We all know that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wants to infringe on Americans’ natural, civil and constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And how. But this is not the time for Ms. Clinton to come right out and say it, politically speaking. At this point in her campaign, with questions about her Foundation and Benghazi and emails and such dogging her, Hillary has adopted a blanket policy on talking about any policy: don’t do it. So when the Charleston spree killer hit the news, Ms. Clinton felt obliged to say . . . nothing. But Hillary’s nothing is still something . . .
“How many innocent people in our country from little children to church members to movie theater attendees? How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?,” Clinton asked a crowd of Latino political leaders in Las Vegas. “As we mourn and as our hearts break a little more, and as we send this message of solidarity, we will not forsake those who have been victimized by gun violence.”
That pre- and post-Obama gun sales surge and ammo drought? It’s only a matter of time . . .
So what act will it be? The dramatic kind that will never happen but could change something (outlawing all gun ownership and dealing with the ramifications) or the “reasonable” kind that stand a slim chance of passing but would never actually have prevented any of these killings?
(cue crickets)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0
No hint, she wants all Americans disarmed. Just my two cents worth
The only exceptions will be the Democrat sponsored “Community Wealth Redistribution Volunteers” (aka criminal gangs).
^ Brown Shirts, Red Shirts, White Caps, Hitler Youth. . .
She can’t protect herself (or other women) from her on husbad, or people under her care (i.e., at the State Dept.) she cannot protect you or anyone else from guns.
But that’s not new, and she’s not alone in that fail. Don’t let anyone sell you on the idea that they can protect you on the individual level from anything. Because, as soon as you are convinced of that, it’s guaranteed that someone will kick in your door and drown you in your bowl of Wheaties in front of your kids.
What difference does it make?
For what it’s worth, I just received e-mail from Bernie Sanders. No, I’m no Cruz groupie; deal.
Anyway, e-mail from the Independent from Vermont – regarding the shootings in South Carolina.
He talks about a church which still stands after being attacked a great many times over its 200 year history.
Interestingly, there”s not one mention of guns, but rather of how far we’ve yet to go before there’ll be no cesspools of stupidity in and from which the creatures of hatred may spread their evil.
Oh, and the suggestion that instead of donating to his campaign just now, maybe I should consider donating to the AME Church.
Again, not one word about how the tool is responsible for the crime. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
I do like this guy.
I’m with you there, he’s certainly getting my vote!
Now there’s a good idea! Let’s all vote for a communist further to the left than Obama!
“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”
Ayn Rand
1. Obama is not a leftist, he’s a corporatist: almost everything he has done in office has been fashioned to give corporations more power, even power over our government.
2. Rand is full of it; socialism is what gave the U.S. its greatest economic boost ever, providing electric power to everyone, interstate highways, and more. A bit of socialism is needed to offset the dangers in capitalism, which unchecked will turn itself into feudalism — i.e. socialism is necessary to keep capitalism healthy.
3. Hillary isn’t so much a leftist as a statist. She doesn’t really care how power is structured, so long as she gets to impose her agenda through force.
Ayn has said it well, many yrs ago and applies today. Got to get the Hi… off the political platter and ship hog-tied down the White River. SEB
I respect his seemingly genuine passion and how he avoids cliches like that, but let’s face it, he’s still in favor of stealing your property to give to others and limiting your freedom. It’s a very short jump to gun control.
You know the saying about absolute power and corruption. I could very easily see Bernie’s misguided idealism evolving into a Stalinist mandate. As an absolutist when it comes to freedom over statism, I see him as just as much if not more of a threat than Clinton. A statist is a statist.
I like Bernie too. He is a bit schizophrenic on 2nd amendment issues, but from what I’ve read he understands the inherent elitism of gun control.
On a side note, my FB page BLEW UP with Everytown sponsored posts today. I would not be surprised if they placed a major ad buy today.
Get real.
He’s a classic communist that believes that the state should dictate everything that you’re allowed to own or purchase all the way down to your single permitted type of deodorant and single type of sneakers.
This right here, people.
Old hillary needs to go on home and rock that fat grand baby on the back porch.
He voted in favor of the Clinton AWB.
“Again, not one word about how the tool is responsible for the crime. Nothing. Nada. Zip.”
I guess that’s ONE way to deceptively pander for votes without stating a position, and playing the ‘I’m a stand up guy’ card.
And your take from that email is to *assume* that this guy won’t go after your…our…guns if he is ever in charge?
Man, are you naïve.
