7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns
One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened -- so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.
But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an "upper class" that deserves to be protected with guns while it's okay if the "peons" get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child's life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the President of the United States when he's threatened.
Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they're so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the "riff-raff," that they should have a right to be protected even if you don't.
1) The Journal-News: The Journal News printed "the names and addresses of gun permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties" as its way of taking a dig at gun owners. But, this attitude about guns certainly did change when the shoe was on the other foot.
Veritas video reporter James O’Keefe has released a new video of his team posing as an anti-gun group promoting an initiative to journalists.
At each home, the group dubbed as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” asks homeowners if they are willing to put up a “Gun Free” sign in their yard.O’Keefe primarily focuses his efforts on employees of the Journal-News – the New York newspaper that published a controversial map of registered gun owners online.Armed security welcomes the Veritas team at some of the homes - as some of the newspaper's employees felt threatened once bloggers retaliated by posting their names and addresses online.
2) Dianne Feinstein: She introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 in the Senate.
"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- Dianne Feinstein
3) Mark Kelly, the husband of Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ): "Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.
Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona.
Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee January 30, Kelly had urged senators to restrict sales of firearms based on their lethality–a common refrain with other witnesses that day who argued that semi-automatic weapons, which chamber subsequent rounds as bullets are fired, and other guns with military-style features, level the playing field against law enforcement.
Kelly and Giffords founded their own advocacy group to restrict gun rights, Americans for Responsible Solutions, in January.
...Similarly, the ARS website says: “Congress should act to limit the sale of assault weapons."
4) Shania Twain: “Shania Twain didn't exactly have a shotgun wedding....in Puerto Rico ... but it sure was a pistol -- as in what the guards were packing on the beach during the ceremony,” TMZ.com reports.
We’re told there were 'several armed security guards.'
...But here’s the thing about the privileged Ms. Twain employing armed guards (lawbreaking or otherwise) in the first place—she’s a big advocate of infringements against those of us who can’t afford an armed security presence and must rely on being our own first line of defense.
She was one of the signers...of the Handgun Control, Inc. (since changed to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, to help mask their intentions) “Open Letter to the NRA,” a full page ad published in USA Today."
5) Rosie O'Donnell: "On her television show, April 19, 1999,O’Donnell had this to say about gun owners: “I don’t care if you want to hunt. I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, ‘Sorry.’ It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Several months later, a bodyguard in her employ applied for a concealed gun permit from the Greenwich (Connecticut) Police Department. When queried about whether her bodyguard should carry a gun on May 24, 2000, she said, 'I don’t personally own a gun, but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem.'"
6) Sarah Brady: "Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas...and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the Daily News has learned. Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington.
30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop. "I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat.
"Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan."
7) Michael Moore: He's a staunch advocate of gun control who has gone so far as to suggest that merely owning a gun is racism, "…But on this particular day, on Martin Luther King Day, I think this needs to be said. That imaginary person that’s going to break into your home and kill you, who does that person look like? You know, it’s not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street, is it really? I mean, that’s not what really, that’s not what really people, we never really want to talk about the racial or the class part of this, in terms of how it’s the poor or it’s people of color that we imagine that we’re afraid of. Why are we afraid? What is that, and it’s been a fear that has existed for a very, very long time." -- Michael Moore
Yet, Michael Moore has an armed bodyguard. We know because that bodyguard was arrested carrying his weapon.
“Filmmaker Michael Moore’s bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York’s JFK airport....”
If I were a celebrity and had received death threats, don't I have a right to hire a bodyguard for my personal protection? At the same time one can support the Second Amendment and the right for all of us to have guns for self-defense but nonetheless wish to have a ban on that AKS-74u bumpfire rifle that the assassin would use to easily gun down my bodyguard and me -- or 6 bodyguards for that matter.
ReplyDeleteThe fallacy in this guy's reasoning is that he implies that anybody who supports an assault weapons ban is somehow logically committed to oppose all hand guns and body guards. These are two different questions, and a person can have different answers to them with being illogical or hypocritical.
--David
Yes you have the right to hire your own body guards to protect you but you CANNOT oppose me from purchasing my own gun for protection. That is the hypocrisy!
ReplyDeleteWho opposes you for buying a hand gun for your own protection? A hand gun is one thing. An AKS-74u bumpfire rifle in the hands of a mass murderer is something else. Did you watch the second video I posted?
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether there is any limit under the Second Amendment to what weapons you may own. Does the Second Amendment guarantee you the right to have a nuclear bomb in your garage? You think so. I disagree. So does Scalia's opinion in the Heller case (joined by Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy). Have you read it yet?
--David
Everyone on the list of 6 people wants to prevent me from owning a gun!
