ABC recently aired an interview between anti-gun Senator Chris Murphy (CT-D) and ABC’s Jon Karl. During the interview, Sen. Murphy showed his hand and explained why the anti-Second Amendment crowd pushes so hard on legislation that seems unrelated to the current event, mass shooting, or otherwise high profile shooting that caused the uproar. By Dean Weingarten Quite simply, they use it as an emotional vehicle for other legislation they normally could not pass. In the interview, ABC’s Jon Karl is questioning Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut. From the ABC transcript:
KARL: — there’s these proposals. Your proposal would’ve done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would’ve done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and, in fact was…is, unrelated to Newtown. So why, I mean why, I mean, why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding to?
MURPHY: Well, so first of all, we can’t get into that trap. I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend our proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen. That trap is an impossible one.
No, it is not an impossible one. If the Senator were dealing honestly, he could explain it. If it would have helped somewhere else, he could make the argument elsewhere.
The argument of the anti-Second Amendment lobby is that if the government controlled all access to guns, and strictly limited them, then terrorists could not get them, or at least it would be harder. But that kind of control has failed, massively, all over the world, just as it did in France, in Norway, in Belgium, in Brazil, in Mexico, in Jamaica, in South Africa, in Puerto Rico, in the UK.
The plan guts Second Amendment rights, allowing for incremental confiscation over time, just as has happened in England and Wales.
Murphy continues, explaining that the Sandy Hook massacre is being used to push for unrelated infringements on the Second Amendment.
The Sandy Hook families lobby for background checks. You know why? Because they’re just as concerned with the young men and women who are dying in our cities because of the flow of illegal guns as they are about a ban on assault weapons or high magazine clips that might have prevented Newtown. So, this has to be broader than just responding to the tragedy that happened three days ago.
Except, there are no facts to support that contention.
The terrorist Watch list legislation is particularly dangerous. It sets the precedence that a person’s Second Amendment rights can be stripped from them without due process by bureaucratic fiat. There is no appeal process. You do not know your rights have been lost until you attempt to exercise them. It is an anti-Second Amendment schemer’s dream because anyone they dislike can be put on the list, secretly. The list can be expanded overnight to include whole groups of people. It is a Constitutional nightmare.
The components that the anti-Second Amendment plotters are attempting to put in place are all peices of a machine that ends up destroying Second Amendment rights.
Ban people on the Watch List from owning guns. That establishes the power to strip people’s Second Amendment rights from them without due process or even notification. This is being done by: Universal Background Checks – Make it illegal for anyone to obtain a firearm without asking government permission, which is subject to the Watch list.
Universal Gun Registration – No gun to be legally owned unless the government knows who has it, who is allowed access to it, and where it is stored.
Mandatory notification of lost or stolen guns – Makes it legally difficult to resist incremental gun confiscation. Incremental gun confiscation has been common where universal registration has been implemented. It has already taken place in California and NY.
If you are not able to turn the registered gun in, you will have committed a crime and be subject to prosecution. As more atrocities happen, more guns are declared illegal, and/or it becomes more expensive to keep them, until there are none left. It might take decades, but it happened in England and Wales.
All of Senator Murphy’s pieces of legislation fit into an overall scheme to destroy Second Amendment rights over time. He cannot argue for them all together. The intent would be too clear. The package could never pass the Congress.
Incrementally, bit by bit, using the latest crime to push for unrelated legislation, they could be put in place. That has been the plan for 50 years. Precursor legislation, such as the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the national instant background check system are already there. They do nothing to actually reduce crime, but they enable future incremental steps to destroy Second Amendment rights.
50 years ago, anti-Second Amendment plotters were open about their strategy. Now they know they have to use lies and subterfuge.
How do you feel about Weingarten’s analysis of Murphy’s interview? Did he get it right? Share your opinion or analysis in the comment section.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Link to Gun Watch
Mahatma Gandhi was pro gun (a renown pacifist) yet we are told by our leaders that guns are bad. So if the pacifist is pro gun, what does that make an anti gun president?
But have you checked lately?
Dean is right on. But his tone is too forgiving.
All of these infringements are attacks not only on the Second Commandment, they open the door to strip any right. No fly-no buy legislation becomes an attack on the entire bill of rights. It’s a fundamental violation of civil rights. Whenever a pol mentions “common sense” legislation, ask why they’re fighting against civil rights that were so hard won with hardship and blood in the fist place.
