NY Post on ARs: “Time to Get Rid of Them”

The post-Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre anti-Second Amendment witch hunt continues. The rationale for infringing (and how) on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is centering on the semi-automatic rifle (a.k.a., assault rifle). Apparently the guns are just too damn lethal for citizens. To wit this from nypost.com: “Has technology rendered the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete? That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation? We say: Yes.” Do the gun grabbers know the difference between a fully-automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle (one bullet per trigger squeeze)? Yes. Do they care? No. In their opinion, neither should you . . .

. . . the fact is that the volume of fire produced by Lanza’s semi-automatic arsenal was substantively the same as the fully automatic “gangster guns” effectively outlawed by Congress in 1934 and again in 1968.

That ban did no real violence to the 2nd Amendment, so it’s hard to see how constraining the availability of high-tech military knockoffs would do so today.

To their credit (somewhat) the Post also sees how hard it would be to ban/confiscate all the “high-tech military knockoffs” in civilian hands. But why let a little thing like practicality stand in the way of principle?

. . . Adam Lanza’s rifle of choice — the M-16 knock-off Bushmaster — is insanely popular, just for starters.
Which underscores the fact that historically there is scant political will for weapons control. And it’s unlikely that there will be, once the Sandy Hook slaughter fades from the nation’s consciousness.

But that won’t negate the need for reform. Weapons designed expressly to kill human beings, and then modified (wink wink) to meet the federal machine-gun ban, have no legitimate place in American society.

Time to get rid of them.

Or, we would politely suggest, not. Again, if they’re good enough for the NYPD—who, in New York, seems to have some problems not shooting innocent bystanders—why aren’t they good enough for civilian defense?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

82 Responses to NY Post on ARs: “Time to Get Rid of Them”

  1. avatarJim Barrett says:

    The Post also conveniently ignores the fact that the 1934 law did not ban machine guns – it only subjected them to national registration. It was not until 1985 when the freeze on existing machine guns went into effect did a real “ban” ever take place.

    • avatarJoe Grine says:

      True, the NFA simply made machineguns a rich person’s hobby by subjecting those transfers to a $200 tax. In 1934 dollars, that was quite a chunk of change. I don’t know the exact number, but it would have been the equivalent of many thousands of dollars in today’s rates. Over the years, inflation has resulted in $200 being less of an impediment to NFA weapons.

      • avatarAharon says:

        For the era, about the equivalent to six gold bullion one-ounce coins which had just been banned and confiscated by FDR. Roughly $10,000 in gold at today’s prices for six one-ounce gold bullion American Eagles.

  2. avatarJon says:

    It’s an overused cliche, but the same question could be asked of the First Amendment. The Internet allows information–much of it dubious–to spread to an unprecedented number of people at the speed of light. In fact, one could argue that this fact is partly responsible for the mass shootings of the modern era. The perpetrators know they will be instantly famous.

    Time to reign in the New York Post’s First Amendment rights?

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Well, since saturation coverage may be encouraging mass murderers . . .

      http://ace.mu.nu/archives/335813.php

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Yup like naming the wrong man accusing him of murdering innocent kids….
      Just sayin….

    • avatarEdgehill says:

      When the constitution was enacted, newspapers were nothing more than local presses, printing a couple of sheets of information. There was no national distribution, cable TV, or Internet to instantly spread information. It was just small, local newspapers.

      So the First Amendment should only apply to those organizations that fit the criteria of what the constitution signers had in those days. It’s time to get rid of everybody else.

    • avatarMarcus Aurelius says:

      It’s only an overused cliche because the anti’s refuse to listen to reason.

  3. avatarDave S says:

    lets have a serious discussion about this preeminent reason that the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution was added

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    Some radical gun nut named T. Jefferson wrote it originally.

    My question has to be: If the President, Congress, and Government are willing to lie to the People, Evade the existing Law and undermine the Constitution or twist it into an unrecognizable perversion of its Original Intent. How soon might we need arms for the intended Constitutional purposes? I Pray we will not need them, but they must be in the hands of the People if they are. I would point out we are talking about weapons equivalent to the arms of the ordinary foot soldier.

    • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

      Posted over at George Washington’s blog:

      Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
      – Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

      • avatarAaronW says:

        We seem to be moving from a high-trust, low-suspicion to a high-suspicion, low-trust society.
        NYS, NJ, MASS, HI, IL and CA act as if you’re a criminal, and you have to prove you’re not before you own a gun.
        Fed Gov now seems to want to move us all in that direction.

    • Thanks for that Thomas Jefferson quote. I have saved it and be posting it in various blogs.

      • Do you know where Thomas Jefferson said or wrote that quote? It is very impressive and undeniable in its meaning.

        • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

          Google-fu is your friend…

          This sentence comes from Thomas Jefferson’s three drafts of the Virginia Constitution. The text does vary slightly in each draft:

          First Draft: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”[1]

          Second Draft: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”[2]

          Third Draft: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]“[3]

          This sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution as adopted.

          Note: This sentence is often seen paired with the following: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” That sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution drafts or text as adopted, nor in any other Jefferson writings that we know of.

          Footnotes

          1. ↑ PTJ, 1:344.
          2. ↑ Ibid., 353. Brackets appear in the original manuscript.
          3. ↑ Ibid., 363. Brackets appear in the original manuscript.

          Source: http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/no-freeman-shall-be-debarred-use-arms-quotation

    • avatarCasey T says:

      Where did Jefferson say that quote? I would like to see it’s original source so I can cite it when arguing about the Constitution. Often, they refer to the Federalist papers to determine the meaning of the wording of the constitution and is this is in there, I want to point it out.

      • avatar40&2000 says:

        “Half of the quotes you seen from famous people on the Internet are complete bull$hit.”–Abraham Lincoln

    • avatartheaton says:

      “How soon might we need arms for the intended Constitutional purposes?”

      Around 80 years ago. That was back when men still had balls and yet they did nothing. We will do nothing now or in the future and the powers that be know it.

  4. avatarChaz says:

    This whole situation makes me want to run out and buy an AR.

  5. avatarST says:

    Good.Once we’ve banned military style assault weapons,lets have a conversation about free speech and the media.The Founders never envisioned an always on information database like the Internet and TV,through which crime and morally questionable programming is often broadcast.We may use the Internet for lawful stuff like GPS and term papers,but who needs 24/7 Facebook access? We need to license and background check Internet users-for the kids,of course.

    • avatarCasey T says:

      Absolutely restrict the internet and computers, so we can stop child pornographers because we should blame their tools they use in crimes. Nevermind that the vast majority of users don’t harm anyone. But how much freedom do we need to stop this? Yes, they will find other ways to continue their crimes but who cares because it’s a tragedy. Also, we know that the internet kills Ambassodors and Navy SEALs too because people make You Tube videos that piss off muslims. Our own President’s adminstration told us that. Okay, I’m done with the sarcasm.

    • avatarCA_Chris says:

      Please, not even in jest!

  6. To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens.

    • avatarJAS says:

      LOVE THIS!

      • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

        T-SHIRT! make it happen.

        • avatarPM says:

          That whole “the founding fathers only had muskets” argument always drives me nuts.

          The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. By 1791 there were already numerous repeating arms invented. One of the most notable, the Giradoni Air Rifle, was carried by Lewis and Clark on their transcontinental expedition. An expedition which was commissioned and approved by Thomas Jefferson. The founding fathers were most definitely aware of firearms technology beyond the flintlock musket.

          By the way, that Giradoni rifle could fire 22 rounds before needing to be reloaded and that was in 1780!

        • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

          @ PM While I acknowledge your assertion about firearms technology, the bleeding-edge argument doesn’t do anyone any good – it in fact dangerously misdirects the point.
          The instrument of war in 1812 was still the flintlock musket, by the civil war it was the percussion lock, etc.
          The issue is and should always be parity of capability. That is to say a rough equivalence of violent potential between the citizen, and the State, such that it inhibits the potential for abuse of power and the exercise of tyranny.

