Posted on 02/16/2013 10:10:42 AM PST by freeandfreezing
I have some very disappointing news for some of the more-virulent foes of sane gun-control legislation.
If you’re what the National Rifle Association loves to call a “law-abiding American citizen,” no one is going to take away your guns.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailystar.com ...
So Chicago, NYC and Washington DC don’t exist?
He is of course correct. No “one” is going to come after your guns. It will be a whole squad that make the guys that were clearing houses in Fallujah look like amateurs. Armored war wagon and all. Swat ready? Hopefully none of your lib friends (why would anyone have a lib friend?) doesn’t perform a “swatting” call on you if they know you have an “aresnal”. (You know, like 50 rds of ammo and a .22 pistol and a .22 rifle.)
Doesn't that fall under the category of taking away your guns.
And what about the next law and the next law....
Sheesh, what an idiot.
Actually I agree. Few people will ever have their guns forceably taken from them. 99% will WILLINGLY surrender after 1. They register out of fear. 2. They get the very scary notice in the mail requiring surrender of their weapons. 3. They see a few of their neighbors get raided and hauled off as potential terrorists with KKK ties. Head this off at the pass people. Support your neighbors, assemble at local patriot meetings, join the NRA, and put a freakin’ sign in your yard: MOLON LABE
Just like the organization, "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", that has bought up incredible amounts of advertising time in my area, they're only against illegal guns.
Make all guns illegal, and the mayors are against all guns.
This guy can say nobody is planning to take guns from law-abiding citizens, because if owning a gun is illegal, and you own a gun, you are no longer a law-abiding citizen.
No one is coming, they are already here.
Would that ONE liberal idiot-or would bother to rebuke the Far Left elements of the Democrat Party that DO espouse ending private ownership of even handguns.
Where are the Democrats who SUPPORT civil rights?
Not to mention legislation pending in states at this moment to confiscate guns.
No one was ever suggesting legalizing Gay Marriage, or bringing in lesbian couples in military combat units.
And here they are.
Incrementalism.
It’s how we got where we are. It’s how we’ll get where we’re going.
Well just in case
MOLON LABE!
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.", 18 November 1993, as U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, Associated Press interview
Nelson "Pete" Shields III, known as "Peter Shields"
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.", 26 June 1976, New Yorker Magazine
" Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns- is going to take time ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.", 26 July 1976, New Yorker Magazine
"We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal- total control of handguns in the United States- is going to take time...The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced...The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors- totally illegal.", 26 July 1976 New Yorker Magazine
Sarah Brady
Chairman, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc. & Wife of James "Jim" Brady
"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.", 1 July 1988
"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.", January 1994, In a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator.
"We must get rid of all the guns.", September 1994, Phil Donahue Show Interview
"There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia.", 6 June 1997, Richmond Times-Dispatch
"I don't believe gun owners have rights.", October 1997, "Handguns in America", Hearst Newspapers Special Report
"I believe that the interpretation of the second amendment does not necessarily give every individual the right to keep and bear arms. However, I, personally, am not against the ability for any law abiding person to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes.", 9 February 2001, ABC News Interview
James Brady
Board Member, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc. & Husband of Sara Brady
"It is not a loss of freedom. It's a measure to protect it.", 21 March 1991, On gun control, congressional testimony.
