A wise boss once told me that as a manager I should never make a rule that I know will be flouted. To do so, he said, undermines your authority for everything. Only make rules that are definitely and obviously needed for real and obvious reasons. And, only make those rules that are without question within your preview.
Gun control by fiat with no by-in from the public will destroy the moral authority of government to govern. The government, in theory, at least, is supposed to work for us.
What will they do with the millions of new criminals?
I believe, as free men, that we are expected not to follow unconstitutional laws. If the corrupt supreme court, rules some nonsense about guns that forces / allows gun registration or removal from free men, then I will not comply.
Thankfully, that witch’s future is not the Presidency - ever. That destiny in Trump’s. Her destiny is more along the lines of Leavenworth.
And people think the Supreme Court isn’t dangerous for that reason?
I don’t think that will work out too well.
I miss the rule of law!
Pray for a Trump victory.
They want to take guns from the non-violent, honest people and deliberately leave them in the hands of violent criminals.
Because they want the “oppressed” to waltz right in and take what they want from their “oppressors”.
Yes.
In a recorded audio speaking on the 2nd amendment she said:
“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,”
AND, then there’s this.......
“Recently Australia managed to get away, or take away,
tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year
they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why
can’t we?” an attendee at a New Hampshire campaign
event asked Clinton.
“I think it would be worth considering doing it on
the national level, if that could be arranged,” the
White House hopeful replied, embracing not only a
mandated national buyback program but getting rid
of handguns in the United States.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate for president who believes that the people's rights are subject to regulation by the government.
Our founders established a government whose sole function was to protect the people’s inherent rights. A candidate who takes the decision that inherent rights protected from government interference are subject to government regulation clearly does not respect the people or the people’s rights.
