1 - 10 Next
They don't realize that we hate what Obama stands for philosophically, just as we hate what these media useful idiots stand for philosophically - because it's the same anti-American progressive philosophy.
The concept IS a good idea. The world, with the sole exception of the United States, has a top-down monopoly on lethal force. In the UK, for example, not only can't a citizen (subject, rather) own a gun, one cannot use lethal force (or any force, for that matter) to defend oneself. That is NUTS. In the United States, although there has been political bastardization of the Bill of Rights overall and the 2nd Amendment in particular, unfettered access to small arms for general public use that are capable of being used in militia service is guaranteed, IN WRITING. Printable weapons are the perfect hedge against government/s ultimate usurpation of the right. As such, we must insist that the government keep its intrusive nose OUT of this issue.
Serves 'em right fer lookin' like Popeye.
There is no way to empower this nonsense without circumventing due process, which requires an adjudication from a court of law, adhering to well-established rules, disabling the right ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. Translation: it is patently unconstitutional.
They DO allow carrying guns in their restaurants, and so does (still) Starbucks. What they frown on is open carry. What we need is a T-shirt that reads, "I'm carrying a gun, but you can't see it, so NYA!" That way, one can carry and still shove it in the faces of the Moms Stuck At That Time Of The Month.
I don't understand the compulsion to open carry, although I believe that it's a fundamental right. Just carry a concealed handgun and be done with it. If folks would do that instead of this high-profile agitation, the Moms Demand Everybody Go Unarmed couldn't claim this kind of "victory". Neither this restaurant nor Starbucks disallow licensed concealed carry in their establishments, so all the Moms accomplished was making the gun rights advocates keep it in their pants instead of wagging it around in public. But they can still claim a propaganda victory, which is in itself propaganda.
Yo, Marin. "Just like the handgun used to kill that 14-year-old girl once was. Legal." Here's a clue: It is not 'legal' for 14-year-olds to possess handguns, and it is not 'legal' to shoot someone with the sole exception of stopping them from committing a violent felony. Since the overwhelming, vast, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious majority of adults who keep and bear handguns do not commit violent felonies, you haven't the legitimate power to deny them their rights because an infinitesimal percentage of the population does. Here's another clue: Wilson was wrong. Individual rights trump government primacy.
In response to:

The “Assault Weapon” Rebellion

bhirsh Wrote: Apr 13, 2014 1:30 PM
You're right. Smugness is inappropriate. However, two things are worthy of note: 1) There are 80+ million gun owners in America; if only 10% of them took up arms, that is a militia of EIGHT MILLION, and the government is all-too-aware of that. 2) Although there are undoubtedly other factors at work, Bunkerville facially illustrated the principle of the Second Amendment at work.
If this isn't wild-eyed rabid totalitarian thought, then nothing is.
As long as the people of RI (and NY, NJ, CT, MA etc.) are so STOOPID as to elect Democrats, they inherit the corrupt government they DESERVE. The unfortunate collateral damage is to those patriots who wouldn't vote for a Democrat if their daughter's life depended on it. You know. REAL Americans....?
1 - 10 Next