Posted on 01/14/2016 5:26:22 AM PST by marktwain
For the 2016 elections, the Democrat candidates are virtually unanimous on gun control. They support President Obama's executive orders, and want to go beyond what he is pushing:
From the hill:
"I absolutely agree with what the president is trying to do with his executive order," Sanders said to a cheers at a Democratic candidate forum. Clinton was not in attendance.From Time.com:
"I know I'm being attacked as being a stooge for the NRA. Well, some stooge, I have a D-minus lifetime voting record," he said.
Today, Clinton's calculus has changed. She has come out this campaign in favor of gun control measures with a vigor that surprised even some Democrats, targeting minorities and urban voters. Without contradicting any of her policy positions from 2008, Clinton is helping shape the national debate about firearms, calling for a "national movement" to "stand up to the NRA" and lambasting Republicans for voting against gun control legislation.From the businessinsider.com:
O'Malley went on to suggest the repeated mass shootings in America are a "national crisis." Morris said the email is the start of what will be a "major push" from O'Malley during his presidential campaign. In it, he pointed to his record on gun control in Maryland, which included passing legislation in 2013 that banned assault weapons, lowered magazine capacity, strengthened state regulations for gun dealers, and required fingerprinting for gun purchases.
"I proudly hold an F rating from the NRA, and when I worked to pass gun control in Maryland, the NRA threatened me with legal action, but I never backed down," O'Malley wrote.
The Time article goes on to say that Clinton believes that she can thread the needle on gun control by calling for "universal background checks", because polls have said the measure is popular. They do not say that the measure is only popular until the voters learn the details. Actual measures are not popular when the details are learned.
This is brilliant!
At a time when government at all levels is demonstrating that it can’t, or won’t, protect citizens (a violation of the social contract, BTW), Democrats want to reduce/remove the ability of citizens to protect themselves.
The only problem is that Republicans have shown that they are ineffective as a majority party.
Keep in mind that it is not “gun control” but people control. It is people who are being told what they can and cannot do, what they can and cannot have.
Totalitarians/socialists/progressives/criminals always want their victims disarmed. Witness history. Witness current events. Witness the democrat party collective.
I read a comment but can’t remember where. It said something like this, “How does paperwork stop a criminal from getting a gun?”
That question should be asked of every gun control advocate. It should be a headline in the papers, on web pages and on TV. Demand an answer.
2015 Largest gun buying year.
Dems might think about this: the American people are voting with their dollars against gun control in overwhelming amounts.
2016 may not be kind to them.
The new Democratic strategy to combat terrorism: Open the door to terrorists and disarm America. Sounds like a winner to me! (Oughtta make for some great ads, assuming we get a nominee who’s willing to take the fight directly to them.)
"Never let a good crisis go to waste", and all that.
Al Gore lost to W. on the gun issue in 2000, these idiots have short memories.
John Lott: “More Guns, Less Crime.”
A sequel: “More Gun Control, Less Democrats (Crime)”
I hope they harp on gun control mightily through the primaries so all the material can be used against them in the general election about how much they loath citizens’ liberty.
Communists doing what Communists do...
What the Democrats are pushing is nothing but Leninist class warfare.
Gun owners are the class enemy. They obstruct the people’s march towards socialism. Therefore the Party wants them exterminated.
If that’s not feasible, then SWATing open carriers and ostracizing their kids and publishing lists of CCW holders will have to do.
And the morning after the election they will say... “What happened, why was there such a disconnect with voters...?” Um... 63% of americans are against gun control. Dipshits.
Next time you buy a gun look at the 4473 form. look on page 3, section D where the gun you’re buying is described. Notice that there is room for 4 more guns to be described. NOTHING in federal law prevents the merchant from, after you’ve left, adding another gun or two under your name, manually editing the count below and now those extra guns are on the street in your name.
And honest dealer will line out those spaces in your presence but don’t delude yourself that all firearms on the street got there by burglary. There are criminals with FFIs.
The universal background check gun controllers are pushing include the 4473 and section D. It is the biggest single loophole in the whole process; way more dangerous than the non-existent gun show loophole.
You are exactly right.
I call it “Gun Owner Control”.
This is a point that needs to be shoved in their face.
Then the civil war has begun at that point.
Bring it. I dare them for an open fight!
If it comes to that then the right wing can play dirty too, maybe even dirtier.
Lets see where that leads.
What they really are:
They say no one knows who fired “the shot heard round the world” in 1775 when the British came to confiscate Americans’ guns.
We’ll know this time. And it will be the Govags who shoot first.
The American people need to strongly call the gun grabbers out on their relentless push for more laws when they’re not using the laws already in place, that would actually DO something positive.
Truth be told, they’re not the least bit interested in getting “problem”, or as they like to call them, “illegal” guns out of the hands of the people that shouldn’t have them. They’ll deny it, but their ultimate goal is the total removal of firearms from the citizenry, to be held only by those in government.
If they were truly interested in reducing “gun violence”, they’d target the people that by law, are already prohibited from possessing firearms, like probationers and parolees.
There’s no such thing as an illegal search of a convicted criminal, either of their person or dwelling under the terms of active probation or parole. It’s one of the conditions one must accept for release from custody.
Imagine how many “illegal” guns they might recover by conducting unannounced searches and seizures of convicted criminals houses, apartments, or wherever they may find them.
Not only will this remove guns from those that shouldn’t have them, it actually WILL reduce the incidents of gun violence the gun grabbers claim to be so concerned about.
Additionally, it would act as motivation to obey the law, or returning those to prison that are failing to abide by their conditions of release from custody.
No, the real reason for the Left’s assault on the second amendment is their thirst for more power and control over US.
After all, if everyday American citizens can no longer defend ourselves, we’ll have nowhere else to go except to beg for more and bigger government (more police, more laws, more government and more of everyone associated with the industry) to protect us helpless subjects from the bad guys they’ve empowered.
I’d like to ask this question. How good is it that when you attain enough power over those you’ve been entrusted to govern, not only can you create the problem, you can offer the solution? All you ask in return is for just a little bit more power.
It’s win/win for them. For us, a formerly free people, not so much.
That’s why I say HELL NO to any more of their demands for more control over my life or my ability to defend it. I’m not willing to give you any more control over my life when you’re purposely not using the power you’ve already been given.
The Bolsheviks have their marching orders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.