The state House, dominated by members from rural areas where hunting is a way of life and the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, resoundingly rejected a series of gun-control measures yesterday, including one that would have allowed Philadelphia to enact its own firearms laws...Yeah, it was kinda like holding a "gun buyback"--it didn't really do anything, but it made you feel good and got you some ink in the local press. And, of course, helped solidify your hold over sheep ignorant enough to give an opportunistic thug like you political power over them.
Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.) said that despite the defeats of several controversial proposals - and the expected failure of one-handgun-a-month - he was pleased that so many anticrime measures were at long last debated on the House floor.
"...helped solidify your hold over sheep ignorant enough to give an opportunistic thug like you political power over them."
ReplyDeleteKeen observation.
Problem - How do we awaken and enlighten the sheep to the danger?
(Possible)Answer - Publicly strip the sheeps clothing off the wolf(s)!/?
There are SO MANY avenues that can be explored as an answer...
Tar and Feathers?
Poles and rope?
The good ol' French method - Guillotine?
OR, VOTING EVERY SINGLE LAST SHEEP-WOLF OUT OF OFFICE IN 2006-08?
Straw votes that appeal to some, and also clearly violate the 2nd and 4th Amendments:
ReplyDelete"Warrantless searches
Would require inmates who commit violent or firearms offenses to sign an agreement, prior to being released, that they will consent to search and seizure by police without warrant or cause while they are on parole.
Vote: 147-42; sponsor: George T. Kenney Jr. (R., Phila.)
Firearms in Philadelphia
Would increase, from a misdemeanor to a felony, the charge for carrying firearms on streets or other public property in Philadelphia without a license.
Vote: 120-61; sponsor: Rep. John P. Sabatina Jr. (D., Phila.)"
1894C said...
ReplyDelete"Warrantless searches
Would require inmates who commit violent or firearms offenses to sign an agreement, prior to being released, that they will consent to search and seizure by police without warrant or cause while they are on parole.
Vote: 147-42; sponsor: George T. Kenney Jr. (R., Phila.)
If you're out on "parole" that means that you've been convicted of a crime via "due process". Parole agreements usually entail a number of various requirements that would infringe upon the parolee's rights, like "freedom of association" (no fraternization with known criminals); "freedom of expression" and "property" (no drugs or booze; be of good behaviour, etc)
What's wrong with requiring searches of their person or abode, to "ensure compliance" with firearms prohibitions? These are people who have been deemed to be "too dangerous" to be accorded the right to keep and bear arms - aren't these the very people we are trying to keep guns *from*?
If you commit a crime, you forfeit your rights - it's just that simple.
(NB: I do not agree with the lifetime ban on guns for convicted felons - that is going too far)