"I just believed that what I was doing was right. I told the NRA (National Rifle Association) I would make it my life's ambition to see you all don't exist anymore and I will do this until I put them out of business. That keeps me going when I have to deal with rude people.", 21 May 1994, Hartford Courant
"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments.", 26 June 1994, Parade Magazine Article
Diane Finestein
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, California
"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.", 27 April 1995, C-Span
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.", 18 November 1993, Associated Press
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,' I would have done it.", 5 February 1995, CBS, 60 Minutes, Interview
Janet Reno
United States Attorney General, Clinton Administration 1993-2001 Dade County Florida State Attorney
"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.", 1991, Speech to B'nai B'rith, Ft. Lauderdale FL Gathering
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.", December 1993
"Gun registration is not enough.", 10 December 1993, Good Morning America Interview
Howard Metzenbaum
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, Ohio
"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.", 1993, Brady Bill Debate
Charles Schumer
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, New York
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!", 8 December 1993, NBC Interview
Michael K. Beard
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.", 6 December 1993, Washington Times
Mary Ann Carlson
Vermont State Senator
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. .If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post, writer
"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.", 5 April 1996, Washington Post
Jose Cerda
President Clinton White House Official, Specializing in gun control
"We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns [to ban]", 22 October 1997, Los Angeles Times
Mel Reynolds
U.S. House of representative, from Illinois, Liberal Democrat
"If it were up to me we'd ban them all [firearms].", 9 December 1993, CNN Crossfire
Carl Rowan
Washington Post, writer
"We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). WE can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession a a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail- period!", 1981, Washington DC Syndicated Columnist
"A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns…”, 1985, Washington Post Article.
Note: Rowan in 1988 was arrested and tried for shooting a teenager skinny dipping in his pool that he shot with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol.
John H. Chafee
RINO Senator from Rhode Island.
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”, 15 June 1992, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Warren Burger
Former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
"If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud', on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kink of weapon he or she desires.", 14 January 1990, Parade Magazine
I guess, then, I really will be one of the 1%ers. I am not going to register anything, nor will I voluntarily comply.
If I get a letter about any of this, I’ll disperse what I have and lie - I sold all of it legally at a gun show (before you goons made it illegal). If they get here before that, then I guess I’ll just have to send the wife outside before it starts.
But he still says "no one is going to take away your guns."
Pollak is pretty brazen in his statements:
"Want to know how many guns belonging to “law-abiding Americans” have been confiscated while Barack Obama has been president?"
"Again: Zero. None. Zilch."
That statement is obviously false, and Pollak should know it.
So, if some hack lefty newspaperman says it’s OK that should be good enough for the rest of us.
The leftards are up to the same perfidy here in Colorado. The Assembly passed an hysterically-fueled, magazine (notice I did not use the clip word)capacity ban yesterday along with background checks for private sales.
Magpull announced they would move to another state. So, the ‘champions of the down-trodden and oppressed, included at the last minute an exclusion whereby Magpull could continue to manufacture in the state (thereby saving 400 jobs) as long as they marketed the evil 30-roiunders to other states. What a bunch of hypocrites.
We have already started to make moves to pull up stakes anyway. There’s entirely too many recent arrival Californians around here and they bring their ideological cancer with them.
And to think, in 1962 Thomas J Dodd and Emaual Cellar proposed the first federal law on common firearms.
1962; “We don’t want to take away your guns, we ONLY want to register handguns! Rifles and shotguns will not be affected”.
1964: “We only want to register all your guns, not ban them! Only the import of Army surplus guns will be banned.”
1968: “We only want to register your guns, and ban “Saturday Night Specials” and small foreign handguns along with army surplus rifles!” (They got the import ban on 5 shot army surplus rifles and handguns and small foreign pistols)
1970: “We only want to ban Saturday night specials! large handguns and rifles will not be affected!” There was also a call at this time to ban all private possession of ALL GUNS.
1976: “We only want to ban all handguns! Long guns will not be affected!”
1981: “The NRA should give up their handguns, and they can keep their rifles!”- Lee Grant on GMA
1984: “We must ban “assault Rifles, unsuitable for hunting!”
1989: George Bush bans import of foreign made “assault rifles”.
1992: Assault rifle ban passed by Clinton.
2000: first calls to ban single shot .50 cal rifles...
Good to know.
I won’t be standing ready to resist when they don’t come.
The NRA has been behind every single federal gun control law for the past 100 years. Here is the text from their 1968 American Rifleman article where they brag about that.
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
“I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country.”
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy’s accusation “a smear of a great American organization,” NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that “The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
“The duty of Congress is clear,” Orth said, “it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails.”
