How many times have we heard (often from legislators promoting "common sense gun safety regulations") that "no one is trying to take your guns away"? Yeah, right. Of course there are many examples of people openly stating that their goal is total civilian disarmament, and here is an example from yesterday. I believe that many of the people working for "gun control" are really in favor of total civilian disarmament, but don't openly say so because it could alienate some of the "moderate" populace that they depend upon for funding and votes for their "common sense" measures. We might want to consider making the effort to write our legislators and submit testimony during the upcoming legislative session... who knows what they will put forward? And we know that the people like the writer of this editorial are going to be writing and testifying to limit or destroy our Second Amendment guaranteed rights.

Stop the insanity: Ban guns

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/columnists/ensley/2014/11/22/stop-insanity-ban-guns/19426029/

Some Excerpts:

"I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

"You can prevent humans from having easy access to tools they can use to harm other people." [Say goodbye to not only your firearms, but also your (kitchen) knives/machetes, hammers, chisels, screwdrivers, bats, pipes, rocks, etc.]

"Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That's a chance worth taking."

"Let the hunters keep their rifles and shotguns; those weapons are ineffective tools in a mass shooting. [Really?] But we need to ban handguns and assault rifles for all but police and military."

"We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns."

"We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them."

How many times have we heard (often from legislators promoting "common sense gun safety regulations") that "no one is trying to take your guns away"? Yeah, right. Of course there are many examples of people openly stating that their goal is total civilian disarmament, and here is an example from yesterday. I believe that many of the people working for "gun control" are really in favor of total civilian disarmament, but don't openly say so because it could alienate some of the "moderate" populace that they depend upon for funding and votes for their "common sense" measures. We might want to consider making the effort to write our legislators and submit testimony during the upcoming legislative session... who knows what they will put forward? And we know that the people like the writer of this editorial are going to be writing and testifying to limit or destroy our Second Amendment guaranteed rights.

Stop the insanity: Ban guns

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/columnists/ensley/2014/11/22/stop-insanity-ban-guns/19426029/

Some Excerpts:

"I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

"You can prevent humans from having easy access to tools they can use to harm other people." [Say goodbye to not only your firearms, but also your (kitchen) knives/machetes, hammers, chisels, screwdrivers, bats, pipes, rocks, etc.]

"Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That's a chance worth taking."

"Let the hunters keep their rifles and shotguns; those weapons are ineffective tools in a mass shooting. [Really?] But we need to ban handguns and assault rifles for all but police and military."

"We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns."

"We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them."

The problem with this illogical statement is you can't make the nation civilized by banning guns.  You have to make the nation civilized first, and THEN you can talk about banning guns.  Even then, however, how do we guard against tyranny in government if the public is unarmed?  Facebook postings won't do much against a dictator.

Everyone has a different idea of what that word "civilized" means.  Can we ever call ourselves truly civilized in everything we do individually and collectively?

Therefore, with rapes, government agencies over stepping their authority and use of force policies, gangs, home invasions, car jackings, workplace and public venue shootings, racially-fueled rioting, irrational acts of the mentally ill, and all the other violence the human condition causes in society in general, we can not call ourselves a civilized society.  We allow mentally ill people to live on the streets and release criminals due to overpopulation in prisons.  We over-medicate people for depression which seems to contribute to some of the violent tendencies in these patients.  We lead stressful lives during bad economic periods.  We divide the nation by racial, economic, religious, political, and ideological lines which causes hate, mistrust, and even more stress.

Give me a SAFE and civilized nation with a government that never strays beyond the limitations of the Constitution first.  THEN you can call for banning our best means of self defense against our "uncivilized" inhabitants.

I've run into many ~people~ who think this way. That doesn't mean that it is anywhere near politically viable. The reason politicians say things like  "No one is coming to take your guns" is because for the foreseeable future they aren't.

There are certainly efforts to erode most of our rights - from privacy to freedom of speech to the right to bear arms, even the right to vote. From both sides of the aisle and over a much longer period of time than most people talk about.

But the political (pitiful excuse for) discourse in the country has largely degenerated into a game of chicken between ideological fundamentalists leaving most of us between those extremes thinking "WTF?"

That writer must be a very lonely person to call so many people "freaks".

I've run into many ~people~ who think this way. That doesn't mean that it is anywhere near politically viable. The reason politicians say things like  "No one is coming to take your guns" is because for the foreseeable future they aren't.

There are certainly efforts to erode most of our rights - from privacy to freedom of speech to the right to bear arms, even the right to vote. From both sides of the aisle and over a much longer period of time than most people talk about.

But the political (pitiful excuse for) discourse in the country has largely degenerated into a game of chicken between ideological fundamentalists leaving most of us between those extremes thinking "WTF?"

The reason most people favoring "gun control" don't talk about prohibition and bans is not because they don't believe in it, but simply because it is not politically expedient to do so. The strategy has shifted from "total ban" to "incrementalism", whereby a total ban will be achieved over the long term via small more politically-palatable restrictions (magazine capacity limitations, "assault weapon" bans with continually expanding definitions [see Hawaii law re "assault pistol"...they have been taken away.], banning "Saturday night specials", requiring more and more expensive and time-consuming paperwork to own firearms and/or be granted the "privilege" by the government to carry one outside one's home or business, etc.). That these people advocating prohibition haven't changed their ultimate goal is clear if you read the history of "Handgun Control Inc." and "The National Coalition to Ban Handguns" changing their respective names to "The Brady Campaign" and "The Coalition to Stop Gun violence". A fairly brief history is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/how-the-gun-control-movement-got-smart/272934/

These people want to end civilian ownership of firearms. The fact that they don't (usually) admit to it in public, and are going about it via incrementalism doesn't change that fact. It just means that those defending Second Amendment guaranteed rights will apparently never get to stop being politically active (which really isn't any fun at all).