Substituting disdain for civil rights for gun rights will hopefully give them a corner they can’t unpaint their way out of.
What part of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does this communist senator not get?
Murphy and others like him push their anti-gun anti-second amendment agendas mostly because they are full of progressive liberal crap!
This bunch is really something alright. Notice how Murphy labels any argument against his frivolous and un-Constitutional ideas “a trap!” The truth is his biggest problem and he can never overcome it. All of his BS, and he has a lot of it, leads back to the same place. He doesn’t like guns. He believes everyone must think and behave the way he does. Much like Michael Bloomberg, if there’s anything a liberal can’t handle it’s someone enjoying something that they haven’t personally approved. This is how these people really think!
This is certainly a charged issue. I believe all of these state governments need to realize that hopefully we will have a real president soon and all of this crap will stop. The states need to read their Charters of Statehood. The states can pass no law that takes away from the Bill of Rights or any right granted to the people by the Constitution. Every state has been obliged to accept this provision as a condition of statehood.
Conversely the federal government is given very specific duties in the Constitution and those duties not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.
To tie the knot on this, every time the Constitution has stated “the right of the people” The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this is a right that supersedes the federal government’s authority and by charter the state government’s authority. Therefore in the operative clause of the Second Amendment where it says “the right of the people” the Constitution is stating this is a right of all people who are citizens of this country. The body of law established during the ratification of the Constitution restricts the federal government from changing anything in the Bill of Rights. The ratification process of the Constitution insured this provision. Lastly the states may not take away anything from anybody which is guaranteed to them by the Constitution. To do so would violate their charter of statehood.
The founding fathers of our country were not stupid people and boxed both the federal and state governments in when it came to the Bill of Rights.
I how your are right about the Constituion and Bill of Rights. But as of a few years ago past presidents have made amendments to both. And they aren’t good. Might want to check on that.
With reintepretive politically corrected speech (lies), the second amendment is a Supremely Corrupted Court away from being extinguished.
We, the people of these united states, know the Executive doesn’t write, but Enforce or Fail to Enforce the Laws of Congress (which was designed as a hurdle for laws to be written and passed). The Supreme Court is supposed to be subservient to We the People, as are the other branches of Federal Government. None are currently doing their constitutionally defined jobs.
Corruption, by any other name, smells just as bad.
A President cannot make an amendment to the Constitution. It simply isn’t possible! Only the people can do so, and the process is long and tedious, as it should be.
Presidents have no power to change the Constitution in any way. The only way the Constitution can be changed is by a Constitutional Amendment which requires a Constitutional Convention and 3/4 of the states must vote for the change. Further the first ten Amendments the “Bill of Rights” are off limits to change. They are the Rights guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution and were made untouchable at the time of ratification and signing of the Constitution by the original 13 States. Each new state has had to accept this provision as a condition of statehood.
This is my third post on this subject here. Everyone who owns a firearms should understand the Second Amendment. When a politician says they want the Supreme Court of the United States to revisit the Heller decision because they believe the 2nd Amendment is a collective right they are full of crap. Most of those elected are attorneys and as attorneys they should know how to read and understand the language they speak.
The Second Amendment has two parts or clauses. The first part is called a prefatory clause. It only announces why the the following operative clause is necessary.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, is the prefatory clause and states why the Second amendment is necessary.
Then comes the operative clause. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Because if the people did not have arms they could not form a militia.
BJ….you stated that as of a few years ago, past presidents have made amendments to both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution….
I missed that. Presidents have no authority to make any changes to either document.
Now….regarding the bill of rights….a lot of folks are confused when the guy occupying the Oval Office at this time, declared that everyone has a right to medical insurance….or that everyone has a right to a cell phone….and a few other “rights.”
But, that just socialist propaganda. No one has any rights other than those states and signed into law by our founding fathers.
As for the amendments to the constitution…again, no president can amend that document. It is the sacred duty of the congress to vote such amendments into law. So…disregard executive orders for they are not settled law….and can be reversed by anyone that holds the office later.
I do agree that we need to pay close attention to the scoundrels that take that office. They will pander to certain groups of progressive morons.
@ Nick Liberto,
What you’ve stated is unequivocally not correct. You wrote:
“No one has any rights other than those state[d] and signed into law by our founding fathers.”
Because the Founders knew they could never enumerate every possible Right bestowed upon man into the Constitution, they debated whether to even include the Bill of Rights for fear it would create confusion and give the impression those were the only Rights.
