The Unintended Consequences Of Putting Up Roadblocks To Emily Getting Her Gun (DC)

No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money ^ | 23 February, 2012 | John Richardson

[marktwain]

I doubt the District of Columbia City Council knew what was in store for them when Emily Miller started her path towards gun ownership. She just wanted a handgun for protection and they made it incredibly hard. Little did they realize that the roadblocks that they had erected to prevent gun ownership in the District would create such an attractive and effective spokesperson for gun rights.

If getting a handgun in the District had been as easy as it was in Virgina, Emily may have written one story and that would be that. The unintended consequence of their recalcitrance has been a 30-part series in the Washington Times, television interviews with Fox News and News Channel 8, testimony at a Council hearing on gun policy, and multiple interviews in the gun media ranging from NRA News to Tom Gresham's GunTalk Radio.

Emily's latest interview aired today on Bret Baier's Special Report and is now the featured story on the Fox News site as I write this. The DC Council is reaping what they sowed.

[marktwain]

Restoring the constitutional rights to arms is the tip of the spear of restoring the Constitution.

[muawiyah]

A cynic might suggest that the mostly black DC City council wants to keep white folks disarmed to make it easier for black criminals to make a living robbing them.

But that'd be a cynic. In reality the DC City council members are unable to adapt to changing times ~

[battlecry]

Sadly, I don’t think they care. Look at all the stories and investigations of corruption around these folks. Fines and jail time would catch their attention.

[grobdriver]

The unintended consequence of their recalcitrance has been a 30-part series...

But, you see... they don't care.
No amount of exposure will change their thinking on this - they are stuck on stupid.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't gleeful at the commotion. They probably smile and are thinking what other hoops they can add to "keep guns off the streets" and piss off the gun nuts.

In reality, it's a control thing. They couldn't care less about the matter.

[adorno]

In reality, it's a control thing.

And, that's simply what it's all about.

It's a major goal of democrats to gain control over the population, through whatever means, and, their biggest goal is to take down the constitution, one freedom at a time.

So, decades ago, the federal government "won" the right to, basically, control the economy, when they reduced, or virtually did a way with the original intent of the commerce clause. Now, we have intrusive government over the whole economy and in our daily lives.

They've been after the second amendment since almost the beginning of the country, and, they know that, if they persist, eventually, the people might give in. Perseverance, to them, is on their side, especially when they know that, there are so many people who have come to be so dependent upon government to tell them how to live their lives and also depend upon that same government to "give them things".

The amendments to the constitution and our bill of rights, have continued to be trampled on, and essentially, some of those rights might as well not even exist, like our right to privacy, which has been essentially done away with by all of the government violations of that right.

The true intention of the democrats is to do away with the whole constitution and create a new one, one which will essentially do away with our freedoms and rights, and will install an all-powerful federal level of government.

So, the democrat's fight against guns is only a symptom of the much larger problem for American, and their big target is the constitution, and if they do win against the second amendment, the other amendments and our rights will be the next set of targets.