There are opinions suggesting Second Amendment supporters are unreasonable. Such voices insist those most active in the gun control movement only want to nibble around the edges of our constitutional protections but leave them more or less intact.
They say we should compromise, forgetting we’ve already complied with the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Act, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and the 1994 Gun Free School Zones Act. None has curbed crime, and some have made it worse.
Attorney General Eric Holder answered this question in 1995, explaining government must “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” which must mean arming murderous Mexican cartels to foment anti-gun sentiment.
Anti-gun crusader Sen. Dianne Feinstein more recently denied any other motives to restrict gun rights, including concealed carry, saying, “It’s not what I’ve done in the past and it’s not what I’m doing right now.”
She’s lying. Video from 1995 has Feinstein talking out of the other side of her mouth, slavering for a defenseless America, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it.”
Disarming us has long been her obsession and that of many anti-Second Amendment radicals, such as Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who admitted, “We’re on a roll now. We’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” When asked if the “assault weapon” ban was just the beginning, Schakowsky exclaimed, “Oh, absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”
After being asked if the Second Amendment was a significant impediment to a handgun ban, Schakowsky dared to reply, “I don’t know that we can’t ... I don’t think it’s precluded.”
Pro-Second Amendment author John Lott met Barack Obama at the University of Chicago in the 1990s where the future president told him, “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
Lott notes Obama has demonstrated his hostility to Second Amendment rights in many ways.
In a 1998 questionnaire for the Illinois state legislature, Obama said he wanted to “ban the sale or transfer of all sorts of semi-automatic weapons,” which is perhaps why his Secretary of State, John Kerry, signed the United Nations Small Arms treaty last week without a congressional vote.
From 1998-2001, Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, the major funder for gun-control research at that time. He also opposes concealed carry and only sees two legitimate purposes for guns: hunting and target shooting, meaning using guns for self defense is not legitimate. This goes a long way in explaining Obama’s past support of laws banning the use of guns for self-defense in Illinois, even in one’s own home. Chicago, despite its strict gun laws, is now the murder capital of the nation.
Liberals continuously devise means to erode the Second Amendment, including legislation proposed earlier this year requiring gun owners to carry expensive liability insurance or pay a $10,000 fine. New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney said her bill would “shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon.”
More at news-journal.com, Longview, Texas
1 comment:
Found this yesterday, no, you don't have to post it.
But I think the person who wrote it is full of it!
No, the Navy Yard Mass Shooter Did Not Target a "Gun-Free Zone"
—By Mark Follman
Thu Sep. 26, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Each time another mass shooting takes place, gun rights advocates are quick to blame the attack on the prohibition of firearms in public places. Their argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out: The killers deliberately choose locations where guns are forbidden, they say, and therefore no "good guy with a gun" is on hand to stop the attack.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/washington-navy-yard-mass-shooting-aaron-alexis-gun-free-zone-fbi#comment-1071861915
Post a Comment