Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Josh_R, Feb 16, 2012.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oss-as-took-400000-gun-control/#ixzz1mb0CYEdx
Nothing new here. Liberals want the entire country to be like NYC where only the rich and famous are allowed to defend themselves. They aren't anti gun, they are anti 2nd amendment.
Yup. It's all bullshit.
Media Matters are hypocritical scumbags? From the "No Shit, Sherlock" file.
All 4 of these. Same as Rosie O'Donnell needing an armed bodyguard for her kids, etc. etc...
Or certain gun grabbing, anti 2nd liberal jizz bags--who have handgun carry permits!!!!
These guys have no problem with having guns for themselves. They want to control us, and to do so they know they need weapons. It has nothing to do with hating guns, or even safety. It has everything to do with control. Liberals want to dismantle the various amendments so they can control us and secure power for themselves.
I don't necessarily object to the bodyguard thing though I do recognize the tremendous hypocrisy. But this guy didn't have a license to have the gun, which is likely legislation that this Brock guy wanted.
The law is the law, and money and politics and the like don't discriminate. He ought to be charged with something for allowing illegally armed people to be around him.
Doesn't seem that hypocritical. Law enforcement and private bodyguards usually seem like part of the groups they think they should own guns. It's not like the guy got caught with an unregistered gun by himself. If a guy was lobbying for MADD would he be a hypocrite for hiring a driver when he went out drinking?
Question for the gun guys: In D.C. can't a private bodyguard carry a concealed weapon? Not necessarily talking about some thug in a rapper's entourage, but what if the guy is a retired/off-duty cop? I would imagine there's quite a demand for private security in D.C.
I think the gun laws in places like D.C., Chicago and other places are bullshit, not arguing for gun control.
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that poor and middle class people (who liberals love with all their heart) that "fear for their safety" just like this asshole can't afford to hire body guards and police escorts to keep them safe, yet these liberal groups press fol laws that do not allow them to protect themselves. Elitism is the word I think we're looking for here.
Oh yeah, totally. He's getting a 6 figure check for strict gun regulations and somebody is breaking the law with a firearm so the limousine liberal can feel safe.
"Healthcare and Wifi for all, but Guns? Pshhh... That's only for us rich people."
Cops (and retired cops) have federal carry rights, actually.
Exactly. It's pure hypocrisy on their part.
Bad part is, a lot of liberals really feel that way.
And military doesn't... Fucking bullshit.
Of course. How else is the State supposed to enforce the fact that it knows what is best for you?
Definitely more elitist than hypocrisy. It'd be more hypocritical if the guy said that nobody should be allowed to hire bodyguards except himself.
That's kinda what I thought. So it's kind of bullshit for the "journalist" in the article to automatically assume the guy was breaking the law. Kind of like how they automatically assume everything that isn't a Revolutionary War musket is an assault weapon...
This. Wealthy people really don't need to own firearms. They live in better neighborhoods with less crime and more access to law enforcement, and if they feel threatened have the means to employ private security. However if I want to protect myself or my family, and cannot afford these types of things, I'm shit out of luck (in their minds).
Giving federal carry to military would be a clusterfuck - too hard to verify in a timely manner, and would get the Kirk crowd screaming about armed soldiers in the streets. As it is, LEOs are supposed to call the jurisdiction theyre visiting and carrying in, and the locals generally call their agency to verify. Can you imagine trying to do this with military units?
Except that liberals want to ban things like "assault clips" - the same thing likely in the mag well of the Glock, HK, SIG, etc that their body guard is carrying under their sport coat. Or the same liberals that want to ban scary "assault weapons," when their bodyguard probably has one stashed in the back of that armored SUV, along with plenty of loaded "high capacity magazines" to go with it - they might even have the group therapy option installed...
It's fucking hypocrisy.
Not to mention it ignores why we have the 2nd Amendment. They say "you don't need a high capacity magazine to defend your home"... which is true... unless you're defending it from an oppressive army, foreign or domestic... which is the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment.
"Put yourself in a scenario where you’ve been forced to use your pistol and have fired 7 rounds. And then another target appears. What’s faster, reloading under extreme stress or just pulling the trigger again…10 MORE TIMES?"
Quoting an acquaintance from NC on that one...
Larger magazines are definitely needed for home defense.
I would absolutely want to have one, don't get me wrong. I was just saying statistically it will often be unnecessary. Then again... which side of statistics do you want to be on when the consequence is death? In California we can't have anything over 10 rounds, so I always keep at least two magazines loaded for my 1911, but you're right, even though I can swap them quickly, those few seconds can be a game changer.
An armed society is a polite society.
The more guns the better. The world would quickly rid itself of massive assholes with more guns on the streets.
Shall not be infringed... It use to mean something until a few turds in the punch bowl showed up.
And all anti self-defense people should live in the fantasy land they desire, unarmed.
Where in the law does it say I have to call ahead in order to carry?
HR218 put an end to officer's having to "check in" with the local pd if they are carrying concealed out of state. The fine print does state that a police officer can be arrested for carrying concealed, but HR218 is an affirmative defense to any charge that can be presented to the judge.