In fact they are not the only Rights, and thus the Founders added the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights to make absolutely certain no one ever misunderstood that Rights of men are not limited to their words alone:
NINTH AMENDMENT –
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
TENTH AMENDMENT –
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I think it’s high time that the firearms community expose the misleading term “background checks” the same way we have been trying to do away with the label “assault rifle”
As anyone that has bought a firearm since the Brady bill was signed into law should be aware a NICS phone call initiates a computer criminal records check, not the crawl up your bunghole investigation that the anti crowd is trying to insinuate.
If the general public was aware of this reality, I wonder how many of them would greet the “universal background check” as some kind f shield against illegal acts committed with a firearm (note not “gun violence”.
We should not allow the anti crowd to not only frame the debate, but commandeer terms for their control freak goals.
Ken, thanks for pointing out the difference between the NICS check and a real background check. Those of us that have had military security clearances have some idea of what a background check looks like. The FBI actually goes around to your neighbors and asks probing questions about people that eventually get that security clearance.
Adding to your points made regarding the fallacies of NICS, it should also be noted that by law the federal government cannot compel the States to submit criminal records or participate in the NICS system because it is a federal system only.
The 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing the states to report anything into their databases; and thus any contributions by the States are purely voluntary and inconsistent at best. Further validating your point, a good many States refuse to contribute to NICS anyway because they feel it their duty to protect citizens’ rights.
Out of the States that do participate, there is no standard for reporting into the NICS system, which means these States will conduct criminal records dumps in unreliable intervals. Such delayed reporting leads to years between a felon’s reported conviction and beyond their actual prison release date which then allows them to pass NICS checks when they shouldn’t.
So in the end, you are absolutely correct about the false sense of security the NICS system creates for the general public. Instead NICS is a truly antiquated system riddled with errors which serves more to deny law abiding gun purchasers their right to bear arms than it ever does in preventing gun violence.
Chris Murphy and any othey politician with a similar position on guns and the. 2nd Amendment MUST be REMOVED from office IMMEDIATELY on the grounds of TREASON!
Senators take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. When they use double speak, lies and pass legislation that undermines the 2nd Amendment they are shredding the Constitution and our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!
Senators like Chris Murphy ARE VIOLATING their oath to defend and uphold the CONSTITUTION!
Senators like Chris Murphy and other PUBLIC SERVANTS who do not defend and uphold the Constituion ARE TREASONOUS and need to be REMOVED from office IMMEDIATELY!!
Debating with Senators like Chris Murphy is NOT necessary or needed since Senators like Chris Murphy ARE comitting TREASON!!
Wake up America!!
All this gun control and back ground checks is crap it ain’t like the criminals that are committing these crimes acquire their guns legally it is just the governments ploy to make us defenseless if they get the guns there won’t be no freedom we gun owners need to stick together if it comes down to it we will have to fight a civil war it’s about time for a Revolution and definitely don’t want Hillary in the White House
Let’s look at this differently. If the senator believes he is right and we need to put laws in place to prevent this from starting, then I have the solution. New federal law. On everyone’s 18th birthday, it is mandatory to enroll in a 40 hour class that teaches them weapons safety, basic self defense, arms training, and crisis management. It is also required to own and keep on you some form of self defense weapon. THAT IS IF THEY CAN LEGALLY OWN ONE!
So what do criminals do when everyone over the age of 18 around them knows how to defend themselves and has a weapon?
Answer that one senator……….
The anti-gun faction in our country is continuously trying to change our laws and create new laws to make it more difficult to legally acquire and own firearms. There seems to be an assumption within this group that more anti-gun laws will mean less gun violence. Those who live in Illinois know that this far from a valid assumption. Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in our country, but Illinois also has some of the highest gun violence numbers in our country. This is because Chicago is in Illinois and Chicago has an out of control gang on gang violence epidemic.
Illinois has had a law in place for almost 50 years that requires those who purchase and/or possess firearms and ammunition to have an Illinois Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card. The FOID card was created in 1968, by the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65), as a way to identify those persons eligible to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition as part of a public safety initiative in the State of Illinois. Unless specifically exempted by statute, any Illinois resident who acquires or possesses firearms, firearm ammunition, tasers or stun guns within the State must have in their possession a valid FOID card issued in his or her name.