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the “mail order murder” to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.
More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd’s attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original “Dodd Bill” to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place “destructive devices” (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
f. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
“A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State.”
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
“The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction—that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois.”
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy’s “terrible indictment” of the NRA is groundless.
Not the state government.
Cuomo Says He’ll Outline Gun Proposal Next Month
By THOMAS KAPLAN
Published: December 20, 2012
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state
could be an option." New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo
Thank you Mr. Pollack, so glad to hear it.
And no one is coming to shoot your children either.
they expect YOU to bring the guns to THEM!!!
If you’re what the National Rifle Association loves to call a “law-abiding American citizen,” no one is going to take away your guns.
That sure is a smartass remark. What does his "government" call "law-abiding American citizens"? They call freeloaders who are dependent upon the U.S. government, "hard working Americans who play by the rules", so I wouldn't pay much attention to what they call gunowners.
Received a letter from Dianne Feinstein stating she is going through with gun control that has central to its intent of removing weapons from or homes.
This Pollack fellow isn’t informed - he doesn’t know the laws just passed in New York, Mass., and other states that outlaw weapons some gun owners already have and others can’t buy anymore. Pollack shouldn’t be writing about that which he does not know.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SISKIYOU IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
WHEREAS, the American people have retained to themselves the right to “keep and bear arms” – a right not subject to infringement by Congress as is memorialized in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as part of United States Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791; and,
WHEREAS, Cooper v. Aaron held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land and Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land and is therefore binding on all the states, regardless of any state laws contradicting it; and,
WHEREAS, a landmark decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm from federal infringement unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that Arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as, but not limited to, self-defense within the home; and,
WHEREAS, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago established that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extended protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms to the several States under due process provisions of that Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government; and,
WHEREAS, the government of California has repeatedly released violent criminals back into its’ lawful society; and,
WHEREAS, according to Merriam Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the word “infringement” means “an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege” – in other words a violation or constraint upon a right; and,
WHEREAS, sadly, recent high profile events within our country have sparked discussions of gun-control at the local, state and federal levels, which have advanced proposed legislation which professes to address gun violence, while, in fact, infringes upon Second Amendment rights - (this has included numerous gun and ammunition control proposals, outright gun bans as well as registration schemes that would convert the right into a revocable privilege); and,
WHEREAS, the County of Siskiyou’s economy is supported by family ranching, farming and natural resource businesses, and that the right to keep and bear Arms is fundamental to our right to protect our families, our property, our livestock, and our livelihood; and,
WHEREAS, as a “frontier county,” hunting for food is a practice among many residents and, as a sport, hunting makes an important contribution to the local economy; and,
WHEREAS, the residents of this County respect the rights protected by the Second Amendment through the recognition and support of responsible firearm ownership, training and awareness; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Siskiyou supports all discussions seeking new ideas to protect our citizens from violence but cannot abide by any order, provision, law or agency initiative that violates the protections of the Second Amendment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Siskiyou County at a regular meeting of said Board, held the 12th day of February, 2013, by the following vote of said Board:
Ayes: Armstrong, Kobseff, Bennett, Criss, Valenzuela
Noes: None
According to Mr. Pollack, as long as there is a list of government approved firearms, nobody is taking your guns away. They’re just limiting what sort of guns you can have. Until they put those guns on the banned list, too.
Perhaps not confiscate your guns, but add new odious and expensive registration processes, require ridiculous amounts of liability insurance, tax ammunition as to be unaffordable, make your doctor a snitch about guns in your house and cause authorities to seize your guns if you are deemed to be mentally “unstable” by government snooping into your private health records, enter your home on trumped up charges that you may have illegally downloaded some music video or possess kiddie porn seizing your guns in the process not returning them even if you are found innocent or confiscate that old gun your grandfather gave you even if it is not functional simply because some bureaucrat deems it to be an “assault rifle” or has too big a magazine.
.
No one remembers how friendly and acceptable smoking used to be.
