To: Second Amendment First
I guess the next step will be confiscation of all firearms.
2 posted on
01/30/2013 6:30:31 AM PST by
Huskrrrr
To: Second Amendment First
When there are no more legal gun owners to blame, ridicule and punish they might get around to making it tougher for the actual criminals.
3 posted on
01/30/2013 6:33:05 AM PST by
Iron Munro
(I Miss America, don't you?)
To: Second Amendment First
5 posted on
01/30/2013 6:33:31 AM PST by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: Second Amendment First
Baraq and Rhambo need to deputize the Million Moms for Gun Control and send them in to disarm the Chicago ghetto next summer.
Then they can move on to Detroit.
6 posted on
01/30/2013 6:34:15 AM PST by
nascarnation
(Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
To: Second Amendment First
7 posted on
01/30/2013 6:35:25 AM PST by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: Second Amendment First
So rather than change their local laws to allow citizens to carry, they want the entire nation to do it their way in complete violation of the Constitution. What a bunch of selfish, self-righteous, un-American, moronic assholes. They reap what they sew, no one should feel sorry for them.
To: Second Amendment First
If you hold your nose and take an anti-emetic to read the rest of the editorial, you'll see it's a simple rehash of the tired old "our strict gun lwaws don't work because other people have less strict gun laws.' bullsh!t. In other words if someting doesn't work, you should do MORE of it because if you do more of what doesn't work all of a sudden it will work. Naturally this makes no sense to anyone except a liberal. I may have quit reading before I saw, but I don't think any mention was made of the MUCH LOWER crime rates in those jurisdictions that don't have tyrannical gun control laws.
Anti-gunners are believers. gun control is an article of faith with them, not a rationally derived conclusion. and to slightly misquote Stuart Chase, "For the true believer, not proof is necessary, and no disproof possible."
9 posted on
01/30/2013 6:48:39 AM PST by
from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
To: Second Amendment First
10 posted on
01/30/2013 6:51:18 AM PST by
11th_VA
(JURY NULLIFICATION FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN LAWS !!!)
To: Second Amendment First
The almost universal call from many RINOs, Dimocrats, media pundits, and lesser pols have called for more thorough background checks. This seems to be the one "feel good" legislation which will be enacted. For all this ranting about background checks, not one pundit or pol has offered any logical reason how such thorough background checks will stem the flow of violence. Gang memebers do not get their guns thorough FFL dealers. How many of the 500+ killings were done last year by individuals who acquired their firearms after going through a background check?
*Crickets*
11 posted on
01/30/2013 6:53:13 AM PST by
TexasRedeye
(Eschew obfuscation.)
To: Second Amendment First
It should be obvious even to the educated and literate, if utterly misguided, dyed-in-the-wool liberal ideologues who staff and run the New York Times that if you disarm the law-abiding, you render them helpless against those who disparage all rule of law, who invariably arm themselves with all the latest hardware, and who prey on the disarmed.
It’s not rocket science.
Yet even this level of elementary cogitation is beyond the blinkered morons who write for the Times.
Certainly the criminals have discovered this very elementary fact, and are taking advantage of it on a daily basis to shear the Chicago sheep and murder wherever they please.
To: Second Amendment First
Anti gun clergy marched in Lansing Michigan yesterday.
I wanted to suggest that maybe the problem is with the flock or just maybe the problem is with the shepherds who preach social justice and social envy.
13 posted on
01/30/2013 7:00:49 AM PST by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: Second Amendment First
Interesting how the article doesn’t even bother to touch on the gangs, gang-bangers and the arrest and prosecution of them. Any bets the bleeding liberals in these red counties slap ‘em on the hand and sentence them to midnight basketball?
15 posted on
01/30/2013 7:31:31 AM PST by
VeniVidiVici
(Bathhouse Barry wants YOU to bend over for another four years)
To: Second Amendment First
To gun control proponents, the struggles here underscore the opposite a need for strict, uniform national gun laws to eliminate the current patchwork of state and local rules that allow guns to flow into this city from outside. And the same exact people back open border policies.
A national ban will create a thriving market for arming the urban youths with cheaply made zip guns that may or may not blow up in their hands. Good enough to kill each other, but not suitable for taking the countryside (where the non-compliant will still be better armed). The better funded gangs will just bring real assault weapons (and RPGs, grenades, etc.) across the border with their drug shipments.
16 posted on
01/30/2013 7:35:46 AM PST by
SampleMan
(Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
To: Second Amendment First
Breaking today, St. Louis, Mo had 14 murders in January 2013. This out paces Chicago. The reason is a gang war between two feuding gangs. One of the Gangs is called the Obama Boyz.
A fact we do not want to talk about is most of the people murdered in the USA with hand guns are people involved with criminal activity. The idea controlling guns for law abiding citizens is an insult to the citizens of this country.
17 posted on
01/30/2013 7:55:10 AM PST by
11th Commandment
(http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
To: Second Amendment First
So far, the solution advanced by Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been [paraphrased]: “Please stop killing kids and take the shooting to alleys and side streets to avoid collateral damage.” What a plan, Rahm!
His other plan [along with Gov. Quinn and the Chicago Donkey Mafia] is to totally disarm all the innocent, law-abiding gun owners of the state. Yeah, Rahm, it's worked so well for you in Chicago that it needs to go statewide — NOT.
To: Second Amendment First
Should have bought stock in Chuck’s Gun Shop.
To: Second Amendment First
If concealed Carry is sooooo evil for us common people, why is it legal for Chicago Aldermen?
21 posted on
01/30/2013 11:16:09 AM PST by
Petruchio
(Democrats are like Slinkies... Not good for anything, but it's fun pushing 'em down the stairs.)
To: Second Amendment First
23 posted on
01/30/2013 3:52:59 PM PST by
Inyo-Mono
(My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
To: Second Amendment First
Unbelievable the NYT would actually print this.
25 posted on
01/30/2013 8:39:27 PM PST by
going hot
(Happiness is a momma deuce)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson