Yeah. The Dems have their target groups for their proposed anti-gun legislation.
Zebra Dunn called it....the new enemies of the state????
1. Veterans. The Dems are calling for privacy restrictions to be loosened so that they can view Vet records.
2. Preppers. I don't even know how they can target this group because the federal govt has encouraged citizens to have at least 72 hours worth of supplies on hand. Doesn't matter, they're still a target.
3. Sport shooters (separating hunters from other shooters). These people aren't shooters but they're trying to drive a wedge between hunters and sport shooters. It might work but they're barking up the wrong tree. The shooting sports have changed and there are more sport shooters have hunters now.
But it gets worse. Looking ahead we can see who will be sport shooters and gun rights people's new enemies...
1. Police Officers. Not in the sense where we need to worry about them kicking in doors confiscating weapons (yet) but because they will serve as props in the propaganda. You'll see the President on stage with uniformed law enforcement all around him.
2. Hunters. The same as with police. They're going to probably succeed in getting the gentleman hunter to seek to separate himself from sport shooters.
3. Concealed Carry Holders. I'm mainly talking about the silly newbies here. They're the people that just started carrying a Smith and Wesson Shield and feel as if they wield the Hammer of Thor. They'll be promised that their weapons won't be taken and sports shooters will be left behind.
This is gonna get nasty and I'm not hearing a thing from the pro-gun side. Congress people are silent. The NRA is silent. Only a select few have spoken up. Meanwhile the enemy (and MSNBC is the enemy) is shaping this "national" debate.
Zebra Dunn called it....the new enemies of the state????
1. Veterans. The Dems are calling for privacy restrictions to be loosened so that they can view Vet records.
2. Preppers. I don't even know how they can target this group because the federal govt has encouraged citizens to have at least 72 hours worth of supplies on hand. Doesn't matter, they're still a target.
3. Sport shooters (separating hunters from other shooters). These people aren't shooters but they're trying to drive a wedge between hunters and sport shooters. It might work but they're barking up the wrong tree. The shooting sports have changed and there are more sport shooters have hunters now.
But it gets worse. Looking ahead we can see who will be sport shooters and gun rights people's new enemies...
1. Police Officers. Not in the sense where we need to worry about them kicking in doors confiscating weapons (yet) but because they will serve as props in the propaganda. You'll see the President on stage with uniformed law enforcement all around him.
2. Hunters. The same as with police. They're going to probably succeed in getting the gentleman hunter to seek to separate himself from sport shooters.
3. Concealed Carry Holders. I'm mainly talking about the silly newbies here. They're the people that just started carrying a Smith and Wesson Shield and feel as if they wield the Hammer of Thor. They'll be promised that their weapons won't be taken and sports shooters will be left behind.
This is gonna get nasty and I'm not hearing a thing from the pro-gun side. Congress people are silent. The NRA is silent. Only a select few have spoken up. Meanwhile the enemy (and MSNBC is the enemy) is shaping this "national" debate.
hay solomon,
ReplyDelete1. i think, vets should have an automatic right to carry, concealed or otherwise, barring mental instability, they are well trained & part of a "well regulated militia", active or otherwise, maybe a loosening of the regs here would be good.
2. i dont have a problem with bolt action rifles, including the likes of a barret, with smaller clips, for hunters, an actualy good use & past time, but there is no need for full/semi auto's, with drum mags etc.
3. maybe having a license to conceal carry is a bad idea for anyone, who hasn't had exstensive training in the military. i also believe having arbitary locations that you cant conceal carry is also silly, if that person is very experienced, it's just as save for him to carry into school, aswell as a shopping mall.
i dont believe the us, will ever give up guns, but too much is never good for you, that includes guns. i believe, a survey showed 71% of u.s. citizens, support handguns, but that figure drops off a cliff if you ask the same people about "assualt rifles".
a middle road, has to be found, to allow the masses to protect there homes with legaly owned handguns/ bolt action rifles/ pump action shotguns, but negate as much as possible, the dangers posed by these weapons, to the general public.
If guns kill people, as it is supposed by some that they do, how will handguns, bolt action rifles, pump-action shotguns learn to be safer than, say, an assault rifle?
DeleteJust so we're clear, assault rifles are like the thingies Marines carry into combat to kill Taliban with. Handguns are just carried by officers, SNCO's and some NCO's and oh yeah - special operators to kill Taliban with. Bolt-action rifles are much more restricted and, well, you hardly see those any more in combat. Mostly because they were, until recently, the weapon of choice of snipers everywhere for really long touches. And pump-action shotguns, they're just used for Marines doing door breaching for entries
you seem concerned with trying to pick the character of the weapon. That's for the cartoons. Rather, lets concern ourselves with the character of the owner/operator. And for God's sake, carry and use responsibly. Semper Fi.
VETs would not necessarily be part of a well regulated militia. By this I mean the law was written for the states to be able to fight off the federal government. Now, I by no means think that a mass majority of VETs would side with the federal government if they try through physical force to take away free speech or guns. I just wanted to point out your logic fails. darren
DeleteWe're already AT the "middle ground". Gun control freaks keep moving the "middle ground" every time they get their panties in a wad. F-ck 'em.
ReplyDeleteTheir goal is disarmament. Nothing short of that will make them stop.
DeleteThey have to put bodies in the ground to achieve their final goals. This "President" is surrounded by people who have called for the selective genocide of the American people; Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, John Holdren, etc...
Anything that will get in their way will be targeted.
RA
Solomon, I think the reason nobody on the gun-advocate side is saying anything is because the minute they do the MSM will brand them as baby-killers. What we need to do is turn this around. Point out how many people die because of idiots driving with their cell phones then propose a ban on cell phones. Any desenters get branded with "so it's okay to kill children as long as you get to keep your iphone?" They'd shit their pants. Two can play this game.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the NRA was keeping quiet for a while, but is going to speak Friday.
ReplyDeleteI work PT selling guns for a chain store. The march of the lemmings has begun. Instead of people standing up for the rights, they are panicking and preparing to roll over rather than fight like hell.
ReplyDeleteMass shootings are decreasing, not increasing.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-nn-mass-shootings-common-20121218,0,7402173.story?fb_action_ids=10151182294707966&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
It's time to throw up a brick wall to the anti-gunners.
There will be no new assault weapons ban. That is all.
Pass it on.
i really don't think they know the fire that they're playing with. the south and midwest and parts of the west are just plain different and the people will not react well to this.
Delete