        • avatarAnon in CT says:

          Well, civillians were using “dangerously accurate” rifled muskets for decades before they became widely adopted in military service. It was really only with the advent of the early machine guns that military small arms became leading edge compared to civvie weapons.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Dont forget the puckle gun, a rotary magazine 1.25″ rfile that could fire up to 63 rounds per minute, and it was built/patented in 1718 (British inventor).

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Then of course the Ferguson rifle in 1777, a breech loading design, very accurate, 3-6 times the rate of fire of the then musket.

          But because it took a high degree of skill, it took ten times longer to build than the standard musket, making it terribly cost prohibitive. Therefore it was fielded in rather limited numbers in the inventors own brigade, Col Patrick Ferguson.

          You have to remember that England was just recovering from the costs of the 100 yr war with France or whatever war they were fighting them then, and the treasury was broke. Main reason the colonies were so pissed off about the over taxation without representation deal.

          Then of course since the industrial revolution hand t taken hold yet, mass machining and manufacturing techniques hadnt occured, for another 50-60 years or so!

          The of course came the spencer repeating rifle w 7 round magazine, built in 1860 with the carbine version becoming very popular with calvary officers and endorsed finally by President Lincoln who ordered it into production. Also the same time frame where breech loaders were beginning to be used.

    • avatarmike says:

      Hmm, I made a similar comment a few days ago on a news message board. I am going to assume you plagiarized it and demand recompense of 95 percent on any profits you make from shirts. ;)

  7. avatarplblark says:

    The whole concept of rate of fire or magazine capacity is irrelevant when you take the reported 10 – 20 minute response time. I’m not knocking the police who I’m sure did everything they could. I’m saying that even at 10 minutes, the shooter could have done all that carnage with a bolt action.

    • avatarJon says:

      This is an important observation. Based on some of the reported response times, Lanza could have been averaging about one murder per minute. This would be possible with virtually any firearm.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Just to throw this out there.
      Let’s say unicorns come down and take away all the scary rifles.
      We are left with 100 year old designs of the 1911.
      Sub-Human nut job goes to a school with two 1911 pistols, and lots of magazines, and a few home made pipe bombs…
      Many innocent kids and adults are killed.

      Then what????
      The reality is that terror, or the insane will find a way. It isn’t about controlling something that is responsible for 5% of gun related deaths in this country. People are not focusing on the root of the issue, or the idea that we need to step up protection for our kids.

      • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

        Why do I never see any of our talking heads saying that last paragraph word for word?

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Because our talking heads are not living in reality. You see banning guns is easy. Fixing mental health care, discussing medications on the market today, arming our teachers, cracking down on things like oh organized crime, drugs, and gangs, is waaaaaaayyyy to hard for them to grasp.

          So ban the guns… Simple easy, and they will tout how gun deaths dropped, but gosh violent crime went up.. oopppsss better not mention that one….

        • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

          @Sanchanim No, I mean OUR talking heads, those agents to whom we give money to defend our 2nd amendment in the public forum and on the hill – they never seem to articulate the point you so eloquently stated in your comment. They always seem to skirt around and try to be diplomatic when they should just lay it out like that.

          We live in a soundbite news world even while they call for reasoned debate. So while we try to debate that soundbite us to death. We need smart concise phrasing of our points and our facts – what you just did so well.

        • avatarCA_Chris says:

          When you say stuff like that, it scares the sheep. Scared sheep are less manageable.

        • avatartheaton says:

          The talking heads of which you speak have a vested interest in keeping the war on the Second Amendment alive. If there were no gun-banners there would be no way to raise money to pay the execs of the NRA their 7 figure salaries. Maybe you should top giving your hard earned money to YOUR talking heads. Take that money to buy as many scary rilfes and as much ammunition as possible. The time will come when you need it. When the rest of the nation realises we are bankrupt, the dollar will fall. The starvation will then start in the cities. Many will realize where the food is and try and take it. After about a year, all the riff-raff will be gone. We can then dust off the Constituiton and start again!

  8. avatarRMOccidental says:

    No surprise the NY Post is running this tripe, it is an arm of New Media Corp. owned by Rupert Murdoch. Lest we forget, this is the bumbling fool who called for the banning of “automatic” weapons after Sandy Hook. He’s also been firing up his anti-gun propaganda machine over in London.