Check out this "confidential memo" from Handgun Control Inc. from December of 1993. Really, read it. It's what they still want.

Several excerpts (you couldn't make this sh*t up...):

"WHAT WAS ONLY A DREAM TEN YEARS AGO CAN BE REALITY AS EARLY AS THIS YEAR!!!

The memo describes subjects discussed during a "brain storming" session conducted after the formal meeting. The focus of this session was to guide gun control initiatives over the next five years. The document states that these subjects may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but the members are confident that with continued pressure they can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years. [The ten year "assault weapons" ban was passed in 1994.] These goals are summarized below:"

A)Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.

B)Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.

F)Arsenal licensing for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition.

     4) Reduction of the number of guns to require an arsenal license. The suggestion is that the number be reduced to possession of greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.

     5) Arsenal license fees. It is reasonable to require an annual fee of at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00.

     6) Limits on arsenal licensing. No license permitted in counties with populations in excess of 200,000.

L)The eventual ban of all semi-automatics regardless of when made or what caliber.

1) National licensing of all handgun purchases.

2) License for rifle and shotguns. Strict licensing should be mandatory for all firearms, whether handguns or not.

16) Eventual ban on handgun possession. We think that within 5 years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level. [They were wrong, but they're still working on it.]

22) Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

25) Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.

26) Special licensing of ranges. The range must have the written permission of all property owners within 7 miles. [That's 154 square MILES. I'm sure they'd fund the purchase of a property within the 7 mile radius in order to provide the one denial necessary to dney the license.]

27) Special range tax to visitors. $85.00/day/person proposed. [And that was in 1993 dollars...]

28) Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges. [Come back in two weeks to shoot?]

29) Banning gun shows.

31) Making unlawful the assembly of more than 4 armed individuals who are not peace officers or military.

I. PROPOSED LICENSE FEES - 1994-1995 GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS:

The document includes an attachment which gives an overview of the proposed license fees for 1994/1995 Gun Control Proposals. This includes an escalation of fees, which start at $50.00 in the first year, and conclude with fees of $625.00 in the eighth year. The enclosure also covers a $1,000.00 fine and 6 months jail for failure to acquire a license, followed by recommendations of $5,000.00 and 12 months jail for failure to maintain a license, and $15,000.00 and 18 months jail for failure to turn over guns for destruction after lapse of license. Failure to re-new a license or notify issuing authority of change of status would be considered a felony. All firearms owned would then be considered contraband and could be confiscated. There is also a schedule for the licensing of rifles and shotguns, and the proposal for arsenal licensing. This includes a $300.00 to $1,000.00 annual fee, and $200.00/gun if over the prescribed limit. There is also a provision for assessing $100.00/50 rounds over the limit for ammunition. Included is an outline covering the suggested fee schedule for a Safe License of $228.00 to $392.00 per year, and Ammunition Registration and License of $55.00 to $117.00 per year to purchase ammunition. Other fees discussed include: Federal Re-Loading License of $130.00 to $175.00 per year. Ammunition Safe License Fee of $55.00 to $75.00 per year. Range License fee of $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 per year. Range Tax fee of $85.00 to $100.00 per person per visit. Inspection License fee of $588.00 to $688.00 per year.

That writer must be a very lonely person to call so many people "freaks".

He looks like a rather friendly sociable person, actually. I believe that's a hallmark of many scam artists, statists, pedophiles and some serial murderers (women found Ted Bundy to be "charming"). Yeah, not only are his arguments flawed, but his resorting to name-calling doesn't elevate his arguments. I'm fairly certain that people holding his views with that kind of certainty are disdainful of the "freaks" and wouldn't want to associate with any of them, so even if he has a small circle of supporters and "true believers" he is no doubt bolstered by that in his righteousness.

.

He looks like a rather friendly sociable person, actually. I believe that's a hallmark of many scam artists, statists, pedophiles and some serial murderers (women found Ted Bundy to be "charming"). Yeah, not only are his arguments flawed, but his resorting to name-calling doesn't elevate his arguments. I'm fairly certain that people holding his views with that kind of certainty are disdainful of the "freaks" and wouldn't want to associate with any of them, so even if he has a small circle of supporters and "true believers" he is no doubt bolstered by that in his righteousness.

...
By his definition, i am a freak.
My definition of freak is a bad toupee and a bow tie.

But we need to ban handguns and assault rifles for all but police and military."

The military has a job to do that probably will require any weapons up to nuclear to do it.

Cops do not, and should not have one level of weaponry above what civilians are allowed.  There is nothing about their job that justifies massive overkill capability if politicians truly believe that civilians should not have that imagined capability.

This clown looks like a perverted version of Mr. Rogers. Anyone wanna lay odds that this freak has kiddie porn on his hard drive?

"We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them."
Yeah from my cold dead hand bitch!  Yeah I know Hestonesqe but great quote