There’s also a good bet that some or a higher percentage of federal police also don’t believe in what’s going on and are afraid to say something and lose their jobs.Revolting is more difficult when you can't evenly defend against aggression! Not say'n we need nukes or tactical missiles/bombs. Those who stand on the LEO and military side know what to do and say "no" to the ignorance. Federal police might be different and stand behind the ignorance?
One word about this…….It sure seems to be for this guy. We all know the origins of gun control in the US were based in keeping black people disarmed, but this McKeon guy still thinks it's a great idea.
i have been thinking about this very notion of fleeing to freer states and ultimately having nowhere else to run. however, it may be that this, like many things in nature, is cyclical. people flee california/ny/nj etc and go to texas/florida/tennessee. those states become more like the states from which they fled and the people seeking more freedom move to areas of opportunity, where people are desperate for freedom (places like cali/ny/nj). it is interesting to think about. not sure if it will be the case though.All a person has to do is look at the rest of the world. Citizens having the right to have forearms unfettered by government gets in the way of government control of the populace. Of course the government wants to ban guns!
There is a huge tendency in society to put people in categories or station, whether by race, where they live, what they do to earn a living, their size, etc. Too many people don’t want to put in the hard work to solve the problems this creates, but instead just “run away.” I see that now with people fleeing California just like people did in the past in our cities when somebody looking for a better place to live moved in the neighborhood. One of these days, there may be nowhere left to run. Freedom takes a lot of work!
"common sense gun control/law"..../.it's more than an oxymoron it's just moronic!The historical origins for gun control are undeniably racist in concept; that being the desire was to keep guns away from a certain group of people defined by their race.
Contemporary efforts to restrict gun ownership are less so in design, but still tend to disproportionately impact poorer people, many of whom are non-white. Any action which increases the cost to legally obtain a firearm will make it more difficult for those with less disposable income to do so. By extension, it is rational to argue the these types of restrictions are racist in practical application.
The goal of the gun haters isn't to merely disarm a targeted section of society based on race, but rather disarm the entire citizenry. Whether the people who want to ban private ownership of firearms are the evil political elites or the useful idiots who support their schemes under the utopian delusions they embrace, their goal is to make certain that you can't own a tool to resist them.
We need to stop allowing the phrase "gun control" (a.k.a. "common sense gun control") to be used in this debate. Control carries the connotation that an action is reasonable. We must identity their efforts correctly: restriction and confiscation. When we use these terms, it becomes far more obvious to the casual observer what the intent and implications are. This will also make it easier for them to extrapolate how this will eventually impact the rights they care about.
That may be true, but this jerk certainly has it designed in a racist fashion.The historical origins for gun control are undeniably racist in concept; that being the desire was to keep guns away from a certain group of people defined by their race.
Contemporary efforts to restrict gun ownership are less so in design, but still tend to disproportionately impact poorer people, many of whom are non-white. Any action which increases the cost to legally obtain a firearm will make it more difficult for those with less disposable income to do so. By extension, it is rational to argue the these types of restrictions are racist in practical application.
The goal of the gun haters isn't to merely disarm a targeted section of society based on race, but rather disarm the entire citizenry. Whether the people who want to ban private ownership of firearms are the evil political elites or the useful idiots who support their schemes under the utopian delusions they embrace, their goal is to make certain that you can't own a tool to resist them.
We need to stop allowing the phrase "gun control" (a.k.a. "common sense gun control") to be used in this debate. Control carries the connotation that an action is reasonable. We must identity their efforts correctly: restriction and confiscation. When we use these terms, it becomes far more obvious to the casual observer what the intent and implications are. This will also make it easier for them to extrapolate how this will eventually impact the rights they care about.