Quote of the Day: Where Have We Heard That One Before?

“We’re not trying to take guns away from people. We’re trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands.” – VA Lt. Governor Ralph Northam, Little movement predicted on gun laws [at dailypress.com]

comments

  1. avatar Yoel Grauberg says:

    “Relocation is for the good of the Jews.” Adolf Hitler, 1938

  2. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

    Translation:

    “Since us royal elite do not consider all of you subjects to be people, you are the wrong hands we’re tying to take the guns from”

  3. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    What he neglects to mention is that by “wrong hands” he means…

    1. Law abiding citizens who want to or already own guns.
    2. Anyone who disagrees with him politically.
    3. Any U.S. Citizen not in LE or in government service.
    4. Anyone who collects guns.
    5. Anyone who enjoys shooting rifles with certain features like a pistol grip.
    6. Anyone who would use a gun in defense of himself, family, state or country.

    1. avatar Roll says:

      Spot on, took the words I was about to type.

    2. avatar Paulus says:

      ^^^This.^^^^
      You absolutely nailed it, sir. Bravo.

    3. avatar Katman says:

      “I support people’s right to go shooting, but no one needs a… a high velocity assault rifle!”
      He’s gonna say it, just you wait.

      1. avatar Drew says:

        Nope, he is right. We need a significantly more powerful firearm to hunt with. Cuz the round we arm our guys with to kill 150+ pound men is considered inadequate for killing 120 pound deer.

    4. avatar anonymous says:

      claim (“We’re not trying to take guns away from people. We’re trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands.”);

      while ( civilians owning guns > 0 )
      { redefine “wrong hands” }

      end

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        You need to increment the index or it will only go through once….may I suggest:

        confiscate++

        1. avatar Scott says:

          🙂

    5. avatar Guy says:

      ‘The wrong hands… you know, the kind attached to people?’

    6. avatar dph says:

      Wrong hands=Anyone. FTFY

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Well, anyone except for those that guard and protect him of course.

    7. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      What I would do if I were in a legislature where some fork-tongued Democrat was uttering this pablum is this:

      I’d put together a legislation package that shows the preponderance of crimes are committed by people registered as Democrats. It’s true, especially when we get into communities with large numbers of various minorities in large urban areas. Heck, it’s true even if we look at only Democrats who have been elected, but we don’t need to get into personalities at this point.

      Then I’d offer up a piece of legislation that promises to keep “guns out of the wrong hands” and it would ban all Democrats from owning guns. All guns, anywhere, for any reason. And I’d keep repeating that line “keep guns out of the wrong hands – criminal hands.”

      Then I’d sit back and sell tickets for the amusement that results.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And all of NOVA would be at your door that night speaking loudly and carrying safety lighters, blunt forks and twine. And blogging about it.

    8. avatar Cliff H says:

      7. Anyone who believes in The Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights amended to that document.

    9. avatar th weatherford says:

      Like your you tube stuff fwcoltguy
      Keep ’em coming
      th in weatherford

  4. avatar KB Dave says:

    Kinda surprised there was no mention of common sense.

    1. avatar Katman says:

      Or “responsible solutions” for that matter.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Or the children, we mustn’t forget about the children…

  5. avatar Chas says:

    Dirtbag.

  6. “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… So we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next 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… The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.” — Pet Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., (interview appearing in The New Yorker, July 26, 1976) (Handgun Control would later become the Brady Center)

    “We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons. And I would look forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a sidearm.” — Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner, and now a member of Handgun Control’s National Committee, during testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime Commissions.

    “Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” — Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

    “It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals. . .the coalition’s emphasis is to keep handguns out of private possession — where they do the most harm.” Recruiting flyer currently distributed by The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, formerly called The National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

    “I don’t want to go for confiscation, but that is where we are going.” — Daryl Gates, Police Chief of Los Angeles, California.

    1. avatar John says:

      Someone should slowly take away Shield’s first amendment rights. He doesn’t really need them.

      1. avatar Paulus says:

        i see the point you are trying to make but disagree on two points: doing it to him leaves us all open to the same treatment and, letting fools like that talk openly is the best thing in the world for our gun rights. Sun Tzu once said never stop your enemy when he is making a big mistake. the best thing for us is to let them tell the world how they REALLY feel. it opens more and more peoples’ eyes that we are right and the idiots on the ban them side of things are wrong.

        1. avatar John says:

          My comment was meant to inject a bit of sarcasm.

      2. avatar Katman says:

        I think that’s a little much. Restricting people’s rights is not a joking matter (Why do you think WE get so riled up about 2nd Amendment infringements?). I can only hope you were joking about that.
        And secondly, we should save the rights restriction for when it REALLY matters.
        😉

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          You would have a point IF it were in fact his First Amendment rights that were being eroded. It has been well established, however, that the First Amendment does NOT include or imply that a person has the right to LIE. (Slander, libel, “FIRE” in a crowded (not-burning) theater.)

          If it can be shown by common knowledge, or even a cursory Google search, that the things he says are not true/lies, then absolutely his right to say these things should be curtailed, possibly even prosecuted as creating a public hazard.

        2. avatar John says:

          My comment was meant to inject a bit of sarcasm. I don’t want either (or any) of those rights diminished.

  7. avatar T says:

    Keep telling yourself that Lt. Governor. Fortunately there are alot of Virginians that don’t believe your bs.

  8. avatar DougR says:

    And you can keep your insurance if you like it. Whatever.

  9. avatar tdiinva says:

    Mr. Northam obviously has not paid attention to action by the House of Delegates. Rant all you want about gun control but live with the fact that your agenda is dead in the water.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Heart the House of Delegates.