Hillary will probably lose in the genreal election just let her robotic unlikability win for us supporting gun controll costs votes this is an objective truth let clinton shoot herself in the foot thats how obama beat her
More likely stab herself in the foot, drop an anvil on it or step.on a pûngee stake.
Can’t shoot with no guns.
The Clintons are elitists of the highest order; they don’t want to get rid of *all* guns, they just don’t want *you* to have them. They’d be more than happy to keep a few around for the use and protection of themselves and their friends.
“…How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?”
Former First Lady Clinton…. please explain how removing my firearms from my possession in anyway makes someone else “safer?” Please explain why I must be rendered defenseless in order to prevent someone else from committing violent acts.
Well of course she’s anti-gun, she is a Democrat, it’s part of their platform.
Not all of us.
A great many of us – especially in the Midwest – don’t toe every metre of the DNC Party Line.
The Kansas 2A Protection Act, f’rinstance, was landslided from both sides of the aisle.
Don’t be too general; were all in this fight.
So Russ, who will you be voting for in 2016?
I can’t answer that question, as I’ve no real idea who’ll be on the ticket.
I’d sooner stick my eye with a dull, salted pencil than vote for Cruz, Huckabee or any of their ilk, though.
I’m hoping for a choice between some generic, Wall Street-owned theocrat and Sanders; guess my choice, then.
Can’t really take you seriously when you say “we’re all in this fight” then say you’ll be voting for a statist who wants to make America a Xerox of a Scandinavian socialist nanny state (guess what their gun laws are like).
A blind man can see that Sanders is only “supporting” the 2A to not rile up his Vermont base. Put him in the White House and he’ll melt every gun in this country to make fences for the bread lines.
I believe that you believe that, and will defend to the death your right to say and believe it.
That said, I don’t.
Well, I hope you’re right. I’m unable to muster that much optimism about anyone.
Russ, I hate to break it to you, buddy, but you can go ahead and give up that Bernie Sanders dream right now. No way in hell will the shot-callers in the party let him anywhere close to the nomination. They just put him out there to try to generate some interest on the D side of the game, because Clinton has sucked all the oxygen out of the room, in that way that only a narcissistic grandma can.
It won’t be Clinton, either. They’ll let her think she’s going to have the nomination for the rest of this year, so she’ll be out there, taking all the heat from the dogpile of Republican candidates while the party scrapes up a halfway-likable candidate that has fewer skeletons under the porch.
Said what I’d like, not what I expect.
Red, you should have asked who he voted for in the last presidential election. See if he dodges that question.
“Said what I’d like, not what I expect.”
If it’s just idle daydreaming, can’t you come up with a better hypothetical, never-gonna-happen choice than Sanders?
We’ll have a choice between two different flavors of statists beholden to corporations that see democracy as one more thing to be bought.
That is almost like saying someone is a member of the National-Socialist party, but they are good because they did not support the Final Solution. There are other political parties out there. I belong to one that is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and supports the entire Bill of Rights. There is no reason on Gods green earth to sleep with the enemy. There are other parties. Lets be clear, the next president appoints the next two supreme court justices. If it is a Democrat, sure as the sky is blue, we will lose the 2nd amendment, and it will take a war to get it back. That is a war I do not want to see happen, and it scares the hell out of me that we are this close. So here is the question: Are you with the Democrat Party or are you with the American people?
Look around, Bob. We lost a good chunk of the 2nd Amendment in 1934, and most of what was left in 1968 and 1986. “Shall not be infringed” was erased in fact, if not in text, a long time ago.
Keep voting democrat, see where that gets you. When you’re standing in line at your local police station to turn all your guns in, I want you to think about the choices you’ve made.
There is a gun show this weekend in Portland. It’ll be interesting to see what the atmosphere will be.
The items I’ll be looking for wont be on anyone’s radar.
I do get tired of civilian disarmament being the one size fits all answer to what ever question is asked.
That’s how leftists work, with their immature intellect and minimal critical thinking skills. If something can’t be labeled sexist, racist, or fixed with a gun ban, they don’t know what to do with it. It’s the only options they have.
That’s because the issue is not the issue; the issue is the revolution. Just means to an end, the end being disarmament the general public.
A rhetorical question, depending on the source, is a real shit-pot stirrer. As we’re presently witnessing.
The CBS news tonight (6-18) left me speechless. The production values, manipulations, memes, misdirections and outright falsities were overwhelming. Ordinarily I watch that clown show, snicker, and tell the TV to FO numerous times during the half hour.
