The Great Gun Hypocrisy

The hypocrisy is where Public Servants, THINK they are Elitists and above the law of the Constitution. You and I "Citizens" are exactly who they work for, and if Our Justice system 1/2 way worked, a lot of them would be making license plates for you and I.......

Those in Public Office who knowingly and willingly are working against mine and your Rights ARE the Terrorists, trying very hard and in a real way to bring our country down. Funny who they should label as 'Terrorists'

Hypocrisy.........'could be the new catch word for "politician"

Huh, conspiracy? Y'all lost this dumb florida boy. What I see is certain members of our govt saying they do want to take away high capacity magazines, scary lookin to some firearms, and some have even said confiscation. Two of these politicians that said some of those things are the potus and and his second in command. How these facts have been forgotten I just don't get it. Has party loyalty overuled what is being said and legislation trying to be done and supported by the potus and the democratic party and ill include allot of repubs as well?

When I hear elected leaders say they want to stop us from owning firearms, and I watchs stategovt pass legislation to ban firearms........... its no longer a conspiracy to me. Maybe I'm just to dumb to get it, so be it.

Bikewer said:

I'll add a bit of dissent as well.... Show evidence that "the government" wants to "disarm" it's citizens.
So far as can be told, the brunt of all the proposed legislation is to control access of weapons by persons who should not be legally able to have them.
To eliminate (or at least reduce) the incidence of people who are mentally ill or who have criminal records from obtaining firearms.

There are a few firebrands who might like to see no firearms whatever, but they are a very small minority and certainly do not represent even a substantial percentage of the legislature or the overall feelings of the citizenry.
The idea that "Obama" (or anyone else) is out to "get our guns" is simply unsubstantiated and has made the firearms industry very happy indeed... Sales of weapons and ammunition are through the roof.
There is simply no evidence in support of that idea.
Indeed, the Obama administration expressed no interest whatever in any gun-control legislation for the first four years and it was only the events of Sandy Hook that led to enormous pressure from voters to take some action.

It's still there. We may not like to admit it, but there is a very substantial percentage of the electorate that does not see things the way we do.

I'm 66 years old. I subscribed to the American Rifleman at about 16 years old. They were busily discussing all this sort of thing back then. The '68 gun control act was just around the corner, precipitated by another atrocious act...

Click to expand...

If it was only "a few", I wouldn't be worry about it either.

But, there is more than just a few.

To think its "only a few" is not paying attention.

The incident in Benghazi had a lot to do with the fact that the U.S. was sending Gaddafi's weapon stocks to Syrian rebels via Turkey. The local Libyan radicals did not like seeing the captured weapons shipped out the back door.

jhb said:

Has party loyalty overuled what is being said and legislation trying to be done and supported by the potus and the democratic party and ill include allot of repubs as well?

When I hear elected leaders say they want to stop us from owning firearms, and I watchs stategovt pass legislation to ban firearms........... its no longer a conspiracy to me. Maybe I'm just to dumb to get it, so be it.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that this latest attempt at increased gun laws didn't make it through the senate? The POTUS' own party shot the thing down in flames. The GOP said that if it had passed the senate there was absolutely no chance of it passing the House.

You can rest easy, for a while at least. Your gun rights are currently as secure as they've ever been.

beatledog7 said:

Got it right though, didn't they.

Click to expand...

Sort of. The unanswerable question is "what would another POTUS have done in the wake of Sandy Hook?" Keep in mind, even conservatives like Ronald Reagan have supported things like AWBs.

If you wander over to the anti side and listen in on what they're saying, they too are giving Obama an F. They think his post-Sandy Hook efforts were token and weak at best.

Things may be getting blocked at the Federal level BUT there is also the assault by the anti-gun crowd at the State level that has been successful in some states. Never rest easy because of one small victory for our side because the anti-gun crowd will not rest, ever!

0to60 said:

The people that want more gun control here at home are just regular citizens who feel that a few extra measures will make us more safe. I know a fair amount of these people, and I can assure you they aren't part of some conspiracy to disarm the public! Each one would call him/herself a patriotic american and don't feel that stuff like UBC and magazine capacity restrictions is in any way a violation of the 2A. .

Click to expand...

0to60 said:

If you wander over to the anti side and listen in on what they're saying, they too are giving Obama an F. They think his post-Sandy Hook efforts were token and weak at best.

Click to expand...

Wait a second....

1st you say the antis are just normal people that want a few more laws like mag restrictions and UBC and now you say they give Obama a "F" when Obama was trying for mag restrictions, UBC, AND reinstate the AWB, AND a whole lot more.


Its more than obvious to me that there's a contradiction there.

danez71 said:

Wait a second....

1st you say the antis are just normal people that want a few more laws like mag restrictions and UBC and now you say they give Obama a "F" when Obama was trying for mag restrictions, UBC, AND reinstate the AWB, AND a whole lot more.

Its more than obvious to me that there's a contradiction there.

Click to expand...

I said that the antis I know are regular folks, and then I said that antis in general don't think Obama has done a good job in getting more gun control (because he failed to do so).

Where did I lose you?

0to60 said:

The unanswerable question is "what would another POTUS have done in the wake of Sandy Hook?" Keep in mind, even conservatives like Ronald Reagan have supported things like AWBs.

Click to expand...

You know what I'd remove from the entire political scene if I could? References such as this, saying it must be ok for a given DC denizen to do what he or she is doing because some member of the other party did it while serving in the same role.

What POTUS should have done, regardless of party, after SH was go on TV, put his arm around the American people and tell us that, while deeply saddening and tragic, events such as this require that we think carefully about how to respond: that we should not jump unwisely to conclusions or call on our legislature too quickly to "do something" just because a tragedy has occurred. He should have reminded us that knee-jerk responses designed to make us feel better because we "did something" almost always prove wrong-headed and nearly always fail to make the difference we hoped they would.

