has it occurred to you run of the mill liberals and leftists that these power hungry, hypocrite autocrats want as their stated goal total disarmament of the law abiding public, and that they will not supply you with even remotely the kind of security they reserve for themselves? that you also will have to eat the shit of serfdom along with the rest of us while they lord it over the rest us. your life and the lives of your loved ones will be just as subject as the rest of us to the whims and tender mercies of armed criminals thugs who will allways find a way to be armed and tyrannical government goons who will always be armed,
chicago, even new york city, being a perfect example. the elites of both cities always have protection and rarely have to rub elbows with the rest of us. they are no longer our servants but our lords, and they show it every day now in how they talk to us, and what they demand from us. (NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg Uses Bodyguards to Bully Journalist in Washington ) or leftist democrat shill media~~~
they no longer even give lip service to the constitution, pretending the second ammendment has to do with deer hunters, talking openly and gleefully on cbs news about throwing away the constitution,
from ace of spades
As the goal is admitted, let us have no more discussion of these ridiculous diversions.
The goal sought is disarmament, period. Accomplished bit by bit. But none of those bits are “reasonable” or “common sense” as they are admittedly simply elements of the intended goal, which is complete disarmament.
If the goal isn’t worthy, then none of the steps towards it should be undertaken.
Newt Gingrich: Isn’t Your Real Ambition To Ban All Handguns?
Piers Morgan: That’s Not My Priority “Right Now”
Newt Gingrich: Right Now, Got It
In the last two months, Americans have purchased enough weapons to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian armies combined.
We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy.
History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end.
—Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Government Officials Not Subject to Proposed Assault Weapons Ban; Government Says Assault Weapons Good for Self Defense When Used By Government
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.
Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.
“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reports.
Place to one side for now the fact that, in light of the purpose of the Second Amendment, it raises questions for government officials to have the right to bear arms that citizens can’t. I think anyone would agree that the military should be able to have weapons citizens can’t, and the same arguably applies to law enforcement. Your neighbor doesn’t get to have a nuclear bomb.
But when “government officials” are not subject to the same laws as citizens, there is a problem.
That alone is reason to oppose Feinstein’s bill.
And why are assault weapons “suitable for self defense in close quarters” when used by government officials, but not necessary for citizens who want to defend themselves.
There’s some hypocrisy going on here, it seems.
Everyone knows gun bans are for the commoners only.
We don’t buy ARs to protect us against animals, Mr. Cuomo. We buy them to protect ourselves, our families and our property against the animals you and the nanny state have created. The animals that think it’s “fair” to take from those who produce and give to those who do not produce. Who think that all they have to do is say “I want” and it becomes theirs. The people who breed indiscriminately, rob, cheat, and steal all in the name of “compensation” “fairness” and ” our turn”.
Having lived through the 1989 massacre of protesters in Tiananmen Square.
“To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom.It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man.
Now suppose, the 20 milllion Beijing citizens had a couple million rifles on hand in 1989? How many rounds should they have been allowed to load into their magazines? Ten rounds? Seven rounds? How about three rounds?
Do not give up the fight, my friends. It may be a small step that you give up your rifle, or a 30 round magazine.
But it will be a giant leap toward the destruction of this republic.”
Just imagine if this guy had an assault rifle with armor-piercing rounds.
And this is what happens to peaceful protesters for freedom when the government has a monopoly on force.
And lest you say it can’t happen here, let me remind you of the past in this country.
And let’s not forget that every one of these incidents of violence against peaceful protesters was initiated at the direction of a Democrat public official — a member of the same Democrat Party that today wants to impose limits upon your right to keep and bear arms.