Posted on 03/30/2013 11:19:38 AM PDT by Starman417
No where is the left's hypocrisy on display more than the 2nd Amendment debate. Check out this Democrat lawmaker:
"As a hunter and gun owner, I will not give up my guns and I will not ask other law-abiding Americans to give up theirs," says Thompson, 62, a former state legislator and eight-term congressman.
But he wants YOU to give up YOUR guns because "it's common sense"
"I know a lot of NRA members and I don't know of any who think they should have the same weapons as the police or military -- or should be able to buy a gun without a background check. What we're hearing from is the real extreme."..."I'm a gun guy, but I carried an assault weapon in Vietnam. And if I never see another one, it'll be too soon," says the former Army infantryman, who earned a Purple Heart.
Assault weapons "give a bad name to gun owners," Thompson continues. "There are more people who don't own guns than do. If they think all of us gun owners are running around with assault weapons, that's going to do us a real disservice. And we'll just fall out of favor with the voters."
He's a hunter so I'm sure he has one of these:
Which is the same EXACT thing as this gun:
Except for one little thing...it looks ssssccccarrrrry.
And us police and military are the only ones who should be allowed to own scary looking guns.
What a disgrace.
Meanwhile The Hill writes about Obama's use of executive order to accomplish gun control by fiat.
The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts....A key factor in strengthening the NICS database, they say, is getting states to report more information on mental health and criminal history records.
Earlier this month, the DOJ announced a $20 million grant program aimed at incentivizing states to submit more mental health and criminal history information into the NICS database.
...Also this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget said it would consider changing rules to make it easier for states to share mental health records with the NICS.
JeffG tears apart the article:
...“privacy concerns” here, with respect to the 2nd Amendment, are characterized as a kind of obstacle, a second obstacle being heretofore a lack of bribe money available to “incentivize” states to sell out the privacy of their citizens. King Obama, blessed be He and His Name, has fixed that, however. By executive fiat.Moreover, the article suggests, the NRA has been standing athwart common-sense anti-privacy measures yelling stop!– and as a result, bad people have done evil things. Liberty being well and truly overrated if what comes along with are concerns over security, particularly, the government being out of every conceivable monitoring loop to protect us from ourselves.
Yet, the reason the NRA and other civil liberties groups don’t want to give the government access to an inventory of our private property, or details of our health — particularly with respect to our weapons — is not, as this article intimates, that they are pro-crazy people with guns, but rather because they know, as do we, the government to be political, and so its aims and motivations and policy are always going to be driven by ideology and expedience, two dangerous threats to rights that are supposedly out of the purview of man, especially once the checks and balances are removed from the equation.
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
He broke the law by not coming up with a budget by Feb. 4th. Now he is infringing on our rights by spitting on the constitution once again.
It is my fervent prayer that we win the senate and begin articles of impeachment.
Isn't there something in the Penumbra of the Constitution that protects privacy? The "access to more data about guns and their owners" sounds like a direct violation of that absolute right, not to mention the flagrant infringement of another right that "shall not be infringed".
My question is when the anti-gun folks talk about the need to get those “black, scary guns” banned are they being racist, since they only think black guns are scary? Or are those white and semi-white liberals afraid of blacks carrying guns? (except for their personal black security guards.) That’s it. Banning black assualt weapons is the new civil rights issue that needs to be taken up and opposed because banning based upon color is racist.
(perhaps I need to get something to calm me down)
If you are going to violate and trample the Bill of Rights, it’s not a very wise idea to do it with Executive Orders. I understand that the Chicago mob really doesn’t care about a person’s rights but Americans understand it quite well. This regime may want to do a little reading up on the Constitution and its Bill of Rights before going off half-cocked on the Second Amendment.
Barry can’t want all year long, but I ain’t gonna.
Barry can order all year long, but I ain’t gonna.
He might as well make himself useful and stay on vacation.
I would just like to note that my gun is tan, and is therefore not as scary as black gunz.
Does this mean that every psychologist and psychiatrist will have to forward your medical files to the Government? I would think that it would violate many laws already on the books.
Obama is refusing to uphold his oath of office where he vowed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Time to impeach him and the rest of the scum in elected office that are failing their oaths.
Well color me “real extreme”.
I want cops stripped of fully automatic weapons. There is no legitimate reason or appropriate situation for military assaults on civilians.
I want the repeal of all gun control laws. A gun, exclusive or the military term referring to field artillery, is an inanimate object that is incapable of self animation and therefor not a criminal. It is no more than a tool, and no government has the inherent right to tell me I can't have a hammer, screwdriver or pair of pliers.
The Federal Government has already tried to illegally maintain a database of gun owners via the illegal maintaining of computer databases of “background check” records, in spite of that being explicitly forbidden by law. Credit John Ashcroft for putting a stop to that practice, although I don't trust the current regime to comply.
And finally, the purpose of the Second Amendment is explicitly so that “We the people” have the right to keep and bear arms so that we may keep our own government in check should they begin behaving like they currently are.
The NRA is a lobbying organization. They do a lot of good as such. They also have a long history of making deals with the devil. They don't have the right to give away my rights a little at a time.
I propose disarming all gang members first. After they see how well that goes then they can come for our guns.
LOL
i can haz brown gunz???
Is it an art project or something?
They’ll violate and eventually abolish/revise the Second Amendment one sub-group at a time by associating more Americans every year with domestic violence, mental problems, criminality, and so on.
When a leader provides weapons of war to our enemies, then takes away the guns and protection of his own countrymen, then the only word for it is TREASON.
No...it's not.
The first rifle has a much smaller magazine capacity. It has no collapsible stock. It has no flash suppressor. It has no pistol grip. So...NOT the exact same thing.
Can has picture!
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.