Posted on 12/30/2012 9:14:00 AM PST by TurboZamboni
This divide has existed for decades, separating America into hostile camps of conservative vs. liberal, rural vs. urban. As the nation responds to the massacre of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., the gulf has rarely felt wider than now.
After the gunman invaded an elementary school with a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and magazines of 30 bullets each, there was a brief moment of unity amid the nation's grief. Across partisan divides, politicians said something must be done about weapons based upon military designs. Many wondered if even the National Rifle Association would adjust its staunch opposition to gun control.
Then both sides regrouped. With President Barack Obama pushing for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and memory lingering of Obama's divisive 2008 comment that some Americans "cling to guns and religion," positions hardened.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
-Senator John F. Kennedy,rightwing extremist, April 1960
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” -Hubert H. Humphrey, rabid gun nut,
Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6
Nothing new in lala land
You have that right. "Compromise" to the anti gunners means taking fewer of your rights than they want right now and taking the rest later. To quote Sara Brady and any number of other tyrant wannabes their goal is "A country where only the police and the military are armed."
Anti-gunners can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear - they lose nothing when they lose a legislative battle. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until we are enslaved serfs of a totalitarian government, we are killed by their beloved police, or they and their jackbooted thugs are dead. There are no other possible final outcomes.
From the article:
“After the gunman invaded an elementary school with a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and magazines of 30 bullets each, there was a brief moment of unity amid the nation’s grief. Across partisan divides, politicians said something must be done about weapons based upon military designs. Many wondered if even the National Rifle Association would adjust its staunch opposition to gun control.”
Excerpt from “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross (page 151):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Dad, while you were taking pictures after we had lunch, Mr. Mann was telling me about what happened to him during the war.” Henry and his father were down in the workshop, where Henry was cleaning his guns. Walter Bowman looked up at his son.
“Hm.” Walter had never heard of Irwin Mann talking about that part of his past.
“He was telling me about how the police came and took him and his wife away, and he never saw her or any of his family again. He said that Hitler killed six million Jews like him, and would have killed all of them if the Americans hadn’t fought against the Germans and beat them.”
“That’s probably true.”
“He talked about how none of them had any way to fight back. He said FIRST THE POLICE TOOK AWAY THE GUNS THAT WERE LIKE THE ONES THE SOLDIERS USED, then they took away all their guns. He said he hoped I was always a good shot with as many kinds of guns as possible, in case the same thing ever happened here.” Henry looked very upset. “Dad, I love shooting, but I don’t want to kill anyone. Could something like what happened in Germany ever happen here?” he asked.
Walter Bowman, the history teacher, looked his son in the eye. Want to take this question for me, Uncle Cam? he said silently. Finally he answered.
“It probably won’t happen here,” he said, and mentally added the word again. “I certainly pray that it doesn’t. We have a nation with the kind of freedoms that people in most other countries can only dream of. But to answer your question accurately, yes, it could happen here.” And it killed your uncle.
“There are always men who want more and more power, and history has shown us that these kind of men will take all they can from the people they control. Sometimes they are finally stopped when the people fight back. Sometimes the people don’t fight back, and they slowly lose their freedoms until it’s too late.”
(emphasis added by me)
If the libtards want to ban things, I would agree to offer a ‘ban bill’ that bans the bushmaster rifle, abortion, and queer marriage.
All in one bill, all or nothing. Pass it or shut up forever about guns.
Here’s a categorical, prima facie definition of an assault weapon. `Categorical’ means that it is either true or false. `True’ is used in its mathematical sense, as in `two plus two equals four: It either does or it doesn’t.
“According to military authorities, an assault rifle is, `a shoulder-fired, select-fire weapon used by an individual soldier, firing a cartridge of intermediate rifle caliber, with a detachable high-capacity magazine.’”
`The Gun Digest Book of the AK & SKS, A Complete Guide to Guns, Gear and Ammunition’ p. 18, by Patrick Sweeney, Krause Publications, 2008.