Tonight, a slick, seamless and racist (to whites) civilian disarmament presentation that I’m afraid many will find entirely believable as the truth.
Even though NOTHING from that source is anything resembling the truth.
This one worries me.
Something I posted elsewhere in response to CD comnentary:
My heart goes out to the victims, and to the President. What a rotten thing to have land in ones lap.
It also points out how far we’ve yet to go before there’ll be no cesspools of stupidity in and from which the creatures of hatred may spread their evil.
That said, I must also say the following:
Several of my customers have suffered home invasions, hence their calling me and getting a security system.
One old couple was tortured for 28 hours before the bad guys went away (leaving them taped to chairs) and it was another 2 days before they were missed and then rescued by a deputy sheriff. The invaders had knives and a tire iron, rather than guns.
I counsel my customers to get trained, get a gun and then keep proficient.
Two of them have had repeat visitors, and in both cases the oldsters prevailed. In one case the mooks were caught, and in the other they died. This is well and good.
By what other means is a 98 pound woman (whom I helped to pick her gun in ’09 from another of my customers, who sells them) to repel one or more 200 pound men?
The Gods made us, but ’twas Samuel Colt who then made us equal.
The problem isn’t firearms. Rather, the problem is a broken country containing a lot of angry, stupid or hopeless people.
There’s nothing – not one thing – any less violent about a gaggle of “underprivileged kids” with fists and box cutters than there was about the Sandy Hook shooter – who incidentally stole his weapons rather than obtaining then via a loophole.
If I’m a bloke with no driver’s license, I steal a truck and then drive through a crowd at a bus stop, did my revoked license make any difference? How about the cost of trucks? Licensing fees? Additional checks and tests for CDL?
Think about it.
I wouldn’t get too broken up about the President having this fall into his lap. He prays every night for tragedies like this so he can dance in fresh blood to further his agenda.
I wanted it read, not ignored. Also, be careful about wishes…
…What? What wishes?
Since I have no idea what wish you’re referring to, I’ll clarify what I said. I doubt the President actually cares about any lives lost since, like any leftist politician, he views tragedy as just an opportunity to further his twisted agenda. Therefore, your heart going out to the President for having this situation “fall into his lap,” as you said in the first line, is unneeded. He doesn’t care. He and his ilk love it when things like this happen since they can use it and spin it as they want.
The rest of your post was quite good, I didn’t ignore it.
As in his wishing for a crisis to exploit.
By the way, this applies to most politicians rather than being the special purview of the left.
“The Gods made us, but ’twas Samuel Colt who then made us equal.”
And that’s just not good enough for Those Who Will Never be Satisfied; those who are more equal than others
Well said, the whole thing.
Yep, there’s little difference between a Lanza and someone who would torture some old folks for two days.
Trump 2016 …baby!!
Much as I’d love to see Trump get into a bald head butting contest with the rest of the federal government, that’s a stretch. No matter his $9,000,000,000, he won’t clear the primaries.
If Hillary wants gun control then she needs to repeal the second amendment. Until this happens, she’ll lie, manipulate or steal our inalible right to lawful self defense by any means necessary.
The thought that she may be president of our country is vile, revolting and raises bile to my throat. She must be soundly defeated and send her party to the dust bin of history.
Her staff have been quoted as saying she goes into a rage whenever she hears about guns.
Don’t be so sure the hildebest is a lock…it is an awful debater,terrible speaker and is OLD. Oh yeah millions of us know it is a traitor and should be indicted for treason. Sure vote for Bernie-the loon ya’ love…
As the late Charlton Heston said “When they pry it from my cold dead hand”
Australia maybe BUT NOT ME…
The problem is that there exists within the gun-nut community surrounding the tyrannical NRA, a severe distrust of the government. By allowing even sensible limits on gun ownership, these ammosexual sheep believe that they would be ceding an unacceptable level of control to someone that they see as the enemy.
So, the gun-nuts and their tyrannical NRA puppet masters want guns to be un-tracable, and uncontrollable. They want an underground, black market for arms to exist, because they believe they may one day need to shop that black market to protect themselves and their investments even though they endanger the community even more.
I do sometimes wonder how much of this mindset is manufactured and force-fed to NRA sheep by well paid marketing agencies. It probably doesn’t hurt to keep the public riled up and sending in donations (or they’re gonna getcha! Better hurry and send in little Johnny’s piggy bank too!) Also, the cozy relationship between the tyrannical NRA and the vile gun manufacturers probably doesn’t hurt either, in a you-scratch-my-back kind of way. It can’t have escaped anyone’s notice that every time the NRA squeals “Dem Libruals our gonna take der gunz!” that sales of the supposedly-soon-to-be-banned items go through the roof.