To be eligible for a FOID card, a person must be 21 years of age or have a parent or guardian sponsor that is eligible for a FOID card. An applicant must not be prohibited from possessing firearms in accordance with state or federal law. This requires the applicant is/has:
• Not been convicted of a felony.
• Not addicted to narcotics.
• Not been a patient in a mental health facility within the past five years.
• Not been a patient in a mental health facility more than five years ago, unless the applicant submits a Mental Health certification under 430 ILCS 65/8(u).
• Not intellectually disabled.
• Not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.
• Not subject to an existing order of protection.
• Not been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed.
• Not been convicted of domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction.
• Not an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa; unless the applicant is an official representative of a foreign government or who received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3).
• Not a minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5-520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.
• Not an adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.
• Is a resident of the State of Illinois.
• Not been adjudicated as a mentally disabled person.
• Not been involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility.
• Not a person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, or any other person or the community.
• Not developmentally disabled.
• Not renounced their citizenship.
• Not dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
• Not convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
• Not a person under 21 years of age and convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent.
• Not a person who intentionally makes a false statement in the FOID card application.
The vast majority of Illinois’ gun violence is not committed by FOID card holders who satisfy the above requirements and are legally permitted to acquire and possess firearms. Illinois’ gun violence is committed almost entirely by individuals who are ineligible to obtain a FOID card and thus unable to legally acquire or possess a gun in Illinois. In spite of Illinois legislators’ attempts to prevent those who shouldn’t have guns from having them, Illinois out of control gun violence epidemic in Chicago continues to grow.
• Not intellectually disabled
misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent.
No wonder there are so few carry permits in Obama’s domicile state! So, if you happened to have been caught,charged and convicted of littering, you can be denied a permit? Who gets to determine “Not intellectually disabled”? You have listed several “Infringements” that have little or no bearing on the right to bear arms What is this “error notice time expired”?
I don’t mean to be rude but what exactly is your point.? You explained a process that is clear to most gun owners in their respective states but what exactly are you trying to say? I lost it somewhere along the line reading your comment.
Mr. Weingarten has made some good comments, but let me give some background: Senator Murphy seems to be trying to fill the shoes of one of the worst senators CT ever had: Chris Dodd. CT has for a good many years been anti-gun. I moved to the state in 1965 and it was already illegal to own or possess an automatic weapon. Only the police can have automatic weapons as does the West Hartford Police Department. (M16s). Forget the $200 stamp to make it legal by federal standards, CT said NO! When Clinton had the assault weapons bill passed, CT decided it wasn’t strong enough and passed its own a year later with many more guns on it. I moved away in 2007 to a state that had lower property taxes and a more resident oriented 2nd Amendment attitude. I have friends who still live there and through them I know that after I left the state revised the assault weapon law adding still more guns. In CT, one has to fill out state paperwork in order to buy ammunition! The “Newtown Massacre” is considered a ‘false flag operation’: the school had been closed for two years prior, the parents involved were paid $280,000 to keep quiet, the AR-15 that was taken from the perp’s mother’s collection was illegal to possess…do I need to go on? Go to Toolsforfreedom.com and look up conspiracies. You’ll be stunned. And you thought that California and New Jersey were bad.
As to background checks, I do not know why this keeps coming up as in order to buy a gun through a FFL dealer, not a private sale or at a gun show, one has to fill out a form and sign it, then the dealer calls the BATF who does a NAC or National Agency Check on the buyer. If it comes back ‘clean’ then the purchase goes through. If you believe in the law that forbids a felon from purchasing a gun, then if you sell a gun to a private individual, you should ask to see a Concealed Carry Permit before completeing the transaction. A Driver’s license only shows identity whereas a CCW or CCP cannot be obtained without the BATF’s NAC. I see it all the time here in my state when someone sells a gun, they only ask for a driver’s license. I think that the law that says if one sells a gun and the purchaser uses it in a crime, the seller is liable is a federal law.
You just put out a lot if false information in your post and I want to ensure other readers don’t buy into it.
Connecticut residents can, and many do, own automatic weapons. It is only the “selective fire” weapons that are prohibited because Connecticut considers any weapon with “selective fire” to be classified as an “Assault Rifle”, – which they have banned.
A background check for the purpose of purchasing a firearm is not a NAC. A National Agency Checks is a real thing, but takes months to complete and is accomplished by the FBI for various government departments (including military) The completed NAC is then used when considering personnel and contractors before they are allowed to obtain a security clearance for handling classified information, – not weapons.