In order for any firearm that the 2nd Amendment hating, gun-grabbing left and their allied MSM organs wish to ban to fall within this definition, each and every element must be satisfied.
For example, the fact that most of the evil black carbines that you and I own, that they wish to ban, do not possess `select-fire’ capability—they are either on `safe’ or semi-auto—puts them outside the definition that genius California `progressives’ invented. Weapons capable of fully automatic fire are already regulated under the 1934 firearms act.
As can be seen, this isn’t an MSM, Nancy Pelosi or Barry Obama `Let me be clear: `Some say ... “ opinion tailored from whole cloth, or printed in the ink that they purchase by the barrel on immense rolls of newsprint, or a product of biased political predilections.
The left has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts; on the other hand, we demand our civil liberties as set forth in the Bill of Rights.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two make four.”
George Orwell, `Nineteen Eightyfour’. Feel free to cut and paste.
Did you just whip out a line from the terminator movie? :D
Did they use hands in that push? Will the liberals ban hands and cut them off of criminals or even of people they don't trust?
“With the direction the country is going in, we need to come out and bluntly say it, “it is to protect us from the tyranny of government.”
I cannot stand that the Republicans have absolutely no message about anything.”
Gun control legislation will sail through the Senate. Remember, the filibuster is going to be gone — this will be one of the first orders of business for Reid and the incoming ‘rat senators. With the addition of hard-leftists such as Elizabeth Warren and (soon-to-be-elected) Thomas Markey from Massachusetts, anti-gun legislation is going to fly through the Senate like grease through a goose.
The only hope the Second Amendment folks have now is that the Republicans in the House will stand and say “no”. Failing that, it may be an all-but-done deal.
I fully expect ‘rat Senators from purple states to fall on their swords on this one, under direct orders from their “commander-in-chief”…
Hopefully, I’ll be proven wrong.
But’s that’s how I see it...
it seemed appropriate
Wrong. The last information I saw was that he left the rifle in the vehicle. Stop distorting the truth to make a point. If your argument is so weak that it needs such distortions, then it's not much of an argument.
So what is the big deal about "military designs?" Three thoughts on that. One, the 2nd Amendment protects my right from an over-reaching government. I don't have to prove a need or justify the exercise of my 2nd Amendment rights any more than someone has to justify/prove their 1st Amendment rights. Two, the Bill of Rights does not limit the individual, it limits the government by explicitly protecting our freedoms and liberties. What part of "shall not be infringed" does this guy not understand? Three, so what if something is "military style?" Are we not equipping our military with the best technology? Who are you to say what I need or don't need? I don't tell you how many air bags you need in your vehicle to protect your family, don't try to tell me what I need or don't need to protect mine. (goes back to that whole rights thing that the left finds so inconvenient when it goes against their agenda)
Right there with 'ya. Though I didn't seriously feel the need until the {expletive} somehow got his {expletive} {expletive} re-elected. The very next week I started working OT and saving up for an AR. Bought mine the night before the shooting in Conn.
You know what - I'm glad I did. Turns out they are just plain fun to shoot. Ok, not so fun to clean, but even that is a labor of love. I just wish there were a few less nooks and crannies to love. Ammo, while more expensive than 9mm, is still cheaper than 30 cal ammo. Recoil is practically non-existent. There's a ton of "furniture" you can hang on these things. For a firearms enthusiast, they are just plain fun. And yes, they have intimidation power and firepower in the home defense role.
So for all you would-be gun-grabbers (aka fascists) Yes, I wanted an AR. No, I don't need an AR. But yes, I absolutely, positively need the freedom to own one. That's non-negotiable. Get over it.
Dorfman: "Mr. Towns -- why do you act as if stupidity were a virtue?!"
Not today,and just most of them. We'll let you keep your grandfather's single shot shotgun if you register it, pay an annual fee, and keep it locked up in a government approved safe. Then we will decide that you don't need it and come for it, too.
yes conservatives speak from rationality, facts, freedom, and the Constitution. libtards speak from irrationality, feelings, tyranny, and mein kampf
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.