ReplyDeleteThere is NO limit for a law abiding citizen of the US!
Heller is moot. Roberts WILL NOT vote with the conservatives again especially if it is against something that the dictator wants.
They do not want to prevent you from owning a gun. They want to prevent you from owning an assault rifle.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like there won't even be a vote in Congress on an assault weapons ban, so we will never know whether Roberts would reverse himself on Heller. But that's okay, because we will have many, many Supreme Court decisions forthcoming for our Roberts project. These affirmative action cases this term, for example. Roberts is dedicated to abolishing all forms of affirmative action. Gay marriage this term will also be interesting to watch.
--David
David, you are so naive. If they ban an assault rifle, it won't be long before they are after your pistol.
ReplyDeleteTom, you are so paranoid. Nobody is proposing a ban on hand guns, and if they could ever get such a law passed, it would be struck down by unanimous opinion of every Supreme Court that has ever existed in this country. You are drunk on the conspiracy Kool-Aid!
ReplyDelete--David
Yes, I am paranoid and proud of it. It is a slippery slope once they are able to ban a normal gun (AR-15 for example) that anyone owns, it will be easy to ban all weapons.
ReplyDelete"Roberts WILL NOT vote with the conservatives again especially if it is against something that the dictator wants."
ReplyDeleteThis prediction is already doomed...
"But the court's conservatives, led emphatically by Chief Justice John Roberts, defended the law, a clear sign that any decision likely would come by a 5-4 margin."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/27/supreme-court-doma-gay-marriage/2023091/
----------
How about that! Conservatives justices lead EMPHATICALLY by Roberts.
--David
My point,if you will go back and research it is that Obama will not pull Roberts into the woodshed every time, only on those that he needs to win. Otherwise it become obvious.
ReplyDeleteObama doesn't care a whit about gay marriage. He has been on both sides of that issue and it does not matter to him. He would not waste his time having Roberts over for a talk.
No, it is not. Hand guns are extremely common in U.S. homes.
ReplyDeleteI have doubts that justice Scalia would consider an AR-15 a "normal" (i.e., common) type of gun in homes. Do you know what percentage of households have an AR-15?
That is legally very important viz-a-viz the Heller decision, because the Scalia opinion states that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to possess weapons "common in the home." That excludes nuclear bombs, tanks, F-16's, and possibly AR-15's.
As I have told you before, if there were an assault weapons ban and it were appealed to this current Supreme Court, I believe the decision would hinge on the Court's definition of "common."
--David
Once a gun regulation comes to the Supreme court, Obama and his like minded gun grabbers will get their way. Either by being able to appoint a new justice or two who think like they do or by pulling out his Roberts card. Either way, Heller will be ruled moot and gun confiscation will start.
DeleteIn the Revolutionary war, muskets were common. The AR-15 is now the fastest seller (including to the DHS) gun. It is now a commonly held firearm. BTW, it is not dangerous, it will not fire until someone pulls the trigger!
Are you kidding me? Obama is so opposed to these laws that he ordered the Justice Dept. to not defend the law in the Supreme Court. I can't remember another president ever ordering the Solicitor General to NOT defend federal laws when challenged in the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteYou are not going to squirm out of our Roberts project this way. The empirical indicator in this project is going to be whether Roberts splits from Alito, Thomas, and Scalia and joins with the liberal wing of the Court in 5-4 decisions. I can't imagine many constitutional issues where Obama would not side with the liberals in such a 5-4 split.
For example, are you going to tell me Obama doesn't care about affirmative action for minorities? I want to get you on the record on that, since it will be next case in our Roberts project.
--David
Roberts is a turncoat, plain and simple. He, however, will not be "used" everytime as not to damage his "independence." He will only be used on those cases where a win is very important to the Administration.
ReplyDeleteI won't bet on this because there is no way of knowing when Obama will pull Roberts into the woodshed.u
So are you going to claim Obama doesn't care about any of the 5-4 splits from now to 2016? Is that your planned defense? For starters, you did not answer my question: Are you going to tell me Obama doesn't care about affirmative action for minorities, for example?
ReplyDeleteBottom-line: It is going to look pretty ridiculous for your argument that Roberts is a "turncoat" if he joins with Alito, Scalia, and Thomas in every decision from now to 2016. Agree? You would have to claim that Obama has no interest in ANY of these 5-4 landmark cases. That is preposterous, but it does give you a convenient off-ramp out of our Roberts project.
--David
"BTW, it is not dangerous, it will not fire until someone pulls the trigger!"
ReplyDeleteTrue, but as I pointed out on the other post, the mass murderer with a bumpfire rifle and 30-bullet mag can walk into a room and slaughter 15-20 armed people before any of them has time to get his gun out of his holster. That is why mass murders bring assault weapons.