In a divorce proceeding, if the wife asks for a restraining order, it is very common for the Sheriff to take all of the firearms from the husband’s possession... even though he has broken no laws. So much for the “as long as you are law-abiding” part of his lie.
The author wants to see some of his readers arrested on TV (probably hates fatherly, heterosexual men and families). Laws that amount to confiscation are already passing in several states, including Colorado.
“What if you have a firearm that is currently legal to own and may be part of the ban? In order to comply with the new law, we would have to turn in those firearms, right?”
And then if you don’t turn it in? Is pollack unaware of proposed legislation or legislation passed in New York?
First time I’ve met an editor who doesn’t read the news.
His contact info from the article for those who care to enlighten this idiot as to who is coming to take your guns:
spollak@thedailystar.com or at (607) 432-1000 , ext. 208. His columns can be found at www.thedailystar.com/sampollak
The Progressives also told us in 1913, when they changed the Constitution to allow federal income taxation, that it would ONLY be for the super-wealthy, and would NEVER go over 1%. How’s that working out?
I would not trust this guy any further than I could throw Governor Christe.
Just about everyone in a 'blue region' (like New England) has a lefty neighbor just dying to 'squeal'...it's for the children, of course.
But what has the NRA done wrong this year? And there are other choices, too. Second Amendment advocates support all of them now, including the NRA.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
http://www.rmgo.org/
Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/
Second Amendment Foundation Online
http://www.saf.org/
Mr. Pollack apparently did not see the police thug body-slam the old lady in New Orleans after katrina to grab her gun, has never read of the many BATF raids on the wrong addresses, and is totally ignorant of the number of legislation currently being introduced specifically to confiscate legally-owned guns. Like all liberals, he is ignorant of the facts and considers himself smarter than anybody who disagrees with him.
THEY WERE ALREADY HERE!
Can you say “KATRINA”..THEY came for the guns and took the guns. But of course, it was an Emergency...a Crisis. Ha.
I sent an email correcting Mr Pollack, and it bounced back. This often happens with leftist newspaper editors. They don’t want to hear the truth.
Yup. As a famous Houston John Law once said (Johnny Holmes, former District Attorney of Harris County),
"I'd rather face a grand jury five times a day than go before the medical examiner once."
The other old saw about that is, "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
Or he is a lying propagandist.
This is easy to refute – simply copy and paste quotations and links for the variation socialist luminaries of the left calling for CONFISCATION and variations thereof.
The best is the quotation from Andrew “Gun Confiscation” Cuomo:
“Confiscation could be an option” Andrew Cuomo http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=1&;
MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Talks Gun ‘Confiscation’ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2012/12/16/msnbc-s-ed-schultz-talks-gun-confiscation
Muhlbauer: Ban, seize semi-auto weapons http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=14934&TM=35600.75 State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer, D-Manilla, says Iowa lawmakers should ban semi-automatic guns and “start taking them” from owners.
Feinstein: ‘Purpose Is to Dry Up the Supply of These Weapons Over Time’ www.weeklystandard.com/ blogs/ feinstein-purpose-dry-supply-these-weapons-over-time_697629.html Diane Feinstein on Gun Control “Turn ‘Em All In!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-b45FdDN3s&feature=player_detailpage
San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne, said in the interview it may take a generation, but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws. http://www.washingtonguardian.com/top-cops-get-political-guns
There are other examples of course; this is just a sampling.
Says some stupid, liberal ass who speaks for nobody.
Apparently he is unaware that in two states now, leftist Democrats are demanding the surrender of guns under the threat of severe criminal punishment.
Oh, I get it, he is parsing. That is, they aren’t coming for your guns. They are making you turn them in. And if you don’t, they are coming to arrest *you*.
It’s kind of subtle, like saying that “The Nazis didn’t gas the Jews”, because it was the gas that gassed the Jews.
He’s right to a degree; no one will take away my guns while I am still alive - and I’ll do my best to take a whole bunch of them out first!
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.