It’s a complex issue, with a lot of money involved.
And while I don’t know how true it is for the rest of the world, here in the USA, “It’s bad for business!” is reason enough to kick sensibility to the curb.
I wish the USA would join the civilized world in passing stringent gun control laws but the 2nd amendment terrorists wouldn’t let that happen.
You are worth no more time than to state the obvious that you are a f’ing tool.
Hilarious, Sorry Gun-nuts, Your are the real “sheeple” that are spoon-fed the myth that more guns equals less crime.
The international community including the international studies and research groups, Interpol and even the UN counsel have heavily debunked your “Pro-gun/More guns, Less crime.”
Please answer me this since you gun nuts have never give me any right answers but paranoid tin-foil hat brigade garbage.
How are civilized nations like the commonwealth of australia, european union and japan considered a tyranny to you gun nuts?, How are they some dystopian orwellian nightmare despite the fact they have more better education systems, excellent economy, Better standards and qualities of life and strict gun control. The international community does’nt want our obsolete right.
You gun-nuts eat everything your tyrannical NRA puppet-masters and vile gun manufacturer spoon feed you. You gun nuts are responsible for the tragic events that happened because your adverse to any sensible laws that would have stopped events like the recent church shootings that you paranoid death worshipping terrorists caused.
Here is an idea: you need proper training and a license to drive a car or operate heavy machinery and you have to follow safety instructions and get insurance, why cant the same be done to guns? Seriously, instead of banning firearms, why not get a formal education on them where you have to undergo testing and evaluation and that requires you to renew the license every so often? Other civilized countries do that and it seems to work pretty well.
I wonder why the idea is so offensive to opponents of gun control. Even the 3-day wait is met with vitriol. I would go as far as to require keys of some kind to be inserted into a gun before it will fire, and a device on guns that reliably records instances of it’s use. A gun that has some sort of key-on-a-string could not be taken away and used against the owner, or found by kids.
But like I said you death worshipping extremists don’t want that?
Why do you hate women gun nuts?
Why do you hate children gun nuts?
Why do you hate a peaceful society where people aren’t cocooning in their homes wishing for the madness called “gun-right”s to end.
You idiots are nothing but sheep.
Your name throws me; I can’t tell if you’re some anti-gun troll, or just a parody of an anti-gun troll.
“How are they some dystopian Orwellian nightmare”
1. In Australia, you need a government permit to fix your tap water faucet when it breaks. That’s self explanatory.
2. The Japanese have something called the “social welfare police,” who can enter your domicile at any time and for any reason, just to “check up on you”. This is nothing more than a show of government force to keep the peasants in line with a silk-wrapped baton.
3. In many EU member nations, self-defense is frowned upon, regardless of the circumstances. The UK is by far the worst offender, because self-defense with anything more than your fists is a crime, no matter how heinously some criminal yob is acting whether on the street or in your home. Brits are also frequently arrested for posting “racist” or “offensive” things on social media.
London has this thing called the “Speaker’s Corner” in Hyde Park. The Brits champion its presence while we laugh at them because our 1st Amendment treats the entirety of the USA as one giant Speaker’s Corner. Government’s hundred and fifty year assault on the 1st and 4th Amendments aside, you can’t deny there are way more Americans who respect the idea of absolute rights than Brits or people from most other nations around the world, where freedom of speech is a right until you share an opinion “the people” don’t agree with, and then the state beats you over the head until you fall in line. And that’s what’s important, not a bunch of words on the pieces of paper we call the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the fact that so many Americans still value them absolutely and without exception, unlike almost every other nation on earth.
I’ve spoken with progressive types like yourself in person again and again. If you’re willing to verbally attack the 2nd Amendment, then you’re probably just as willing to attack any other because you see Orwellian police state tactics like those mentioned above as an ideal system to be copied here and not an infernal scourge to be rejected outright.
You are a prime example of someone who thinks that they are far smarter than their enemy, and snarky verbosity confuses the opposition.
Got it all figured out, eh?
You talk far too much; especially for someone who has as not one iota of good sense, and hasn’t figured out that their smarts doesn’t nullify their stupidity.
Every single one of your posts has been taken straight from the radical-left’s lying sack of fetid recycled agitprop. You keep repeating yourself while spewing hatred & canned disinformation, as if it will somehow change the truth to match your delusions.
