{"id":399673,"date":"2021-05-27T15:28:00","date_gmt":"2021-05-27T19:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=399673"},"modified":"2021-05-28T15:31:56","modified_gmt":"2021-05-28T19:31:56","slug":"democrats-use-san-jose-shooting-to-push-gun-control","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2021\/05\/27\/democrats-use-san-jose-shooting-to-push-gun-control\/","title":{"rendered":"Democrats Use San Jose Shooting to Push Gun Control"},"content":{"rendered":"

KEN: We have these — we get these plans, you know, how to approach the show, so much to talk about, and then this shooting that took place yesterday, actually a killing. I don\u2019t like it when people call the guy a shooter, but if you missed it we\u2019ll bring you up to date now. Sadly another person has died. So, basically what happened yesterday we had a 57-year-old white man who killed nine people and then took his own life. And in the last 24 hours we found out more about this tragedy at the San Jose transit yard, the Valley Transportation Authority or the VTA.<\/p>\n

\"\"He was employed there. His ex-wife — and they\u2019ve been divorced since 2005, but she was married to him for about 10 years. The first thing I look for — and we\u2019re not gonna dwell on this \u2019cause I want to reflect on Mr. Biden\u2019s comments, which are typical leftist hack comments out of touch with most American people in reality, and we\u2019ll talk about that. The Democrats rarely let a gun incident go for more than 20 minutes before they weigh in on it and say we need to get rid of the guns.<\/p>\n

But his ex-wife said he had talked about killing people at work. And again — so this is one of those weird situations. When you go back and you look at the backgrounds of killers — and again, this man is a killer, not a shooter. He\u2019s not one who shoots. He\u2019s one who kills. There\u2019s a difference. We need to draw a line in the sand and talk about these things openly and factually and not let the news media, who hates guns — many are not fans of We the People, many have a chip on their shoulder about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. We cannot — we can no longer let the news media control the conversation about our Second Amendment right which shall never be infringed. And I know it\u2019s very politically incorrect to talk about your gun rights and my gun rights after another horrible mass shooting.<\/p>\n

\"\"But I look at things from a different angle, as a pro-gun person, as a pro-Second Amendment person, as someone who legally carries to defend myself and my family. I look at it like, I wonder if anybody in there had a gun. I wonder if someone in there could have taken cover and returned fire. That\u2019s the first thing I said. Now, I know if you\u2019re anti-gun — I can\u2019t read your mind, but I know the media. The first thing they say is we\u2019ve got to get rid of, and then they put out a list of guns. And to me that\u2019s always been the wrong approach. And it\u2019s very interesting, something the news media has not been covering lately is, more and more states are going toward unrestricted or permitless carry.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s over 20 at the moment, if I\u2019m not mistaken. I\u2019m aware of a few already. You know, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Vermont, West Virginia. I just saw a press release that Michigan is also thinking about constitutional carry. Now, there are states that are fully unrestricted where no permit is required for open or concealed carry. Some states are partially unrestricted where certain forms of concealed carry may be legal without a permit while other forms of carry require a permit. I know some states is what\u2019s called — there\u2019s open carry, unrestricted carry, there\u2019s constitutional carry. The open carry is obviously that you can see it. To me that\u2019s a double-edged sword. It\u2019s — you — the criminal can see your gun if you\u2019re carrying it openly so you don\u2019t have the element of surprise in self-defense.<\/p>\n

But the problem with all of this is, we, because he look through the lens of the news media and many are wealthy enough to have protection or they live in a place where, you know — and of course this could happen anywhere, in any country, anytime. Bad people, mentally ill people, whatever this guy was, this could happen anywhere. The point is, how do you protect yourself from it? By taking legally owned guns? Of course not. So let — when we discuss this today, sure it was a tragedy. But I get so tired of people saying, “That darn NRA, those darn gun owners, they just don\u2019t care.” I — it\u2019s absurd. You know, we started hearing of this — you know, it was in the Clinton administration when this started.<\/p>\n

\"\"But I still, again, as one of those people who Obama says clings to his Bible and his guns, and I would also say I do cling to the Constitution. I don\u2019t cling to my guns. I have the proper grip. But I do cling to the Constitution. And for some reason the Constitution goes right out the door if you get enough people in a news piece that are emotionally distraught and something that the news media and the Democrat Party are brilliant at is using dead bodies as a prop, whether you\u2019re covered with a flag at a false impeachment trial or whatever it may be. And the bottom line is, I just wonder, since the news media is wondering, that would have been so different if he didn\u2019t have a gun. Well, of course it would have.<\/p>\n

But it would have been a lot different if people there had a gun and some of them were trained. So there\u2019s different angles you can look at this. Oh. Texas is also going — governor of Texas just laid down the law. Two things they\u2019re doing. They\u2019re doing the handgun carry, constitutional carry, means you don\u2019t have to check with the boss, the boss being in many occupied territories of this country, the boss is the mayor or the governor. You don\u2019t have to check with someone you elected to defend yourself. So that\u2019s what I call constitutional carry. One of the most oppressive states regarding you having the right to protect yourself is New Jersey. It disgusts me.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s always from the far left, the party that cares about the children, that cares about — that cares about women being abused and what\u2019s the first thing some of these states do, if there is violence in a relationship, “Well, ma\u2019am, we can\u2019t issue you — we cannot issue you a gun permit. You know, that\u2019s not a good idea. We will give you this piece of paper, and it says right here in — right here if you just read it, says your husband cannot beat you up anymore or threaten to kill your children. Says it right here, and if he shows up, you know, with a gun or a baseball bat, you just call us.” See, that\u2019s the problem with America. Nobody in the news media is talking like I just spoke to you about this issue. There\u2019s a handful. That\u2019s it.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n