The required check to purchase a firearm is actually known as NICS – National Instant Criminal Background Check System. ATF has nothing to do with it. Instead, it is the FBI that is tasked with managing that entire system.
Strictly speaking there is no requirement by the federal government restricting the sale of firearms between private parties, other than the seller cannot knowingly sell to a prohibited possessor (including minors) or non-state residents without going through an FFL. Regardless, nothing about the federal requirement compels a seller to do any checks to verify any of this prior to a private firearms sale.
However, the seller can later be prosecuted if it can be proven that (s)he knew the buyer was prohibited from owning guns prior to the sale.
Because there is no obligation to do any checks, this explains why private sellers generally do not need to ask for a CCW. Even asking for ID is optional if the buyer reasonably appears to look well over the legal age. All of these transactions are considered perfectly legal in the eyes of federal law. However, notwithstanding these federal laws, some states have stricter requirements, but they should never be confused with federal laws regarding private sales.
And finally, unless I misunderstood what you wrote, there is no such federal law that holds a seller responsible if the buyer later uses that weapon in a crime. The only time that might apply is when it could be proven that the seller sold the gun knowing the buyer was purchasing it with the intent of using it to commit a crime. I hope this clears things up for some readers out there.
“Connecticut residents can, and many do, own automatic weapons. It is only the “selective fire” weapons that are prohibited because Connecticut considers any weapon with “selective fire” to be classified as an “Assault Rifle”, – which they have banned.”
CT’s “Assault Weapon Law” is much more onerous than simply banning “selective fire” weapons: http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm
While your statement on CT residents owning “automatic weapons” is reasonable, the rest of your remark would indicate CT law makers have “common sense” issues. “Selective fire” as some reason to classify any weapon as an “Assault Rifle” is worse than elementary school thinking. “Automatic weapons” are, closely related to and usually are, designated as “machine guns.” Many “machine guns” are also “machine pistols” and contain no “selective fire” mechanism.
Since the 1934 law dealing with “machine guns,” and subsequent revisions and addendum’s thereto, it is completely frustrating for the average bloke to own one. Just being on the ATF’s “automatic weapon or machine gun” list keeps many, like me, from wanting one!
The media, scared legislators and their similarly scared constituents need to INFORM themselves on what constitutes an AUTOMATIC anything:
In my mind, the most ‘ironic’ thing with CT “infringing” on the people’s right to “….keep and BEAR ARMS….,” is their nickname: “The Constitution State!” I’m just surprised that all those “anti-constitution” people the state’s residents continue to elect have not changed that nickname to one more appropriate: “Boot On The Neck State”
Many in the media ramp up hysteria with all the scary, but completely untrue, definitions of weapons used in some killing. They randomly refer to the civilian rendition of the AR 16, the AR 15, as an “Assault Rifle,” or worse, an “automatic rifle!”
Nothing I wrote is subject to your opinions or a debate given it was composed of 100% fact, which I posted in direct response to correct several inaccuracies put out by Jim.
Your personal opinion that my statement on CT residents owning automatic weapons as being “reasonable” in no way changes the simple fact that it is lawful as I’ve accurately stated – and thus a fundamental point made necessary in order for me to correct Jim’s erroneous statements to the public.
Moreover, your conjecture as to the law being “onerous” or whether “CT law makers have ‘common sense’ issues” (whatever that means), again was never the point, and thereafter had absolutely no bearing on the irrefutable facts as I’ve stated them.
Simply put, my correcting another’s post which was wrought with inaccuracies should have easily been identified as such. Hijacking my fact-based post to use as your platform to inject your own personal opinions was inappropriate and thus rendered everything you wrote pointless in regards to the purpose of my particular post.
Murphy and Gov Malloy enacted some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. All “assault weapons” and “clips” for them were banned, and the owners had to turn them in to the police by Jan 30, 2013. This included pistols with more than 10 rounds in the ‘clip’. It is estimated that approx 95% of people in CT gave the Gov and the law the vertical center digit.
A friend of mine returned from deployment in afghanistan to find that he was now a felon. He would be arrested if he even attempted to turn in his collection after Jan 30. He was too busy over there to read the local papers from CT..
“….he was now a felon.”