  10. avatar Frank McGhee says:

    Have him take a few moments to view this recent Canadian video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03XEUPfD0qM

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Good video. For more on Bruce Montague, here’s his daughter’s YouTube page:

      http://www.youtube.com/user/kateysfirearmsfacts/videos

      She hasn’t posted in a while though. She stopped after the Canadian government announced they were going to take their property. Scary and infuriating stuff.

  11. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Ah yes, the ever-morphing “wrong hands”….

  12. avatar anonymous says:

    From page 18 of Moving America Forward [sic], the 2012 Democrat Party Platform:

    Voting Rights. …oppose laws that place unnecessary restrictions on those seeking to exercise that freedom….Democrats know that voter identification laws can disproportionately burden young voters, people of color, low-income families, people with disabilities, and the elderly, and we refuse to allow the use of political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Voter Registration means that democrats
      ….cannot have the dead vote
      ….they cannot vote for the elderly that stuck in a nursing home
      ….they cannot pay off gang bangers to vote
      ….they cannot pay off homeless to vote
      ….they cannot bus union members to different polls to vote multiple times

      Honestly, I don’t understand the issue. CT and NJ are deep blue and require Voter Identification at the polls where they cross off your name so you cannot vote twice. The butthurt in other states makes no sense

      1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

        We get our names crossed off in NJ (by signing a log book at the poll) but I don’t think I’ve ever been asked to show ID.

      2. avatar peirsonb says:

        It’s cute, really. Requiring photo ID would hinder voter turnout, yet photo ID is required to get into their national convention.

  13. avatar Pascal says:

    Brian Moran, McAuliffe’s choice for public safety secretary, told attendees they “now have a champion in the governor’s office.” He predicted a turning tide on gun issues, and event organizers said this rally was their largest in 21 years.

    Still, Northam said he didn’t expect a universal background check bill to pass this year. But it’s coming, he said, particularly since young people seem to favor the change.

    Be forever vigilant my friends in VA. This is how they picked away at CO

    1. avatar KB Dave says:

      Exactly. Everyone says “Oh it can’t happen in our state!!”

      And then it does. Don’t rest on your laurels, don’t get complacent, make sure your voice is heard by those in office.

  14. avatar Anonymous says:

    “We’re not trying to take guns away from people. We’re trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

    …and they are going to keep doing this until the guns are out of everyone’s hands except theirs. Look at New York – they are trying to take guns away and are actively doing so, all under the same pretenses. However they are only taking guns away from the average American. The criminals are not going to register theirs or follow the law.

  15. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Oh wow, thanks, I feel so much better now…

  16. avatar Jeff says:

    I like this quote from the article:

    “Jeanette Richardson, a well-known advocate from Newport News, was among them. Her son, Patrick McKinley, was killed about 10 years ago. The murder weapon had been stolen, she said, but it easily could have been purchased legally under Virginia law.

    Yeah, but uhh, it wasn’t purchased legally. It was stolen, and used by a person who was very likely not eligible to purchase a firearm anyway. Please remind us how UBC laws will stop this?

    1. avatar justAMan says:

      I was just about to point that out as well. It amazes me that people still try to push for laws that wouldn’t have had an effect.

  17. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Alcohol, tobacco and firearns, are litmus test issues for me (and I don’t even smoke, never have). These three are the triple crown of personal freedom in our country.

    Show me a political leader who is genuinely in favor of maximizing freedom and accountability around these three topics, and you have a leader I can support. Simply representing a jurisdiction where these are already popular doesn’t cut it. Neither does just voting yes when a good bill comes up or no on a bad one. You must have been proactive and worked to expand freedom. You have to have sacrificed something for the cause, not just have had an easy stance handed to you.

    If a leader does that on these, then that’s a pretty strong proxy for their judgment and philosophy across the board. It also tends to obviate such smarmy lies as this Lt. Gov.’s

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      There is a severe lack of representatives who try to undo bad laws… Just introducing more “not bad” laws doesn’t cut it, but the vast majority of sheeple only look at what’s being introduced, not what laws already exist.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Wow. It’s hard to believe that a Democrat could be a gungrabber. Will wonders never cease?

  19. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Given how rare it is for a semi-automatic rifle to be used in a crime or murder, the constant call for banning or restricting these types of weapons (especially considering these “bans” almost always amount to little more than outlawing features and not the rifles themselves) gives lie to the “no one wants to take the guns, we want common sense restrictions” argument.

    If the goal really was to reduce “gun violence” then folks like the Lt. Gov would be focusing on gangs and the market for illegal guns.

    The mere fact that an “assault weapon” ban, magazine capacity restrictions and odious registration schemes are a part of every “common sense” gun control proposal shows what they really want: incremental civilian disarmament.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Maybe he should take a midnight pub crawl of Virginia Beach and Richmond without his VSP bodyguards. Great way to get to know some gun owners…

  20. avatar WI Patriot says:

    VA Lt. Governor Ralph Northam can kiss my ass…

  21. avatar jirdesteva says:

    MY SURPRISED FACE !!!!!!!!!!!!!! A DemocRAT at that ┌∩┐:( ┌∩┐

  22. avatar Steve D. says:

    “The wrong hands” being anyone other than the king’s men or millionaires who can afford private security while sitting in their ivory towers.

    The rest of us serfs cannot be trusted with plastic picnic knives. We’re completely expendable and not worth the shit on the shoes of the rich & famous.

  23. avatar JuanCudz says:

    “Wrong hands”? Bolox, what any politico means with that phrase is “anybody’s hands except people who enforce OUR laws and a millitary that can put you down”. While they could get a millitarised police to do their bidding, I’m hopeful your armed forces would show them the end of the gun they weren’t expecting.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email