It is not a complicated argument. CONTINUED
Thomas Sowell is correct. This is not a complicated argument but yet most Republicans in Congress don't take the time to explain the argument for conservatism to the American people. Republicans ineptitude is staggering and pathetic.