Posted on 02/06/2016 8:20:11 AM PST by rktman
For the 1st time in American history, the leading candidate for the Democrat party is running on a platform that would prohibit the private ownership of firearms.
How can this be? It was Kennedy and McGovern who blunted Nixon's desire to ban handguns. Bush 41 banned more guns that Bill Clinton. Where before the 2nd Amendment was a bi-partisan issue with nuanced degrees of interpretation now one of the political party's wants it destroyed!
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
P.S. "leading can't-i-date"?
And, this forum is full of “conservatives” who won’t vote for some Republicans because they don’t like their stands on some issues. Each and every Republican running is so much better than any Democrat running. Anyone who refuses to “hold his nose” and vote Republican regardless of the nominee is a fool. Let’s capitalize that: A FOOL.
In related news, Michigan joins the growing number of states returning to constitutional carry, as it seeks through legislation to allow it s citizens the right to carry with no strings attached.
Illegal is not the same as unavailable, and unless you are going to go house to house searching for them 99.9999% of gun owners will not give up their guns to the state....ever.
And anyone who puts his right to keep and bears arms in the hands of a politician, any politician, is a fool. Let's capitalize that: A FOOL.
KcuF her!
Kind of why I’m of the mindset (I know, what mind?) that the repub runners should focus on the two demo assclowns and stop with the “mine is bigger than yours” crap. Lets focus on the real enemy of the citizens.
If she doesn’t believe in the Constitution she shouldn’t run for President. She should just assume it.
Come on, bitch. Show us your real self.
Yeah sure, I’m sure all the terrorists and gang-bangers will turn in their weapons.
Unconstitutional, unworkable, political pandering pipe dream.
The people who would give up their guns are either stupid or mentally ill and it is good they no longer have easy access to weapons.
If the government can’t find 30 million illegal aliens, which are much harder to hide, how are they going to find 300 million guns?
Only two of the R jersey candidates do not want to give the Democrats a permanent majority with amnesty for illegal aliens.
Anyone else “winning” would be a pyrrhic victory.
Chips/x-mitters? LOL! Besides, guns are usually much louder than trespassers.
Hilly can keep pushing her gun ‘control’ agenda, but it’s going to hurt her (duh!). She should be taking notes from her carpetbagging buddy T-Mac (Va. Gov) who just caved on the AG’s move to end reciprocal agreements with 25+ states. T-Mac basically cut the limb off behind AG Herring because the issue was so politically toxic.
As one columnist wrote, the stance of gun owners should be “screw you” & non-compliance. The SAFE act in NY is a model of non-compliance ..... and it’s working so well against the SLASHING epidemic on the NYC Metro (gee, what kind of gun shoots ‘slashing’ bullets? /heavy, dripping sarc).
****************************************************
McAuliffe reciprocity retreat actually a surrender?
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/01/mcauliffe-reciprocity-retreat-actually-a-surrender/
Last week, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe reversed an order given by his fellow Democrat, Attorney General Mark Herring, that had severed carry-permit reciprocity with more than two dozen states. McAuliffe framed the action as a bipartisan deal that got Republicans to make concessions that the gun-control had previously sought. Instead, as Stephen Gutowski reports for the Free Beacon, it looks much more like a total surrender ........
Herring and his allies were either strangely quiet, or loudly complaining. One anonymous Democratic legislator told Blue Virginia that this was “a bad deal” that would lead to “universal reciprocity.” Herring’s silence on the “deal” at the time certainly spoke volumes about his view on McAuliffe’s horsetrading. And now it appears we know why. The agreement strips Herring of his office’s ability to intervene on carry-permit reciprocity questions in the future. It furthermore requires Virginia to recognize carry permits from any state that recognizes Virginia’s, a forced reciprocity that will eliminate executive-branch interference entirely. [Deal still needs to go through the state legislature]
***************************************************
NY] State’s SAFE Act needs to set its sights on compliance
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/State-s-SAFE-Act-needs-to-set-its-sights-on-6754126.php
The SAFE Act also required that the estimated 1 million assault weapons in private ownership in 2013 be registered with the State Police. After the Cuomo administration stonewalled a Freedom of Information request for more than a year, an Albany judge ordered the State Police to release data on the number of weapons registered as required. They revealed that only 44,000 firearms had been registered.
Subtract from that number the firearms owned by police officers and licensed dealers (who have little way to avoid registration), and it’s clear the compliance rate for registration among average citizens is less than 4 percent. It’s hard to call a law that commands a 96 percent noncompliance rate a success
Due to its time-wasting bureaucracy, three-quarters of the state’s county sheriffs (including those elected in virtually all of the rural counties) have made clear they are not aggressively enforcing the SAFE Act, except as an “add-on” charge for other crimes, and 52 of the state’s 62 county legislatures have approved resolutions opposing the SAFE Act.
Forgot this link:
Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.
http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/
American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?
“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”
It’s not exactly a traditional argument, but it’s certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter - they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power - their power.
You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.
But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon - and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.
Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”
So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.
For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn’t want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan - which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.
Obama is lying - about gay marriage, about your doctor - and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers’ infamous observation that ‘fundamentally transforming’ America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.
No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger - and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.
So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There’s always another “common sense” restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last “common sense” restriction didn’t prevent and that the proposed new “common sense” restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.
There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it’s too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a “compromise” proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the “assault weapons” and “cop killer” bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That’s good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It’s not. It’s based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.
So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there’s only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it’s similar to “Screw you.”
She is a Control Freak.
I agree with your sentiment, but I have to point out that our government doesn't want to find the illegals (or stop their infiltration), but they do very much want to document and locate privately owned firearms...and we both know that they intend to remove them from private hands. Their strategy is and will continue to be incrementalism. One sensible law at a time. We must never kid ourselves about their ultimate goal, or their willingness to use whatever means to accomplish it.
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.