    • avatarBruce says:

      Didn’t Piers Morgan, of CNN, work for Murdoch?

      • avatarCA_Chris says:

        Murdoch owns News Corp, Fox News, Sky News (UK), Washington Post, and many others. His corporation and hand-picked managers are at the center of Britain’s phone hacking scandal in which his employees were hacking the phones of murder victims and their families, even going so far as to delete voice messages when the box got full so that they could possibly get more sound clips from people calling the number.

        Murdoch’s media empire is the prime example for why deregulating news and media was a terrible idea.

  9. avatarJAS says:

    Are these the same people that want to cut our military to the bone??

  10. avatarJAS says:

    I’d like to offer some perspective….

    If you want to fly an airplane you need a license. If you want to captain a boat with passengers or are younger than 22 years old you need a license. The license requirements are a full medical exam every few years, and yes, you must pee in a cup. I know because I had both licenses. And just a safety course is needed for the under 22-year old driving a boat. All these regulations should keep everyone not fit to fly an airplane, or captain a boat with passengers out of our skies and waters.

    But then, right after 9/11, a young teenager student pilot stole an airplane and crashed it into a tall building in Tampa, Florida.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/06/us/student-pilot-15-crashes-plane-into-tower-in-florida.html

    My point is, as much as we try in good faith to protect ourselves and our children through legislation, some crazy soul ALWAYS get through….

    We read stuff like:

    The kid got his hands on the keys to the airplane….
    The kid got his hands on his mom’s rifle…..
    The kid stole his dad’s boat and was driving it at night and at high speed without a license….
    The kid stole the rifle from an acquaintance…
    The kids’ older friend bought the guns for them….

    See a pattern here?

  11. avatarKnowWhatIamTalkingAbout says:

    Since the gun grabbers seem to think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete or ancient, I can think of a few other amendments that would fall into that same category . . . like the 1st Amendment. I mean that seriously, sort of. Take that away, and at least we won’t have to listen to this crap anymore.

    Oh, by the way, words can be just as dangerous as bullets, high cap magazines, evil black rifles, etc.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      the government certainly thinks that.

      with the war on drugs and patriot act, they perceive the 4th amendment as a anachronistic burden anyways.

      NDAA 2012? protection from self incrimination and cruel and unusual punishment…also obsolete

      ;)

  12. avatarRob says:

    Preachin’ to the choir here, but its gotta be said, maybe someone else out there can expand on these points into something worthwhile…

    If they were actually going after something genuinely dangerous, like the pitiful police response time — Another poster mentioned that the fact the shooter could have shot one person every minute, with a barrel-loaded, smoothbore musket from the 18th century, and the police wouldn’t have arrived in time to do anything — I might have some respect for them.

    But to go after AR-15s, a rifle that is effectively as dangerous as an M1A, or even a Mini-14 Rifle, which are both semi-automatic rifles, makes no sense. Just because one “looks scarier” than the other is no reason to ban it.

    My rights to use a specific item are not dependent upon bad-guys using that same item in an illegal fashion. If that were the case, then we should ban digital cameras as pedophiles use them all the time for their evil acts.

    I will not turn in my firearms. I will bury them deep in the ground, secured in a water-proof pipe, in the national forest if it comes to it.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      As much as I dislike the NRA, I say, cold dead hands indeed, sir!

      The institutions of power have been working there way from #10 to #1 since the ink started drying. When #2 goes #1 is meaningless, having lost its teeth.

      No one ever asks themselves, why does the government even care what I think, why doesn’t it just do exactly what it wants when it wants? The answer, if you look deep down, is now and was then, the armed citizen. Without armed civilians the charade of political discourse and public opinion, the lip-service if you will, is not necessary.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      what makes you think the M1A, Mini 14 and the Mini 30 won’t be limited to ten round mags? That, in fact, is the most probable avenue of attack. DiFi has recognized, and her bill provides, that they can’t ban the guns already in circulation. her plan instead will be to ban the manufacture and sale of new semiauto rifles capable of accepting large capacity magazines, and magazines with greater than 10 rounds capacity. Tube fed rifles should be safe from regulation.

