In their own words

miconoakisland · February 2, 2013, 01:51 AM

I was perusing gun control articles in the New York Times and ran across two articles in particular that gave me serious pause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/op...ref=guncontrol

The first one was written by Adam Eisgrau, "Senator Feinstein’s counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993, I worked with her to get the assault weapons bill to President Bill Clinton’s desk." It details their true plans and what they hope to accomplish. For instance, the idea that in order to ban certain weapons, they must "compromise" by creating an Appendix A that lists which firearms are permissible to own, to be updated yearly.
They also would like to have the NCIC database available to individual sellers! I don't want to have my personal information (SSAN!) available to someone I may want to buy a firearm from!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/op...ref=guncontrol

The second one is an editorial from November 23, 2012 opining that Obama should follow up on his promises during the most recent campaign to push forward an new AWB and to look at "other sources of violence" like "cheap handguns". They don't want handguns available to the people that need them the most--poor people in urban areas where violence and gang activity is prevalent. That, on it's face, is a racist/elitist policy. I don't own a Jennings or a Hi-Point, but for many, an inexpensive firearm may be all they can save for in order to exercise a right to self protection. Or, is it only the more well off are entitled to self protection?

"The best place to start is in Congress, which has been grossly negligent toward constituent safety for the past 20 years as it bows to the demands of the gun lobby."
Constituent safety?? Since when is Congress responsible for individual constituents safety?

Many, too many, gun owners, law-abiding gun owners, are ambivalent on gun control issues because they don't own an AR or AK or a modern semi-automatic handgun which typically are able to hold more than 10 rounds. They don't see history repeating itself when it comes to incremental-ism in the desire to disarm the "masses".

Do people really think that once a new law that infringes on the Second Amendment passes that that will be the end of all the gun control legislation? They will always need to justify their continued existence by proposing more and more laws curbing gun ownership, while at the same time, exempting themselves (since they are more "important" than their constituents they care so much about), and exempting law enforcement from those same laws they wish to pass.

Aren't LEO's civilians? Aren't all non-soldiers civilians? If those enforcing the law are entitled to the best tool available, shouldn't everyone be entitled to that same tool? If a semi-automatic firearm able to fire more than 10 rounds is the best tool to protect the elite, such as elected officials, celebrities, and media moguls intent on disarming all others, then aren't you and your loved one's lives afforded the same tools?

If every new law applied to LE agencies they same way it applied to all law abiding citizens we'd see an end, or at least a shift in thinking, to further legislative encroachment on the Second Amendment.

Please excuse the rather long rant, I just had to vent some frustration.

jimbob86 · February 2, 2013, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Aren't LEO's civilians? Aren't all non-soldiers civilians?

While I agree with you, there are many here that do not: Some really believe that "Some Animals are More Equal Than Others!"

Those that say police are not civilians often cite some newer dictionaries that include "persons not in a police or firefighting organization that has a military-like rank structure" ...... which is a lot of hooey: "Military" personell are subject to the UCMJ. The day cops and firefighters give up their Civil Rights and fall under the UCMJ, I'll agree that they are not "Civilians". They might wear combat boots, BDU's in various colors, k-pots, tote M-4's and drive LAV's, but they are still "Civilians" dressed up like soldiers, who can quit their job at any time ....... but I digress....

BarryLee · February 2, 2013, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Some really believe that "Some Animals are More Equal Than Others!"

Most believe whatever “The Ministry of Truth” tells them.

Ben Towe · February 2, 2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Aren't LEO's civilians? Aren't all non-soldiers civilians?

Of course they are. Anyone not subject to the UCMJ is. That includes the President, Congressmen, Senators, all Federal law enforcement agents, police, Secret Service, etc. Apparently they don't seem to think so, however.

Crankgrinder · February 2, 2013, 12:48 PM

I really dislike it to hear " while at the same time respects and protects gun owners rights". I must ask what part of this legislation respects and protects me as a gun owner? That i can see it only detracts from, not protects my rights as a gun owner. Is there a guarantee somewhere that there are not further detractions ahead later on down the road? I dont see one. Correct me if im wrong MR/MS. Senator, but this sounds like nothing more than lip service marketed to gun owners like me in order to gain votes from us. With respect is there something i am missing in that aspect?

February 2, 2013, 01:51 AM	#1
miconoakisland Senior Member Join Date: September 30, 2005 Location: Oak Island, NC Posts: 134	In their own words I was perusing gun control articles in the New York Times and ran across two articles in particular that gave me serious pause. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/op...ref=guncontrol The first one was written by Adam Eisgrau, "Senator Feinstein’s counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993, I worked with her to get the assault weapons bill to President Bill Clinton’s desk." It details their true plans and what they hope to accomplish. For instance, the idea that in order to ban certain weapons, they must "compromise" by creating an Appendix A that lists which firearms are permissible to own, to be updated yearly. They also would like to have the NCIC database available to individual sellers! I don't want to have my personal information (SSAN!) available to someone I may want to buy a firearm from! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/op...ref=guncontrol The second one is an editorial from November 23, 2012 opining that Obama should follow up on his promises during the most recent campaign to push forward an new AWB and to look at "other sources of violence" like "cheap handguns". They don't want handguns available to the people that need them the most--poor people in urban areas where violence and gang activity is prevalent. That, on it's face, is a racist/elitist policy. I don't own a Jennings or a Hi-Point, but for many, an inexpensive firearm may be all they can save for in order to exercise a right to self protection. Or, is it only the more well off are entitled to self protection? "The best place to start is in Congress, which has been grossly negligent toward constituent safety for the past 20 years as it bows to the demands of the gun lobby." Constituent safety?? Since when is Congress responsible for individual constituents safety? Many, too many, gun owners, law-abiding gun owners, are ambivalent on gun control issues because they don't own an AR or AK or a modern semi-automatic handgun which typically are able to hold more than 10 rounds. They don't see history repeating itself when it comes to incremental-ism in the desire to disarm the "masses". Do people really think that once a new law that infringes on the Second Amendment passes that that will be the end of all the gun control legislation? They will always need to justify their continued existence by proposing more and more laws curbing gun ownership, while at the same time, exempting themselves (since they are more "important" than their constituents they care so much about), and exempting law enforcement from those same laws they wish to pass. Aren't LEO's civilians? Aren't all non-soldiers civilians? If those enforcing the law are entitled to the best tool available, shouldn't everyone be entitled to that same tool? If a semi-automatic firearm able to fire more than 10 rounds is the best tool to protect the elite, such as elected officials, celebrities, and media moguls intent on disarming all others, then aren't you and your loved one's lives afforded the same tools? If every new law applied to LE agencies they same way it applied to all law abiding citizens we'd see an end, or at least a shift in thinking, to further legislative encroachment on the Second Amendment. Please excuse the rather long rant, I just had to vent some frustration.

February 2, 2013, 12:48 PM	#5
Crankgrinder Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 917	I really dislike it to hear " while at the same time respects and protects gun owners rights". I must ask what part of this legislation respects and protects me as a gun owner? That i can see it only detracts from, not protects my rights as a gun owner. Is there a guarantee somewhere that there are not further detractions ahead later on down the road? I dont see one. Correct me if im wrong MR/MS. Senator, but this sounds like nothing more than lip service marketed to gun owners like me in order to gain votes from us. With respect is there something i am missing in that aspect?