You’re just a pinko keyboard warrior with a lot of big talk and no stones. Keep it up, troll. That kind of behavior helps us keep an eye on the nutcases, like you.
All I see VivaLaSatire in your posts is a cess pool of hate, bigotry, intoletance and fear.towards gun owners. A blackness of the soul that is actually rather frightening. This kind if dehumanizing of others is what has supported the mass murder of the “others” for all of recorded history.
When I see this type of hate from another human being, you reaffirm my need of the second amendment to defend myself from people like yourself.
Guy’s, he’s satirizing the over the top insanity and stupidity of the antis. Look at his name, look at how laughably idiotic his posts are. There’s no way anyone with a semi functioning brain could say what he says seriously.
Yeah Silver, you might be right. Unfortunately, I have read on different Web sites just this types of vileness meant with all seriousness.
VLS might not mean what he posts, but there are plenty that do. And that is truly why having the right to keep and bear arms is so important. People that really do feel as VLS is showing in his posts is the kind of dehumanizing hate that motivated this last murderer at this church massacre.
Silver said …Guy’s, he’s satirizing the over the top insanity and stupidity of the antis.
You give him too much credit.
He’s just a F’ing leftist parroting his professor.
He be trollin
How are civilized nations like the commonwealth of australia, european union and japan considered a tyranny to you gun nuts?
1) Japan’s suicide+murder rate is higher than the USA, and it has virtually no guns, so are a dozen other developed counties
2) Australia
a) Australia has a constitution written by an occupying power for a criminal dumping ground. Two police sergeants can sigh out a search warrant, no judge needed. You can be held for a mental competency hearing for 14 days, thanks to the ACLU you cant do that in the USA
b) Australia drop in murder since its widespread gun confiscation: 38%
USA drop in murder as during the same period as gun sales skyrocketed: 58%
3) Europeans have murdered 100 million of each other in wars the past century. Americans have and do make them safe.
“It’s a complex issue, with a lot of money involved.”
Nothing complex about lawful self defense…one does or not. When government removes that right it condones murder, rape, robbery and assault of of its citizens.
Your first mistake is to assume that all of us here are NRA members or subscribe to its publications. With only 5 million of the 200 million or so gun owners in this country being dues paying members, I suspect that many here, including myself, are not members. In the other hand, quite a few of us a history buffs of one sort or another, have read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and are familiar with the debates over the Bill of Rights and the reasons for the various clauses that were enacted. We are extensively read on the briefs on the major Second Amended cases, and have analyzed the resulting holdings. We don’t need the NRA to “spoon feed” us anything to come to our own independent conclusions that the banning of firearms is out and out unconstitutional. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed–it does not say “unless it is deemed in the public interest to do so.”
England has little gun crime, it is true. But the rate of violent crime, in particular knife crimes and muggings, is five times higher than in the United States. So civilized. And for good measure, the Brits have essentially outlawed self-defense, with many victims who fought back sentenced to longer terms than the yobs who invaded their homes. So sensible! Yes, Japan has very strict gun laws–but it is a very different culture. WE c;d go on like this for some time. Our forefathers quite explicitly concluded that a man without a gun is a slave, and they very much wished to no longer be slaves to the British Empire.
You denigrate the Kleck and Lott studies. But in fact, there are no studies by reputable academics that refute them. Indeed, twelve out of 14 studies have affirmed Lott’s conclusions, and Lott’s database is available to anyone who wants to explore the subject. But all we get from those who would ban guns is “more guns means more crimes.” Several police officials in Southern California have made this claim–yet not one of them had ever read or referred to any study to derive this raw opinion–why should we believe them, when statistics refute them? OH, that’s right, “it’s just common sense!” Which means they have no basis for their opinion.
What are these “common sense” gun control proposals the liberals keep bandying about? We hear the phrase often enough, but the only proposals are to ban guns, limit capacity, and otherwise restrict the rights of people who are not committing any crimes. Background checks? The myth that this will have any effect on the criminals access to firearms has been debunked here too many times already–criminals buy their guns on the black market, or from friends or family. Where do black market guns come from? Straw sales and burglaries. Try as you might, you will never eliminate the black market, which has been selling anything you happen to need as long as the price is right since man has had a civilization. Crime is not eliminated by eliminating a single tool–and you are truly a tool if you believe otherwise. Guns are historically a recent development–yet crime has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Once you figure that out, you will understand that we are not as nutty as you wish to believe.