In short, he should have been a rational leader, the voice of reason, a calming influence rather than a partisan and a catalyst for silliness. And he should have remained so for the duration.

That's what a leader does, even in the wake of a mass shooting of children--especially then.

0to60 said:

I said that the antis I know are regular folks, and then I said that antis in general don't think Obama has done a good job in getting more gun control (because he failed to do so).

Where did I lose you?

Click to expand...

No. That's not what you said.


You said:

The people that want more gun control here at home are just regular citizens who feel that a few extra measures will make us more safe.

Click to expand...

And:

If you wander over to the anti side and listen in on what they're saying, they too are giving Obama an F.

Click to expand...

Obama was trying for more than a "few extra measures" and according to you, the anti's are still giving him an F.

What POTUS should have done, regardless of party, after SH was go on TV, put his arm around the American people and tell us that, while deeply saddening and tragic, events such as this require that we think carefully about how to respond: that we should not jump unwisely to conclusions or call on our legislature too quickly to "do something" just because a tragedy has occurred. He should have reminded us that knee-jerk responses designed to make us feel better because we "did something" almost always prove wrong-headed and nearly always fail to make the difference we hoped they would.

Click to expand...

I thought a good leader "never let a crisis go to waste"?

A good politician "never lets a crisis go to waste", not a good leader!

danez71 said:

Obama was trying for more than a "few extra measures" and according to you, the anti's are still giving him an F.

Click to expand...

Because he failed to get those few extra measures passed.

IMHO it wasn't for lack of trying

0to60 said:

Because he failed to get those few extra measures passed.

Click to expand...

But that isn't what you said either.

This is:

If you wander over to the anti side and listen in on what they're saying, they too are giving Obama an F. They think his post-Sandy Hook efforts were token and weak at best.

Click to expand...

Maybe you just misspoke or used the wrong words. It happens.

But what you wrote was that they're giving him a F because he didn't try hard enough.

Obama and Biden have even been basically bullying other members of congress by saying things like "there will be political hell to pay if you don't vote" for the gun control they pushed.

deleted

When one acknowledges that the federal government is a criminal gang, the hypocrisy disappears.

danez71 said:

But that isn't what you said either.

This is:



Maybe you just misspoke or used the wrong words. It happens.

But what you wrote was that they're giving him a F because he didn't try hard enough.

Obama and Biden have even been basically bullying other members of congress by saying things like "there will be political hell to pay if you don't vote" for the gun control they pushed.

Click to expand...

Hey Danez71, I understood what he meant from the beginning. I would imagine the other 99% of the readers did too. Can we move on now?

Frankly, being exposed to no gun people from a young age until about '06 (age 51), my opinion about the NRA was skeptical regarding their stance on the famous "cop killer" bullets and I wondered why somebody might need an AK-47. No exposure to personal gun talk at work, or away from it.

But several years ago I realized that my mistaken impressions had been formed by very deceptive editing and half-truths or total omissions of basic facts by the mainstream media (CNN was what I watched). My previous awareness had been totally "out to lunch", or "tango uniform".

I decided to listen to one or two coworkers who put these topic into the balanced, accurate context.
It dawned on me how the antis lie about anything and everything to promote their agendas, which are seldom presented in a balanced portrayal.
It was a stunning surprise to learn how much deception, twisted, false terminology, and how many lies are promoted as balanced truth by the more rabid Antis, and by many of the more moderates.

Recently I worked a couple of days with a guy from just south of Chicago, who had been an enlisted soldier in the Marines, before the recent wars.
His brother, who is a retired Deputy Police Chief belongs to Police Chiefs (or such) Against Gun Violence.
He had brainwashed his younger brother into believing that we need much tighter gun regulations for everybody.

His idea is that After fifty or one hundred years, there will be far fewer guns available for criminals to steal, buy, whatever, and will reduce the overall gun violence.
I was not about to contradict somebody in a really small "workspace", and could not think of a very logical way to counter this sort of thinking up there in IL.

I'll add a bit of dissent as well.... Show evidence that "the government" wants to "disarm" it's citizens.

Click to expand...

You can't be serious? There are plenty of examples of senior legislative leadership (mostly Dem.) who are on record wanting to confiscate all firearms.

I'll add a bit of dissent as well.... Show evidence that "the government" wants to "disarm" it's citizens.
So far as can be told, the brunt of all the proposed legislation is to control access of weapons by persons who should not be legally able to have them.
To eliminate (or at least reduce) the incidence of people who are mentally ill or who have criminal records from obtaining firearms.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-l...e-quotes-from-anti-gun-leaders-say-otherwise/

Feinstein's famous quote: “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’"

The anti-gun public talking points echoed by politicians nearly always stop short of full disarmament, but that's for public and media exposure. It is clear to anyone who's paying attention to how anti-gun political machinery works that the publicly stated agenda is nearly always, at best, a greatly diluted version of the real goal, and at worst, a bald-faced lie.

Please don't ask for examples. We've been over and over that. While this would admittedly be difficult to prove beyond a doubt, it is highly probable that recent attempts to pass a sweeping gun control bill failed mostly because a voting majority of legislators realized that the voting public would punish them for supporting such a bill, not because the majority of lawmakers really don't want it. We helped make that happen.

I believe that a majority of our federal legislators would utterly ban firearms from private ownership if they found a politically viable way to do it. Why? Firearms in private hands are an obstacle to power in government hands, and they know it. So that's not a tin-foil hat perspective--it's completely rational.

Regarding the arming of Syrian rebels, I have to say, I'm fundamentally uncomfortable with our government arming groups of religious fanatics who make the Westboro Baptist Church look reasonable by comparison.

The hypocrisy is still there... IMO