  13. avatarjoe says:

    If the firearms were legally purchased they are private property and not subject to seizure absent the legal status of the owner changing to someone not permitted to own firearms.There is still something called the 4th amendment.Eminent domain may not apply and IF it did the government would have to offer adequate compensation.Things could get very ugly and complicated.

  14. avatarRalph says:

    Our esteemed President, who is (by the way) the Commander in Chief, says that ARs are weapons of war.

    Can you imagine sending soldiers into battle with civilian ARs? We wouldn’t have enough body bags to send back our dead. So POTUS is either the dumbest Commander in Chief who ever lived, or he’s a lying pr!ck. Neither alternative is very comforting.

    • avatarEvan says:

      He’s lying. I mean he said that most gun owners agree that “assault weapons” should be banned. I know plenty of non gun owners who don’t think they should be banned. Once again, he is just blatantly lying.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      Quite frankly the AR wages war just fine as a semi-auto. Your point still stands however, but as a case for civilian machine-gun ownership, as to wage war effectively you have to have the support of suppressive fire. I was an M60 gunner and had a M2 on my ride as well and wouldn’t mind still having that same access.

      My point is this, I think we can all agree the point IS to be able to effectively wage a war of resistance to tyranny. The AR is as capable as the M16/M4, our disadvantage is in limited access to the rest of the arsenal.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        In all my time in the IDF, I only flipped the giggle switch on the range, never once while I was in the field. Just sayin…

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Sorry, Ralph, you’re off base on this one. Every trigger-puller I know who has done tours abroad in the last 10 years has told me the same thing: M4 is for aimed semi-auto fire, SAWs are for burst fire, and BOY does it suck to be the one humping extra ammo for the squad MG.

  15. avatarTRUTHY says:

    The worst part of it all is that once you do something once, it’s easier to do it again. An AWB was already passed once…..

  16. avatarjwm says:

    When all this blows over, and it will, I’m going to buy myself an ar15. With hi cap mags. I’ve never owned one bvefore and I see no reason for it other than to crowd my safe full of other guns.

    And then I’m going to name it Hmmmmmmmm.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      LMAO!!!
      Uhm but in CA no high cap mags dude! Don’t forget the bullet button.. Oh and don’t know when SB 249 is going to get voted on so all might be for not..

      • avatarjwm says:

        With the recent federal court rulings in our favor biden may open a can of worms with this attempt to ban EBR’s that makes it to the supreme court. Remember that whole “common usage” thing the court made a point of? What if in trying to ban AR”s and hi cap mags the court decides they’re in common usage, because they are? Would California’s ban hold up in that case?

        We are talking about Biden here. He sets out to ban EBR’s and their mags and the way he fvcks up we may wind up with constitutional carry.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Even today, you can possess disassembled full-capacity mags in CA… And it is a mere 4-hour drive (on a good day) to the NV border from the Bay Area.

          Just sayin’.

  17. Rupert Murdoch has a history of sucking up to the political party du jour in whatever country he operates in. He was a sycophant for the Conservatives when Thatcher ruled and then switched sides overnight to suck up to Tony Blair when Labour won. This is exactly what he’s doing over here now that Obama is in for a second term. The fact that Fox is fast losing viewership and his newspapers profitability only goads him to suck up even more to the power du jour, because there is government advertising under the many schemes concocted by the Democrats to target. Those revenues would keep his otherwise failing machine profitable to some extent while subscription revenues and private sector ad revenues fall. Anyone on the Conservative side who took this man as anything other than a fair weather friend, was only guilty of poor judgment. If you saw where the Wall Street Journal stood on MacDonald and other Second Amendment cases, you wouldn’t have been surprised by this piece in the New York Post.

  18. avatarJoseph says:

    No one has said it better….this woman was at Luby’s when a mass shooter struck there in Texas. http://youtu.be/M1u0Byq5Qis

  19. avatarLance says:

    If we need to ban something from Friday its gun free zones AND idiot scum like Obama!