She looks down to her notes about every 3-4 words. I honestly think she’s senile.
Her gun control agenda is just ANOTHER reason to not vote for this filth!
That’s the easy response. The harder question is for what reason would some one vote FOR Hillary: as in accomplishments, success, strategy, etc?
Before we talk about gun control Mrs. Clinton, where are the missing emails?
Lost in a tragic boating accident.
Remember, there isn’t much that POTUS can do alone without Congress. And while Hillary as president is practically a given, at least with the current list of candidates, I doubt that Democrats are going to get a sufficient majority there to make anything happen. So we’re likely looking for at least 2 more years of overall gridlock after 2016 on any hot button issues, including gun control.
Remember, there isn’t much that POTUS can do alone without Congress.
Well besides let 10+ million illegal aliens to stay in the country and direct selected federal agencies to ignore the law.
But yeah, besides un-constitutional things like that , the POTUS cant do much alone.
It is a real eye opener that both Obama and Hillary had to work the gun law angle into their speeches about this tragedy. Makes it very difficult to vote for her. Of course, it all depends on what the other side does. If the Republican candidate once more picks either an idiot or a far right winger for their VP, they are doomed. Just can’t seem to keep from shooting themselves in the foot.
Not the VP candidates who have been the issue recently. It’s the top of the ticket. Bland semi-“progressives.” Americans won’t come out to vote for them, and neither will progressives (why would progs vote for a semi-prog like McCain or Romney when they can vote for a genuine leftist)?
Was the gun control agenda hint from her last name or the (D)?
If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns……same as the outlaws of course…
When are they going to learn that using the phrase “gun violence” outs them as civil rights haters just as surely as if the word “niggers” was part of their daily vocabulary?
The only agenda she needs is to appoint replacement SCT judges who will overturn Heller. Make no mistake, elections have consequences.
It’s cute how adults still think the POTUS or R’s and D’s matter.
Remove names and party affiliation for every POTUS over the last 50 years and just by looking at the supported policies and signed bills you’d be hard pressed to guess which party’s POTUS was in office.
Even seeming outliers like Sanders and Paul will when push comes to shove fall right in line with the overall government agenda of control and theft.
Politicians are all scorpions and voters are cycle after cycle the dumbass frogs.
So all the morons on the left are free to keep believing their candidate stands for social justice or whatever fantasy nonsense they want and all the morons on the right are free to keep believing their candidate is all about leaving you alone but believing doesn’t make it true. It never has and never will. You build your own cage with every ballot you cast and thank the jailer for the privilege.
I agree that we need to act, but the question is HOW do we act? Do we pass more feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing but to further restrict freedoms, or do we inform people that they do not HAVE to be defenseless, and educate them on how to even the playing field?
Should we be trying to take guns away from everyone, which helps no one but the criminals, or should we just focus on training people to be more responsible (in general), which would not only reduce the number of accidents but would also not deprive people of legitimate means of defense?
Should we be saying, “Irresponsible people are a problem, therefore only the government should have any responsibilities,” or should we be saying, “Irresponsible people are a problem, therefore we should work harder on making people responsible”?
Also, is it just me or has there been an increase in the number of comments from anti-gun trolls recently? It looks like it’s the same two just posting over and over again, but I suppose we can’t rule out the possibility that it’s the same guy posting under two different names in an attempt to increase his perceived legitimacy.
hillary has more in mind than infringement of our right to bear arms. She is going to have help from republican socialists, as well as her own. I suspect, under her reign, The Constitution will be ignored completely, if not officially declared null and void. Think it can’t happen? Did you ever think a legally elected president could declare himself dictator, ruling by pen and phone, bypassing congress, ignoring courts, and did it without opposition? Republicans taking control of congress, and backing the dictator even more than his own socialist party. 2016 will be the breaking point. I think it will break left.
I’m investing in some gun stocks (not the kind you put in your shoulder) in 2016. Hell I might even buy some Colt shares (are they even public?). I <3 Capitolism!
I didn’t bother to check (lately), but I have a hunch that “gun violence” is still lower than ‘violence by any other means’. No speach for the victims of “violence” really … only a concern about the “gun”. I hope we don’t put somebody as misguided as Hillory in office.
LO OH LO HELP THIS COUNTRY ITS GONE DOWN THE TUBES TO MANY DUMB PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY TO TURN IT AROUND . WHATS RIGHT IS WORNG AND WHATS WRONG IS WRIGHT !
Comments are closed.