By connecting multiple degrees of separation, they are trying to establish that states w/ progressive firearm laws that are attempting to woo firearm companies away from anti-gun states are, in actuality, trying to bust the unions.
Maybe if pro-union politicians weren't often anti-gun hacks there wouldn't be an issue. Maybe Union members should write their politicians and tell them to stop supporting gun policies that are driving firearm companies out of their states.
So if you are union, pay attention to whose funding these proclamations. It's not a group working towards your best interests. In anything.
3 comments:
Markie Marxist sez: "We're not actually trying to drive private firearm companies out of the states that they're in, we're trying to destroy them in place, but they just keep slipping out from our grasp, and moving to states where we can't destroy them. We need like a big wall with barbed wire, and machine gun towers, and landmines, and big searchlights, and electronic detectors, and all that stuff like that, around states we control, like Marxachusetts and Commiefornia, so that no one can leave without our permission. Hey, it worked pretty well for my commie compadres in the former East Germany, didn't it? No one ever got out alive, if we could stop them. Ha! Ha!"
So . . . the union lobbyist who runs the NRA in Illinois is *trying* to get gun companies to move out of Illinois (starting with strategic partners like Springfield Armory, I suppose?) because the NRA hates unions? Or the NRA only hates union machinists?
Or . . . . they haven't thought this through all the way.
There's more to it than that. The union bosses actively support gun control, because they depend largely on violence to attain their objectives. This is popular with the far left "union activists" who do the violence, but the people you see on picket lines actually make up a pretty small portion of union members.
There is a big rift between the Communists in charge of unions and their members. Keep in mind that the current crowd in charge at the AFL-CIO took over by ousting Lane Kirkland. Kirkland was an old-style Democrat all his life and a classic New Deal liberal. So what was his crime that led to his ouster? He supported the Polish Solidarity labor union against the Soviet puppet government there.
Yes, you read that right: the current leaders of the AFL-CIO opposed a labor union because it was up against a Communist government.
It should come as no surprise that a group so leftist that it opposed the liberation of Poland from Soviet rule would also support the disarmament of the American people, in preparation for a Communist regime that will literally last until the end of time.
Post a Comment