Posted on 03/15/2019 6:25:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Time and again, we hear from those advocating for more gun control laws who intone with a sense of moral superiority that we need to have a “conversation” on guns. The goal, they say, is to reduce violence, suggesting that they are somehow more evolved.
Yet, just this week, some anti-gun activists and politicians were caught red-handed fantasizing about wanting to shoot politicians and gun rights advocates as well as suggesting the “doxing,” or publicly posting private information, on gun owners.
In one instance, a woman attending the Connecticut General Assembly’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary hearing on several gun control bills, was photographed texting a threat against Republican state Sen. Rob Sampson and NRA members.
“If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA,” a photo of the text message reads. The anti-gun activist was escorted from the hearing. Later, Sampson said that wasn’t the first time he’s been threatened with violence for standing up for the Constitutional rights of Connecticut citizens. No charges were filed against the woman.
Sneaking in A Lower Receiver
It didn’t end there. At the same hearing, Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, was escorted out of the state legislative office building for smuggling in an 80 percent lower firearm receiver. Stein had reportedly asked Bridgeport Police Chief A.J. Perez to bring the firearm component into the state building for him. The receiver was intended for use as a hearing “prop.” Both planned to testify in favor of tighter gun control laws, even as they tested the limits of existing Connecticut law and public building safety protocols.
What Stein did was to bring into a state government building that doesn’t allow firearms a piece of machined metal that’s not considered a firearm to try to convince people he was technically breaking the law since the lower receiver is intended to eventually become a firearm. He was also conspiring with the police chief of the state’s largest city to pull off the stunt. You can imagine what the reaction would have been if someone from the other side of the debate had tried a tactic like that. You can imagine, but it is not something that would likely happen.
Ironically, the hearing was about proposals covering home storage requirements that carry penalties, banning so-called ghost guns and requiring those open carrying handguns to furnish a permit to police.
Doxing Tactics
It’s not just Connecticut. Maryland Democratic Party Secretary Robbie Leonard posted photos to social media following a Maryland House Judiciary Committee meeting. The marathon gun control hearing saw law-abiding citizens exercising their right to attend the hearing, politely protesting by wearing “We Will Not Comply” t-shirts.
That was too much for Leonard. He posted photos of Maryland citizens, some of whom he surely represents, to social media platforms with the message, “I hope the FBI runs the name of every witness who is wearing a t-shirt that says ‘We Will Not Comply. They’re a bunch of terrorists in the making.”
He didn’t end with just the character attack. He took it a step further and may have violated state law. “Time to dox some homegrown terrorists,” read another Leonard social media post.
Doxing is when personal and private information of an individual or organization is published over the Internet with malicious intent. Maryland law specifically prohibits doxing. And, last we checked, freedom of expression is still a First Amendment right.
Maryland Democratic Executive Director Ben Smith attempted a half-hearted apology, and in so doing, blamed the gun rights protestors. He said the lawmaking process requires “sober and calm deliberation,” but added, “When activists wear shirts stating, ‘We will not comply’ with new firearm regulations, that action escalates the conflict and a willingness to flout the rule of law.”
Talks about some strange ways to start the conversation they claim to want.
When they say “conversation”, they really mean “confiscation” and when they say “Common sense gun control” they mean “confiscation”.
For some reason I got up early and watched the video before it got scrubbed off the net. By now it is probably hard to find and loaded with viral crap if you can. This guy spent a good 5 minutes shooting 4 or 5 30 round magazines in essentially one perhaps 50x25 foot room. Left the rifle on the floor, went back to his auto and got another rifle and more magazines and went back and spent another 3 minutes making certain no one was still suffering. When he drives away at about ten minutes there is not even a siren to be heard. This video is the best case for “go nowhere unarmed” I have ever seen and I watched ALL the Active Self Protection videos.
You can always tell when a certain issue is beginning to defy common sense when they start with the “let’s have a conversation” whine.
For a liberal,”conversation” means everybody STFU and let me talk.
This guy’s Manifesto is all over the place. He admires China as “having the best system”, loathed Capitalism. He admits to using firearms to spark gun confiscation in the US. If you can find it, read it for yourself. I would hurry because it is probably going to be very difficult to find very soon.
The guy was no conservative. He mocks conservatives for failing to protect anything.
Venezuela got their gun control measures passed just 7 years ago, and now they have a tyrant changing the Constitution to stay in power, and the people are starving and the nation is collapsing during his effort. Taking guns away is a sure sign that you’re about to have some bad people come to power.
“It will be a difficult one. The victims were helpless and unprotected. The police did not protect them.”
And that’s part of the “conversation” I would want to have. The announced theory of the totalitatians is that to “keep us safe”, they have to confiscate guns. But they are never held accountable when they fail to keep us safe.
There is a US Supreme Court case that says the police have no duty to protect us! It took, what, over a year for the police chief responsible for the Parkland shootings to be removed from office? The FBI failed there, too, and no one can touch them.
One reason nobody believes the totalitarians on gun control is that it is a one-way street. They want control, but know there will never be any accountability.
I will be willing to have a “conversation” when the first gun grabber says, “Under my proposed law, if violent crime does not go down 90% in the first year, the governor and all legislators who voted for it will be permanently removed from public office and denied all public pensions and benefits accrued.”
That conversation can only be had in this event. Before, liberals would claim the police would protect you and if guns were illegal, the shooting could not happen.
Muslims will insist on their own defense. Liberals will get tangled up in that. They can’t say to the Muslims “Trust the government” because liberals don’t think Muslims should trust the government. If there are guns in churches, liberals want to know that and have them taken away. If mosques have guns in them, liberals don’t want to know.
Pretty sure all but one over the last ten years were insane liberals. I read a long write up with all the proof laid a couple years back. And they were all on mind altering medications, read write ups about this also.
Believe it or not, some ignorant gun controllers also want to ban 0% AR 15 receivers.
LIEberals LIE!
They also CHEAT and STEAL!
AND, THEY BLAME OTHERS FOR THEIR PROBLEMS!
We REALLY do need to ensure that LIEberals LOSE in 2020!
They couldn’t win if they wouldn’t do those things
You are SO RIGHT!
They HAVE TO, In Other Words, COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS TO WIN!
I watched it with my wife. The whole time she kept asking-where are the police? Terrible response time there.
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.