  20. avatarQuinn Simek says:

    You know what I live in NY and i hate the stupid ass laws they have here but here’s the thing if they want my gun they can pry it from my cold dead hands because its my right and ill stand by it

  21. avatarAsh. Housewares. says:

    Technology? The AR-15 was first sold to civilians in 1963. It’s older than the Mustang and Camaro.

  22. avatarWildBillCody says:

    I have an idea – how about working the OTHER angle – attack MENTAL HEALTH (or people with psychiatric problems who have access to guns) instead of attacking guns. ONE: institute a law where anyone who has anyone in their home under psychiatric care – no matter the type of psychiatric care – to have any and all weapons in their home in an actual gun safe. Problem solved for nearly EVERY mass murder this country has known. Where there is no opportunity, there is no crime. This psycho and all the others had 1 thread in common – ACCESS TO GUNS. TWO: FINALLY bridge the gap between a) the mental health community and b) the law enforcement community – never been done, never even tried, but will prevent 1/2 of the sickos from getting their hands on guns when and IF they can adjust HIPPA to allow for the defense of our children.

  23. avatartjlarson2k says:

    Show me proof of a society that is violence-free and crime-free specifically because there are no guns and maybe I’ll listen.

    That guy forgot to mention the cops have guns. Strip everyone of guns in your home town, then give me an accurate report of what happens in a “gun-free” state please.

    The fact this is coming from someone in NY is about as ironic as it gets. “Hey, I know what I’m talking about about, because NY is crime-free. No. Wait. Violence free? Nooo. Well damn.”

  24. Hey wait, that picture looks EXACTLY like the Rock River I just bought today, ahhh well looking at the clock now, yesterday.

  25. avatarGreg says:

    If we are truly concerned about the slaughter of innocent kids, shouldn’t we also revisit abortion? It seems antiquated and it kills one million babies per a year, only a minute fraction of which are for incest, rape or the health of the mother. It is neither safe nor rare as it was sold to us 40 years ago. I mean if we really truly want to have an open discussion about the safety of children, we should have a truly OPEN discussion about how to protect them.

  26. avatarKeith says:

    Has technology rendered the 1st amendment obsolete? How about the 5th? Or the 4th?

    That last one is really worth talking about. Not because technology is making it obsolete, but rather technology is being used to trample all over it.

  27. avatarFletch says:

    I say we limit all semi-auto rifles to designs that are more than 50 years old. Oh wait, then we’d still get to keep our AR’s :) These scary, black rifles aren’t modern at all.

  28. avatarTom Collins says:

    Time to get rid of the NY post…

  29. avatarbig LARS says:

    Perhaps we should encourage (demand?)that the military upgrade their half-century old “modern” rifles for newer designs. That way, the ARs would no longer be “weapons for war” but treated like M1 Garands. And available from the CMP.

  30. avatararleigh says:

    It is the dis armed that create the violence problem .
    The criminal typiclly will not attack a known armed citizen .
    And that is a fact.
    This country has the most criminals because of the fact and not for any other reason.
    People choosing to be targets for criminals actually promote the lifestyle .
    People are more willing to be evil than good ,take advantage than allow for the survival of others.
    How many people live on government programs that actually have other means?
    People typiclly are on the take rich or poor.
    Evil dwells in most all man , and to force people to dwell like sheep among wolves hoping to govern the wolves ,whom choose to avoid being governed is simply stupid.
    The public should be taught to take responsibility for their own security and their own actions as well and stop blaming things in an attempt to excuse their own wickedness.
    It is a well known fact that law enforcment do not protect.
    As a parent it is your responsibility to protect your family ,and doing nothing is not protecting , blaming is not protecting . Protecting is getting you fat a$$ out of the chair and being there for your kids identifying trouble and dealing with it personally.
    “I pay for police to protect us ” no you don’t, you pay the police to take a report AFTER an event has taken place .
    Fellons do not wait till the police are in place, before they comit a crime, now do they?
    The liberals tend to protect the criminal making excuses for them untill they become the victom and then blame the tool not the perp using the tool.
    In short it is the liberal that supports violence .

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.