I have friends who are constituents of Randy Forbes. I'll make sure they know of his support for this double-standard law. I always thought he was one of the two or three good ones, along with Ron Paul. Heck, I signed up for his emails just for the reassurance that someone in Congress "gets it." WHY is he helping widen the "terror gap"? Sure, cops make enemies over the course of a career. But WE know that anyone can do anything to anyone at any time anywhere. Why are some lives worth more than others?
On a related matter, my dad is a pilot and on his flight the other day there was a department of re-education and a postal service employee on board, both armed. He carries a gun too, but any armed passengers are required to inform the captain that they are carrying. Once you've been blessed by government, you are more trustworthy.
Workin' hard on the next city de facto gun ban case, I see.
So, with the continuing theme of legal chaos caused by the practitioners of dopey, American-style Eurofascism, what exactly does this bill say? That cops aren't citizens--and aren't afforded equal protection under the Second Amendment--or that the Second Amendment doesn't exist?
Does the NRA not realize that people who remain forcibly disarmed by the state have no reason to join the NRA? Just throwin' that out there.
Why can't I get the same consideration? I'm retired from the USAF, been in a shooting war back in '91, I've take the oath to support and defend the Constitution many times (re-enlistments). Also, I've never left any firearm in a restaurant bathroom, nor have I ever extorted sex from a hot one for leniency or any of those other "police related" "only ones" activities.
Oh, that's right. I vote conservative, am former military, and at all times I will actually support and defend the Constitution.
Passed by voice vote, no roll call. EVERY vote should be a recorded roll call. I would hold an aye for this against my CONgresscritter. I'm certain he said aye but I cannot prove it.
"Amending the law to make it easier for retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm is a common-sense measure that benefits everyone” should instead be "amending the law to make it easier for the people to carry a firearm is a common-sense measure that benefits everyone.” Isn't that what the 2nd Amendment was about?
I make no apologies for not abiding with any system that makes me or anyone else a 2nd Class citizen with less rights than another.
Yes, but like every other citizen, they already have a right to keep and bear arms. It's the illegal rules of a hostile central government that makes it risky to do so. Supporting or abiding by this "law" is actually consenting that the central government has a legitimate extra-constitutional power. It's absurd that the central government claims it has greater power than the agreement which granted its powers. What is that, god from consensus?
Anyway, if the central government asserts that unwritten, unaccountable vox populi supersedes supreme law, then vox populi must also supersede any minor rule the goverment establishes. Boy, is that tempting chaos. They figure they can be on the take forever so long as their agents control the mob with violence. And hey, what could go wrong with that?
When you place a group of people on high, and honor them as masters, pretty soon everyone believes it. That's the core anthropogenic defect present in every established government.
It'll be nice if the NRA actually works for those of us that pay dues.
ReplyDeleteI have friends who are constituents of Randy Forbes. I'll make sure they know of his support for this double-standard law. I always thought he was one of the two or three good ones, along with Ron Paul. Heck, I signed up for his emails just for the reassurance that someone in Congress "gets it." WHY is he helping widen the "terror gap"? Sure, cops make enemies over the course of a career. But WE know that anyone can do anything to anyone at any time anywhere. Why are some lives worth more than others?
ReplyDeleteOn a related matter, my dad is a pilot and on his flight the other day there was a department of re-education and a postal service employee on board, both armed. He carries a gun too, but any armed passengers are required to inform the captain that they are carrying. Once you've been blessed by government, you are more trustworthy.
ReplyDeleteWorkin' hard on the next city de facto gun ban case, I see.
ReplyDeleteSo, with the continuing theme of legal chaos caused by the practitioners of dopey, American-style Eurofascism, what exactly does this bill say? That cops aren't citizens--and aren't afforded equal protection under the Second Amendment--or that the Second Amendment doesn't exist?
Does the NRA not realize that people who remain forcibly disarmed by the state have no reason to join the NRA? Just throwin' that out there.
Why can't I get the same consideration? I'm retired from the USAF, been in a shooting war back in '91, I've take the oath to support and defend the Constitution many times (re-enlistments). Also, I've never left any firearm in a restaurant bathroom, nor have I ever extorted sex from a hot one for leniency or any of those other "police related" "only ones" activities.
ReplyDeleteOh, that's right. I vote conservative, am former military, and at all times I will actually support and defend the Constitution.
Passed by voice vote, no roll call. EVERY vote should be a recorded roll call. I would hold an aye for this against my CONgresscritter. I'm certain he said aye but I cannot prove it.
ReplyDelete"Amending the law to make it easier for retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm is a common-sense measure that benefits everyone” should instead be "amending the law to make it easier for the people to carry a firearm is a common-sense measure that benefits everyone.” Isn't that what the 2nd Amendment was about?
ReplyDeleteI make no apologies for not abiding with any system that makes me or anyone else a 2nd Class citizen with less rights than another.
Yes, but like every other citizen, they already have a right to keep and bear arms. It's the illegal rules of a hostile central government that makes it risky to do so. Supporting or abiding by this "law" is actually consenting that the central government has a legitimate extra-constitutional power. It's absurd that the central government claims it has greater power than the agreement which granted its powers. What is that, god from consensus?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if the central government asserts that unwritten, unaccountable vox populi supersedes supreme law, then vox populi must also supersede any minor rule the goverment establishes. Boy, is that tempting chaos. They figure they can be on the take forever so long as their agents control the mob with violence. And hey, what could go wrong with that?
When you place a group of people on high, and honor them as masters, pretty soon everyone believes it. That's the core anthropogenic defect present in every established government.