This blog features observations from Randy Turner, a former teacher, newspaper reporter and editor. Send news items or comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
Wow,could be a Greitens ad..The damage Kander can do is with his potential senate votes.Nice ad but hope Blunt puts one out explaining how Kanders party is for gun control...personally sick of ex service members bragging/using their volunteer service to promote their personal agendas.
Interesting. The message, with regards to "background checks", is utterly anti-gun, he explicitly mentions the terrorist watch list gambit, in which the government could, and we can be sure would, ban any US citizen they care to from owning guns, with absolutely no due process.More generally, the background check gambit is now being used by Bloomberg, who's the only person who really matters on the gun grabber side besides Obama, to kill the country's gun culture by preventing people from loaning or renting guns to teach others how to shoot. Those are magically becoming formal transfers that require going through an FFL.Which will also, for example, prevent all of those who are less than 21 years of age from owning handguns unless gifted one by a family member. Which would also, at least as noted in the state of Maine where this is up for a initiative vote like the successful one in Washington state (Nevada too this year), prevent them from seeking a law enforcement career in the state until they turn 21 (unless gifted). And if you want to see how bad police can get at shooting if a region's gun culture is extinguished, just look at the notorious NYPD.None of these side effects are accidental, of course, Bloomberg is freely spending his billions to get just what he wants passed, with great success in Washington state, Oregon, California, and Colorado, and I'm sure other states where I'm not playing close attention. Then again money isn't everything, as his mouthpiece Shannon Watts, who started her politician career in Missouri, discovered a few days ago with the veto override. That's now 4 states that have gone Constitutional Carry in just one year, expect it in more free states as people observe it doesn't cause big problems.Note that it's very common for returning vets to be very anti-gun, that they used their service rifle or carbine competently in the sandbox means nothing about policy back home.Pitty, prior to this I was seriously considering voting for him to get rid of Blunt, the path to sanity on my side is right through the GOP establishment (GOPe) (and in terms of the 2nd Amendment it doesn't matter a whit who's in the Supreme Court), and Blunt knows he's in the fight for his life, otherwise he wouldn't have cashed in a lot of chips to drag the head of the NRA and the head of its lobbying arm out here to Joplin to speak to all of 50 people. But I'm never going to vote for someone so explicitly and viciously anti-gun as Kander.
So he can put together a rifle blindfolded what does that prove. What else can he do with his eyes closed pass anti-gun legislation. Seems like a stupid ad to me
Surely you do not believe the Bullroar that the Government is going to take your damned guns away. Hell if they wanted your guns, you would have already lost them and all the crying about it does not change one thing. If you really feel like you have to have a gun to protect yourself then I have to believe you have lived in fear for a long time.
Surely you do not believe the Bullroar that the Government is going to take your damned guns away. Hell if they wanted your gunsWe need to distinguish between desire, will, and means/ability.Does "the government" want to take our guns away? Only the most ignorant or idiotic would see the Democratic Party standard bearer praise Australia's gun confiscation, and note almost the entire party re-embracing the cause of gun control, and not believe they have the desire to. And they're joined by many Republicans, and almost all of the Federal bureaucracy, who constantly show it in their policies.But do they have the will to? Not enough of them as of yet, for our system still functions enough to vote those who get too obnoxious out of office. No less a politician than Bill Clinton blamed the historic 1994 election where his party lost both houses of government for the first time since the '50s on his beloved Brady Bill and "assault weapons" ban.you would have already lost them and all the crying about it does not change one thing.That remains to be seen, for another reason they don't have the will is that they don't want us to start hunting them. And Americans have not been arming themselves at ever greater and historic rates to casually allow the government to seize them. Since 9/11, which I think due to our government's pathetic domestic response was the key inflection point, we've more than doubled our buying, and much the same with ammo, although production of that can't increase as quickly, and won't at all for rimfire (like .22LR, the capital equipment for it can't be used for anything else, and the manufacturing is much more dangerous).If you really feel like you have to have a gun to protect yourself then I have to believe you have lived in fear for a long time.Fear is natural and normal, for only the young and/or foolish think they're bullet-proof. And I am neither, and also note the police aren't about to give up their guns, or that people like you are going to stop calling them when faced with violence, or that Hillary will answer Trump's challenge to lead by example and dispense with her armed bodyguards.
830..it's called FREEDOM...whine away..
Post a Comment