--David
So, it still was NOT the weapon that caused the damage--it was the nut pulling the trigger.
ReplyDeleteMost of these NUTS are really chicken hearts at their base and if they knew that people were armed at the place they were going to attack or was the possibility that they might be armed, they would go to a place where no one was armed.
Facts show that there more CCW and armed permits are issued, the less crime there is.
You have never said that cars should be banned and they kill 4 times as many people as guns! Heck there are times when a bus will crash and 20-30 people are killed. Lets ban buses!
Causal logic sequence:
ReplyDelete1. A causes B.
2. B causes C.
A and B are both necessary for C to occur.
A=mass murderer
B=gun fire
C= dead body
Do the logic.
Without a gun, there is no mass murder with a gun.
Mass murderers using guns do not come out alive. They either commit suicide on the scene or get shot by police. The murderers end up dead whether the victims are armed or not. You are parroting the NRA line. If you are concerned about self-preservation, you do your mass murder by arson or bombing, not with an AR-15.
--David
So 9/11 was not a mass murder? Don't believe guns were involved there?
DeleteEither way, mass murderers have been killing many different ways over the years. If you will look at the following link, it will show you a multitude of ways of killing.Yes, firearms are included but your argument is false on it face. Here is the link that blows your narrow focused argument to pieces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
Also, as I said, if you have that bumpfire rifle from the video, you need not fear getting shot when you walk into the room and kill 15-20 armed men. They will all be dead on the floor before anybody has time to get his pistol out of his holster. I keep trying to get you to respond to this example, but you keep changing the subject! Watch the video again before you reply.
ReplyDelete--David
It makes no difference if you have a bump fire rifle, a rocket, a rock, knife or samari sword, it is the nut behind the weapon that counts.
ReplyDeleteYes, the bumpfire puts out a lot of bullets in a small amount of time. Yes, I saw the video, but also, there is NO way of telling how accurate the bullets are. And Yes, it would be scary to be on the receiving end.
On all these counts I agree but as was the case at Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie house, Columbine, Fort Hood or back to the Luby restaurant shooting, there is one common elements in all of these shootings--no guns were allowed on the premises! Legal gun owners could not even defend themselves against these idiots. It does not take a bump fire gun to do the damage, it just takes a nut with any type of gun or other weapon.
Once you take away guns from legal gun owners, they are defenseless!
Is that what you want?
"If you will look at the following link, it will show you a multitude of ways of killing.Yes, firearms are included but your argument is false on it face."
ReplyDeleteStrawman. I never argued that guns are the only way to commit a mass murder.
I said most mass murderers with guns do not come out alive, whether the victims are armed or not. The link you provided supports my point. By far, the most common outcome for mass murderers who do their killings with guns is that they end up dead at the scene -- mostly by suicide or shot by police. I noticed that of the school mass murders, 13 of 15 committed suicide. As I said, mass murderers who are interested in staying alive generally don't use guns. They use arson, bombs, etc.
"So 9/11 was not a mass murder? Don't believe guns were involved there?"
It is hard to believe that all these hi-jackers got through security with guns on three different airplanes on the same day. All the TSA checkers must have all been negligent at the same time that day! It is more likely they used plastic knives, box cutters, etc., but that can't be proved, since the evidence was destroyed in the fire. In any event, this was another example of mass murderers committing suicide, whether they had guns or not.
"It makes no difference if you have a bump fire rifle, a rocket, a rock, knife or samari sword, it is the nut behind the weapon that counts."
Absolutely false! And that is my point. It makes a BIG difference what weapon he has. Let's go back to our example of 15-20 persons with 10-bullet mag pistols in a room. If the would-be mass murderer walks in with a sword, he would be dead before he could kill more than 1 or 2 people. If, like all of them, he is only carrying a 10-bullet mag pistol, he will kill a few more before they kill him. However, if he has a AKS-74u bumpfire rifle, he will kill everybody in the room. That is precisely why mass murderers bring assault weapons. If you were correct that most mass gun murderers have self-preservation in mind (which is obviously not true given their suicide rate), your 10 people with pistols would have a stronger deterrent effect on would-be mass murderers if the mass murderer did not have easy access to an assault rifle.
"Once you take away guns from legal gun owners, they are defenseless! Is that what you want?"
No I don't want to take away your gun for self-defense in your home. That doesn't mean I think it would be a good idea for everybody to be walking around on the streets packing guns! More guns leads to more gun violence, not less. I showed you the international statistics. The U.S. has more guns per 100 population and more gun homicides per 100 population than any OECD country except Mexico.
--David