Problem being, many states, CA, CT, NY, etc., are ‘governed’ by the masses of people congregating in their largest cities – voting in people that have little to NO regard for what our Constitution says. Just as people in “fly over country,” people with any remaining “common sense,” are forced to accept the “boot on the neck” laws that “infringe” on their rights, or worse, accept presidents that do so!
Not sure how being “subjugated” by our ‘largest cities’ is fixed? I continue to be amazed at how many people actually think their lives and the lives of their families are ‘safely’ in the hands of government or its laws!
Sen. Fish Face (Murphy) continues to move to the top of both the federal and Kommiecticut traitors list.
Unfortunately for the gun-grabbing hoplophobes, The Armed Civil Disobedience of Non-Compliance negates ANYTHING they may try to pass, before it is even signed into law.
The next move belongs to the tyrants.
I wonder when these morons are going to start background checks on truck drivers, and have a registry made of all F-150 Pick Ups on the road. And what about all the edged weapon violence? Is Dieann Frankenstein going to chair a senate subcommittee on limiting the number of ginsu knives a person may buy per month? How about putting serial numbers on all butcher knives that are sold at all Walmarts? The next move is never belonging to the tyrants, but to the people, who will unseat these asshats from office.
What more do truck drivers have to do to make YOU comfortable. Are you talking about drivers owning and carrying firearms on their trucks or just referring to killer trucks. If you’re referencing background checks on drivers that ones easy. Minimum requirements for a driver are 10 years of complete background. That includes but is not limited to work history, residence, arrest records and drug and alcohol history. If you’re referencing guns, most drivers would not dare carry a gun on the truck because of different laws concerning crossing state lines and repercussions of being caught with something that might save their lives and lives of others. As far as killer trucks, it’s come to light with the Federal DOT, most but not all truck/auto fatality accidents are due to how people drive around the trucks, not how the truck driver is operating the truck. So where do truck drivers fit into your rant now?
This article reads almost identical to the same exact warnings that many of us have posted about in this very forum – but instead we get chastised by trolls who tell us we should break out our tinfoil hats. It is refreshing to see other authors who see the light as we do and are willing to write articles which echoes our sentiment with the same meticulous veracity.
I applaud you gman for your well informed responses to the great many articles you have commented on! I always look forward to reading an article and scrolling down to see what you have to say on the matter. Keep up the good work and help spread the word of continued oppression on our civil rights!
@ Patriotic American,
Much thanks for your kind words. When I speak opinion I always speak from my heart; when I speak facts I use my professional experiences and do my best to be as accurate as I can to keep others well informed. Every citizen is entitled to the truth.
I think a point missed by most folks when we talk about the 2nd Amendment is the mere fact that since the inception of this Nation the average people have been able to legally own firearms. How else could almost half the nation have them and there be over 300 million firearms amongst the general public? To even suggest that the people of this country do not have the right to own a firearm is indefensible. My suggestion to all gun owners is simple. Anyone comes to your home to confiscate your firearms should be treated as a home intruder and shot. There are only about 6 million military and police in this country and 150 million firearm owners in the public. Most police and military hate Obama and Clinton and will not put their lives on the line to go around taking people’s firearms. So I think it is important that all firearms owners write to their Federal representatives in Congress and tell them in no uncertain terms that under no circumstances will they allow anyone including the Supreme Court however constituted to infringe upon our rights to own firearms and if they want them they are going to have to come and get them at their own risk and we need to be forceful in that statement.
Hillary does not think the 2AD is an individual right. And neither do the ruling class elites, many government class workers and a growing number of law enforcement. I wore a badge for 33 years, I know many LE and there is a growing number who will not act on their oaths, they are concerned for their paychecks, their pensions and their own power and will be “politically correct”. They will be just like the police in nazi occupied Europe, they will do what they are told. I’ve been fighting this fight since 1982 when we won a handgun confiscation state ballot measure in Commiefornia. I am leaving there for Arizona if in November has a poor outcome.
All hope isn’t lost even if she’s elected. After sheriffs in Wyoming came out saying they would arrest anyone trying to arrest a resident with an “assault rifle” after Obama implements the ban, many other state’s sheriffs and law makers followed suit.
Why move to Arizona and not just join the CSPOA and help change the laws here in California? I saw an article saying the California State Sheriffs Association was on the CSPOA list but I can’t find it now. The most recent list here http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ looks like the original 2013 list and has a lot less than the archived list here .https://web.archive.org/web/20150905220959/http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ .