Dianne Feinsien’s new gun bill would ban about 80 gun classified as assault rifles. I as a woman believe strongly in gun rights. Not only because gun ownership is constitutional, but because it is a neutralizer for us, the weaker sex.

Here’s what a former Marine and Veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq had to say to Feinstien:

"You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain…I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant."

I agree with him completely. Feinstien office responded to the comment by saying "As Senator Feinstein has said, the legislation will be carefully focused to protect the rights of existing gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes."

That is very nice of her. Some gun owners do like to hunt and shot for sport. But the purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect people’s right to use guns for sport and recreation. It is to prevent the Government from becoming tyrannical.

I also get sick of people twisting the NRAs approach by saying "They are crazy. They want to stop crime by adding more guns! Their solution is more guns!" That’s a childish way of intentionally misrepresenting the NRAs position. NRA chairman Wayne La Pierre proposed putting police in schools and government buildings. It’s not the gun that is intended it’s the cop. Cops carry guns.

Maybe Piers Morgan should apply this rational to the NRAs proposal because the gives attributes the AR-15, not Adam Lanza, as what killed those 20 kids and 6 teachers in Connecticut.
Actally I am for protecting kids. It’s just that tyranny will affect millions of kids, not 20. It will affect over hundreds of millions of adults, not 6 or whatever other statistic you try to come up with.

They don’t make politicians like they used to. Andrew Jackson, the single shining star that inspired the Democratic party line would be as eagerly killing Democrats with his own pistols if he were alive today as he killed similarly disrespectful pests in his own time by face-to-face duel. He’d also be doing the same to whatever idjut’d think themselves his "body guard" – just the same as he did when he pushed his pals out of the way to PERMIT a disgruntled citizen THREE SHOTS at his own Presidential Personage. Things sure do evolve, don’t they – from courage to cowardice, my what a progressive advancement of humanity. I’m sure your parental forbears are so proud of what they’ve produced.

 

9 Responses to “Why do Democratic politicians either not understand or try to confuse the issue of gun rights?”

  1. Michael B - Repeal Prop. 8! says:

    They don’t. But this sounds like a great commercial for the greedy NRA. More guns sold, more money! Yipee! With every child carrying a gun to school, won’t America be awesome?!? So under a glorious con government, does the woman get to shoot the rapist before or after the government forces her to have his child?
    References :

  2. Max Hoopla says:

    They are more interested in keeping innocent children alive than you apparently are.
    References :

  3. Firestorm says:

    Democrat strategy RELIES on confusion. If people actually understand the issues, they don’t vote democrat, which is actually why the dems have done well in the last couple elections. The populous at large is either uninformed or makes their decisions using the emotional propaganda that the left puts out. Thus, the dems know they only need to play to that group. They’re brilliant strategists. Unfortunately the only solution is for people to inform themselves. Like that will ever happen.
    References :

  4. Vulture38 says:

    For evil to grow, good men must do nothing.

    I understand that the US constitution is something that many americans hold dear.

    However the right to bear arms was valid at the time, but at the same period in history your country also fought a bit of a scuffle about slavery.

    The slavery situation was cleared up by an amendment to the constitution.

    That same constitution that was being amended right up to 1971.

    So things change, get used to it.

    The second amendment was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689, which restricted the right of the English Crown to interfere with the personal right to bear arms, yet we in England have the only full time regularly unarmed police service in the world.

    The problem with rights is that it is all to easy to ignore the responsibilities that go with it.

    Can I assume that if I went into teaching, and moved over to the usa, you’d be ok with me bringing a loaded gun into your child’s classroom?

    Is your democratically elected government good? Should they do nothing?

    Oh and congratulations on finding one marine out of tens of thousands who have fought to bring democracy to a country. Who supports unsuppressed use of firearms.
    References :
    Just a guy that looked up stuff thats available to you.

  5. John Purdue says:

    If Obama doesn’t want children in schools to be protected by armed guards then why does he have eleven of them protecting his children at their school? Are his kids more important? Do they deserve armed guards while others do not?

    "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them … Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here." – Senator Diane Feinstein

    She is a liar and disgrace.
    References :

  6. Bob B says:

    I’ve seen variants of this argument before. They are, as always, not supported by evidence:

    * If it were true that guns were necessary to protect us from tyrannical governments, then you’d expect the USA to be far more democratic than the UK or Australia, which have very strong gun control. And yet, these countries both have democracy indices that are *higher* than the US. There is no correlation between gun control and democracy, civil liberties, press freedom, or any other reasonable standard of a free society.

    * Columbine high school had armed guards during the shooting- they failed to stop the incident. Armed security forces are not the ideal solution. A better move would be to stop people getting access to high-powered weapons in the first place.

    * It’s also worth mentioning that if the government really wanted to move in and take our rights away, guns are not going to stop them. A shotgun or hunting rifle won’t protect you against an Abrams tank, or a squad of soldiers. If the government really wanted to suspend the democratic process with military force, it could. That said, I’ve never actually seen the government attempt this, and yet people are killed in gun-related crimes *every day*. I’d say guns cause more problems than they solve.
    References :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-video

  7. The Wolf says:

    I can’t add to Firestor’s answer, it was spot on.

    @ Max Hoopla. You couldn’t be more incorrect it you were trying. The liberal gun control bigots don’t care about the live of children, they only care about control, absolute control. It is my firm belief that these liberal gun control bigots Orchestrate these mass shooting just to further their anti-gun agenda. NYC mayor Michael Bloomburg made many illegal straw purchases, and 0bama, and Holder gave firearms to the Mexican drug cartel to kill innocent citizens to further their anti-gun agendas, so I have no doubt that the liberal gun control bigots wouldn’t kill little children to further their anti-gun agenda.
    References :

  8. pmt853 says:

    "Gun rights"? What right does anyone have to own a gun or guns that outweighs the many deaths and injuries they cause by accident or design, to the guilty or the innocent, to the young and to the old, to the police and to the criminals? To many of us the apparent American obsession with the right of just about anyone to own guns seems simply ludicrous.
    References :

  9. NeilSherman says:

    They don’t make politicians like they used to. Andrew Jackson, the single shining star that inspired the Democratic party line would be as eagerly killing Democrats with his own pistols if he were alive today as he killed similarly disrespectful pests in his own time by face-to-face duel. He’d also be doing the same to whatever idjut’d think themselves his "body guard" – just the same as he did when he pushed his pals out of the way to PERMIT a disgruntled citizen THREE SHOTS at his own Presidential Personage. Things sure do evolve, don’t they – from courage to cowardice, my what a progressive advancement of humanity. I’m sure your parental forbears are so proud of what they’ve produced.
    References :

Leave a Reply