The Left Wants It All

[anygunanywhere]

Rep Lewis doesn't think more gun control has anything to do with the Second Amendment and says he supports the Second Amendment.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/10/ ... stitution/


Pelosi admits that universal background checks is not the only restriction that must be done.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/10/ ... s-as-well/

If anyone here thinks that Slidefire stocks are the only thing up for grabs you are sadly mistaken.

[Soccerdad1995]

There is so much wrong with such a short statement. I was going to quote the most asinine parts of his comments, but then realized that I would be quoting the entire article, which I believe is against forum rules. I will just have to let others click the link and read the article to understand my comments.

He says that imposing restrictions on guns has "nothing to do with the Constitution". Well since the relevant part of the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed", I think any restrictions, by definition, have something to do with the Constitution. If he wants to change the 2nd Amendment, then man up and say so. He is either being disingenuous or he is just plain ignorant. I'm not entirely sure which.

Then he says that some people in favor of the 2nd Amendment don't believe in the 1st Amendment. Really? Because I haven't heard anyone saying that we should shut down any speech by government force or law. That would be against the 1st Amendment. All I am hearing is that people should face consequences for their speech, including potential loss of employment and ridicule. That's not a violation of the 1st Amendment. I have a 1st Amendment right to tell my boss that he is an idiot. And he has the right to fire me. Period. The only people trying to take away 1st Amendment rights in this country are terrorists from the political left.

Then he talks about how dangerous it is out there. He apparently doesn't feel safe going to the store, to a school, or to a place of worship. Well it's nice to see that he agrees with President Trump about the dangers facing those in certain urban neighborhoods. But he jumps to the conclusion that more gun restrictions would make those places safer, and ignores the fact that all evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Again, he is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Gun control is not about making people safer. It is all about making people more compliant and silencing any speech that is outside of the "accepted" mainstream. Just look at how easy it is for the Antifa terrorists to silence speech they don't like in Berkeley, where their victims are unarmed. Now tell me again, Rep Lewis, about how much you support the 1st Amendment.

[Oldgringo]

What we really need is a Constitutional Amendment that forces TERM LIMITS on free freeloading congressional cretins and federal judges that makes them go home after 2-(?) terms.

Please, don't anyone tell me we already have term limits. Lewis, Cornyn and Pelosi, to name a very few, attest to the stupidity of the indifferent American voter AND the near impo$$ibility of un$eating a bought and paid for entrenched incumbent.

[anygunanywhere]

From the article:

You never cared that 59 people were murdered – some of you, as we have seen, cheered – and I gotta say, it’s a bad look to screech “I’m glad you crackers are dead, now heed my command to give up your guns!” If you really cared about 59 people being murdered, you’d demand that the Chicago PD flood the ghetto and stop and frisk until every punk with a gun was disarmed because 59 people get murdered there in a slow month. Oh, but wait – their rights! Gee, I thought that RIGHTS DON’T MATTER IF TAKING RIGHTS AWAY SAVES JUST ONE LIFE… I guess it’s really about whose rights, isn’t it?

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtsch ... 6?amp=true

[Misfit Child]

What we really need is a Constitutional Amendment that forces TERM LIMITS on free freeloading congressional cretins and federal judges that makes them go home after 2-(?) terms.

Please, don't anyone tell me we already have term limits. Lewis, Cornyn and Pelosi, to name a very few, attest to the stupidity of the indifferent American voter AND the near impo$$ibility of un$eating a bought and paid for entrenched incumbent.

There is an extrajudicial solution to this problem and many others in government.

[bigtek]

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtsch ... 6?amp=true

I just don’t see Jimmy Kimmel donning Kevlar to molon labe and risking his sorry carcass trying to separate normal Americans from their ability to defend themselves, their families, and their Constitution from the people who constantly tell us how much they hate us.

Those who don kevlar to molon labe should be shot in the face.

[Abraham]

I suppose if fires were to suddenly/wildly increase the smart thing to do would be remove all fire hydrants, ban the installation of any new ones and certainly deactivate any and all fire trucks.

That'd teach those fire bugs.

(This new law would not apply to congressional governmental/residential dwellings, heaven forbid...)

[philip964]

There is so much wrong with such a short statement. I was going to quote the most asinine parts of his comments, but then realized that I would be quoting the entire article, which I believe is against forum rules. I will just have to let others click the link and read the article to understand my comments.

He says that imposing restrictions on guns has "nothing to do with the Constitution". Well since the relevant part of the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed", I think any restrictions, by definition, have something to do with the Constitution. If he wants to change the 2nd Amendment, then man up and say so. He is either being disingenuous or he is just plain ignorant. I'm not entirely sure which.

Then he says that some people in favor of the 2nd Amendment don't believe in the 1st Amendment. Really? Because I haven't heard anyone saying that we should shut down any speech by government force or law. That would be against the 1st Amendment. All I am hearing is that people should face consequences for their speech, including potential loss of employment and ridicule. That's not a violation of the 1st Amendment. I have a 1st Amendment right to tell my boss that he is an idiot. And he has the right to fire me. Period. The only people trying to take away 1st Amendment rights in this country are terrorists from the political left.

Then he talks about how dangerous it is out there. He apparently doesn't feel safe going to the store, to a school, or to a place of worship. Well it's nice to see that he agrees with President Trump about the dangers facing those in certain urban neighborhoods. But he jumps to the conclusion that more gun restrictions would make those places safer, and ignores the fact that all evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Again, he is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Gun control is not about making people safer. It is all about making people more compliant and silencing any speech that is outside of the "accepted" mainstream. Just look at how easy it is for the Antifa terrorists to silence speech they don't like in Berkeley, where their victims are unarmed. Now tell me again, Rep Lewis, about how much you support the 1st Amendment.

Said a lot better than I could. Well written.

[GreenMan0352]

Well as the old saying goes ladies and gents. Stick to your guns! Whatever lies ahead I don't know but I hope it is well for us and we don't wake up the same way many Australians did. All these countrys keep warning us to fight for our gun rights. To me it seems like we are the last frontier against "the man"

[ninjabread]

Why shouldn't they take it all when even self proclaimed "oath keepers" and "III%-ers" aren't getting rid of self proclaimed domestic enemies of constitutional rights?

[anygunanywhere]

Why shouldn't they take it all when even self proclaimed "oath keepers" and "III%-ers" aren't getting rid of self proclaimed domestic enemies of constitutional rights?

You need to get out more often.

[treadlightly]

He's almost got it here:

It’s not safe to go to school, to go to a church, a mosque, a temple, a synagogue, to go to a movie, go to a dance.

Maybe he meant there's no guarantee of safety. For that, take comfort in your rod, staff, and 2nd Amendment, and take your chances with a song in your heart.

And 2nd Amendment people who don't believe in the First Amendment? That's a stretch. Who are the first to demand political views be silenced, who run for safe spaces if presented with a reasoned but uncomfortable argument? Pro-2nd people? I hardly think so.

[ninjabread]

Why shouldn't they take it all when even self proclaimed "oath keepers" and "III%-ers" aren't getting rid of self proclaimed domestic enemies of constitutional rights?

You need to get out more often.

I get out some but maybe not enough or maybe the wrong places.

Where should I go to find self proclaimed threepers who are walking in the footsteps of the founders' dealings with Andrew Oliver? Where and when was there anything during Obama's presidency like the Boston Tea Party? Where have they done anything more than the other 97% of politically active Americans who vote and contact their legislators? Please educate me.

http://www.tacticalstuff.com/iii-three-percent-mean/

[K.Mooneyham]

Why shouldn't they take it all when even self proclaimed "oath keepers" and "III%-ers" aren't getting rid of self proclaimed domestic enemies of constitutional rights?

You need to get out more often.

I get out some but maybe not enough or maybe the wrong places.

Where should I go to find self proclaimed threepers who are walking in the footsteps of the founders' dealings with Andrew Oliver? Where and when was there anything during Obama's presidency like the Boston Tea Party? Where have they done anything more than the other 97% of politically active Americans who vote and contact their legislators? Please educate me.

http://www.tacticalstuff.com/iii-three-percent-mean/

I would ascribe the situation as a standoff. A well-armed citizenry cannot simply be overcome by the political left using violent means as was done in other nations through history. However, neither can the armed citizenry simply throw out the political left without serious loss because it's not worth it to do so at the present time. If and when the political left makes a fully open and violent move toward the citizenry, then the standoff will end. None should wish for this to happen, we should all wish for some other solution that doesn't involve open violence. Until such time as necessary, it is best to stand ready.