Posted on 09/09/2015 7:06:20 AM PDT by marktwain
Virginia Democrat Patrick A. Hope boasts that he is using the Virgina incident to push for universal background checks (UBC), a precursor to gun registration, not because it would have prevented the crime, but because it is the gun control he can pass. Patrick Hope is a Virginia Democrat Assembly member. From usatoday.com:
"I chose background checks, not because it would have prevented (the Virginia shooting) but because this would be easiest to pass,'' Hope said. "We will not be able to prevent every single incident. We need to do something.''The irrationality of the position was not lost on the commenters. Todd Lewis wrote this:
Paraphrased: I propose this-or-that law not because it's any sort of realistic or probable solution to the situation I'm disingenuously using as a springboard, but instead, because the polls indicate it's the gun control legislation that we have the best chance of getting passed and I am willing to climb atop bloody bodies and tout this plan as long as I get what I want... control.It is this sort of cogent comment that changes the minds of people who have an open mind. Each time an emotional incident is used to push for more infringements on the Second Amendment, more people pay attention and educate themselves about the issues. The more that people educate themselves, the more become Second Amendment supporters. It is why a majority of people in the United States now say that protecting the right to keep and bear arms is more important than passing laws restricting that right. From Pew:
“We need to do something.”
That sums up the idiocy of the Progressive Left perfectly.
It doesn’t matter if the action you’re taking has no bearing on the problem, or even exacerbates it.
Something must be done! How can we fail to act? Even even one child’s life is saved....
Sorry, bro, he's still lying.
If he was telling the truth, he'd say: "I chose background checks, not because it would have prevented any criminal acts but because this would make it easier to impose tyranny and communism on an unsuspecting, mostly idiotic, populace." Hope said. "We need to drastically reduce the population in America."
Virginia has a highly conservative House of Delegates.
His proposal is dead in the water.
So Hope can go busy himself with “doing something” else.
"The Three Stooges" had it as a comedy essay about it ..
"Slowly I turned , ..step by step , ..inch by inch .., ..(etc).. (etc) !"
Who ever thought that the Three Stooges (commedy) would become political reality ?
Bingo! A target of opportunity. Precisely what the anti-gunners have been trying for the last fifty five years.
GUN CONTROL, one little step at a time. A blast from the past.
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. 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.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And 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.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”
-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview
HCI, around 1984, came out in favor of a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
Now it is magazine capacity, looks, calibers, background checks, and an odd assortment of other things which will not affect crime in any way.
Or ,..a counter revolutionary document ?
You need to understand the adversary ,.. before you can defeat 'em !!
" My estimate is from seven to ten years.
The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country.
The second problem is to get them all registered.
And 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.” -Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc.,..."
Most people don't realize that Andrew Cuomo's legislation , under the " NYS SAFE ACT " called for total confication of all firearms, with no comphensation for the gun owners !
and total registration (?) .,... and suppression !!
including ammunition !!
Just another idiot Democrat that never read the Constitution.....
Not intentionally being anal here (it is just my nature) but couldn’t ‘they’ use a ‘recent’ picture of this doofus?
Not many places in VA where he would be needing the gloves etc recently.
I used a rather ‘stupid’ but effective analogy few months back in a response to a ‘gun grabber’ who had written a newspaper article and wants all guns from everyone NOW.
I told him that I have been with and around guns for over 65 years and never fired a shot in ‘anger’ anywhere (Yes, luckily including Military Service).
So if taking my gun would/will decrease the number of deaths etc, you are therefore saying that if
‘you cut off my tallywacker, the amount of rapes would go down - even though in my 75 plus years I have NEVER raped nor sexually assaulted a man, woman or beast’
Same logic some local pols (MD) used few years back when they were proposing to raise the gas tax .04 per gallon. When told the fund was in good shape etc, the argument was ‘Well, we haven’t raised the tax for a long time and nobody will miss .04’
Shortly thereafter one of the ‘Bush II energy crises hit and someone suggested returning the .04 cents and the public was told the ‘state’ couldn’t afford it.-— YET they keep reelecting the same trash back into office’.
In one of those ‘crises’ (remember every time the cost of a gallon went up a penny it was because Bush was a Texan and Cheney was a Haliburton stooge)Bush ‘suspended’ the local regs as far as additives went. The same ‘oil companies’ that for years had complained the reason prices were high was because of all the different additives for seasons/locales etc...
When asked why the price didn’t go down AFTER suspending the additives, ‘they’ said “well something has to go in there”.
“The same ‘oil companies’ that for years had complained the reason prices were high was because of all the different additives for seasons/locales etc...
When asked why the price didn’t go down AFTER suspending the additives, ‘they’ said “well something has to go in there”.
So, why has the price of gasoline dropped like a rock in the recent past? It was over $4 in 2008, dropped to $1.55 rose to $3.85 in 2012, dropped to $1.87 in January of 2015, and is now about $2.48.
Those prices are from Arizona, but it is pretty close to national prices.
If oil companies controlled oil prices, you would not see such variations.
Come on now...that line(mine) doesn’t work by itself.
It was used in conjunction of prices not being lowered because standards or requirements were.
The key factor was the price of the crude.
The ‘point’ I was trying to make was the ‘reasoning’ for the high prices was the additives. When they were removed, logic says the price should go down BUT like B.O. said Something has to go in there.
B.O.= BIG OIL not BO (Obozo)
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.