A very interesting interview overall. It seems a shame to comment on the veracity of the documentary, “A Girl and a Gun” without being able view any piece of it except the trailer.
Still your interview does reveal that Ms. Cathryne Czubek does not acknowledge or ignores that the current Obama administration takes a very negative view on the private ownership of firearms. It has been alleged that during a meeting between President Obama and Ms. Sarah Brady, the President indicated he wanted to eviscerate the civil right protected by the Constitution Second Amendment.
Further, Ms. Czubek fails to note that the Obama administration’s support of the unpopular United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. While the treaty is advertised as controlling illegal international arms trade, it contains provisions that would potentially allow the United Nations to enforce its rules on US soil. This could be done with Peacekeepers taking the private legal arms of US citizens.
The signing of the treaty possibly by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was delayed until sometime in 2013. By the Constitution the Senate must enact or reject the treaty. Since the treaty would most likely not receive the necessary votes for passage, the treaty can be de facto approved by not voting on it. Until it is formally rejected by the Senate, after it has been signed, it can have the force of law.
Certainly we have never heard of the President or others in his party, post Heller decision, reminding Chicago not to trample on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Chicago continues to make legal ownership of firearms very difficult, despite the fact that illegal arms and drugs plentiful.
While it would be very easy to cite other examples of how the Democrats and Obama administration would like to end all private ownership of firearms, these are probably sufficient.
The true propaganda is that the gun abolitionists tell us that there is no effort to eliminate the private ownership of firearms…Notice they have no problem with the state having all it desires.
Something that is hinted in the interview is that some people own firearms due to a fear of not being protected by the police. I really wish that during the interview they how gone into greater detail.
From a historical note, readers may find it interesting that the state has no obligation to protect you. That was the decision reached by US Supreme Court several decades ago.
In that decision a group of women in Washington DC were raped over many hours. A smaller group had hidden themselves in another part of the house and called for police. The police failed to locate the address, and when the thugs notice the patrol car passing by several times realized someone else was in the house. Eventually the police decided it was a crank call and refused to acknowledge the calls. The other women were later located by the thugs and were also raped.
The Supreme Court decided that even though the police failed to protect the citizens, there was no obligation to do so. So the plaintiffs’ case was rejected.
Likewise, during Hurricane Katrina and to a lesser extent Sandy, the public was educated just how vulnerable they are during catastrophic events. Nothing I have found changed so many anti-gun minds as the criminality people witnessed on TV after these hurricanes. I have had several anti-gun liberals confess to me that Katrina completely changed their minds about personal, private firearms.
There was also the case of the woman who had a break-in in her home in Kansas. The 911 call, which I am sure is still on the Internet, is absolutely stunning. She went to great lengths to avoid an armed confrontation, and the police still took 20 minutes to reach her location. If I recall correctly, when she shot the intruder it was still another 10 minutes before the police reached the scene.
At least during the interview, there were several negative references to the gun industry. That has no place in a documentary. Present the facts as clearly as possible and let audience reach its own conclusions.
The gun industry provides a legal product for legitimate purposes from sport to self-defense. I see no malevolence in that. If people believe that is true, shouldn’t the marijuana dispensaries be investigated for charging excessively for their products? Why isn’t NPR investigated for not having conservatives in prime time despite receiving government funding? Why aren’t the states with the strictest gun laws asked why that haven’t accepted culpability when they deny their citizens effective defense? Fairness demands answers to these questions, though I doubt they will ever be published.
Finally something else I would like to know if it was acknowledged in the documentary was one of the main reasons for the Second Amendment. Consider that the Bill of Rights, which contained the Second Amendment, was enacted in 1791. The Revolutionary War started in 1776, less than 30 years earlier. Fighting a despotic regime was very much a fresh memory in the minds of the Founding Fathers. These authors of the US Constitution recognized the best way to prevent future dictatorships were armed citizens.
I also like to note the placement of the Second Amendment…that is it follows the First Amendment, the Right of Free Speech. To me it shows just how important free speech is, and how important an armed public is to prevent the government from taking that right and others away.
Isn’t it also interesting that in Libya and Syria, where private guns are outlawed, the first thing that is done to get rid of the dictators is to smuggle the public guns. Maybe our Founding Fathers were smarter than some people think they were?