Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Gun control hypocrisy: Senate Dems

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Dave Workman, Oct 9, 2015.

  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,224
    Likes Received:
    2,390
    INCLUDING WYDEN AND MARKLEY

    Hypocrisy: ‘Dems push gun control surrounded by armed guards’ – Wa Times

    Senate Democrats gathered on the Capitol steps yesterday to call for tougher laws that many believe will further erode the average citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, while they enjoyed protection from more than a dozen Capitol police officers, the Washington Times reported this morning.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/hypocrisy-dems-push-gun-control-surrounded-by-armed-guards-wa-times
     
  2. whiskeybill

    whiskeybill Battle Ground, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    319
    It's encouraging that they live in the same fear that the rest of us do. They just have more money for hired guns. The rest of us have to protect ourselves.
     
    Slobray and Caveman Jim like this.
  3. ChiefStealth

    ChiefStealth Graham, Wa. Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    406
    A friend just sent me this, so I thought I would share.

    defend.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2015
    Slobray, whiskeybill and Caveman Jim like this.
  4. ZA_Survivalist

    ZA_Survivalist Oregon AK's all day.

    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    5,766
    We should have every armorment that law enforcement does. If a civilian cannot own it, nor should a cop.

    When they hide behind armed guards and conspire to disarm the public like this it really does reveal them to be tyrants.
     
  5. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,545
    Likes Received:
    19,869
    The plan to require an FFL for people that sell a certain number of guns is pretty smart, really. We say they're dumb, but really, they're not, they are sneaky and dirty.

    So, let's say they require anyone that sells more than 1 or 2 guns a month to have an 01 FFL. The BATF won't issue an 01 FFL to a private party for personal use. You have to have a business set up, with a business location. In other words, it would be highly restrictive to the average person, and likely, unavailable. And that, is something I think they are fully aware of. I certainly wouldn't expect the BATF to suddenly start issuing 01 FFL's to the average citizen. So, if you sell more than they arbitrarily determine, you'll be violating the law, a law which you can't comply with because you can't get the license they say you need.

    Sneaky rotten turds. We have got to get these people out of office, show them there are consequences for going after our rights.
     
  6. Deebow

    Deebow Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    815
    Slobray, Dyjital and etrain16 like this.
  7. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    Yes, require people who legally trade X number of guns to require a FFL. Because we know that those people are the problem!:rolleyes:

    It's more, "do something, even it it's wrong" politics. They dance in the blood of the victims of violence to placate the emotional. They know damn well that the laws they promote are either already on the books, or would have made no difference in the horrific loss of life events. They give tear jerking speeches to show that they care and are doing something. What a bunch of bull.
     
    Slobray likes this.
  8. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,280
    Likes Received:
    8,997
    Slobray likes this.
  9. Oathkeeper1775

    Oathkeeper1775 Coast Range Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1,370
    One type of hipocracy occurs behind closed doors; like the ACA or quietly gutting the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge act (STOCK) after publicly-signing it into law.

    Another type (the worst?) of hipocracy is in your face.
     
  10. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Ya old bummer is talking we shouldn't have guns from behind a curtain of armed men that protect him. If he really did want to do away with guns he would show leadership and get rid of his first:D.
     
    Slobray likes this.
  11. mkwerx

    mkwerx Forest Grove, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    Maybe we need to push for a law that removes secret service protection for anyone except for the president, and limit that protection to no more than say, 2 body guards at any given moment. No more protection for their family members, no more protection for VP's, congress people, or political candidates... the courts ruled before that it's your own duty to protect yourself - so make it so for the political class as well. Or maybe simply remove the executive protection from the secret service' duties alltogether - the politicians who want protection can pay for private body guards - but those body guards should be forced to abide by federal law, and thus cannot be armed in federal buildings, court houses, schools, etc. The President is a millionaire - when is the last time we have NOT had a millionaire in office? They can surely afford to pay for some protection if it's really needed. The President really doesn't NEED to be surrounded by all those evil guns, right?

    How much money would be saved if the tax payers didn't have to foot the bill for protecting political wonks. How much did Obama's visit to Roseburg screw the tax payers in overtime for police and ems personnel kept on standby? How many agents get sound out on advance teams? Something tells me there's probably at least 30-40 agents involved in such a short trip - and likely more on any international trips...

    If all those agents could go back to their treasury duties - chasing down counterfeiters and keeping the US currency "safe" - we could lay off 2/3 of the secret service no doubt. And we wouldn't need all the uniformed Fed Protective Services police if we stopped protecting the damn politicians. Maybe, as a "gimme" we could let them use unarmed TSA agents to man the doors to places like the capitol and the white house. Those guys are sooooo good, if the safety of the flying public can be left to them, then surely the safety of a handful of politicians can be left to them too. Equal protection under the law damnit!

    Our founders have to be spinning in their graves.
     
    Slobray likes this.
  12. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Men armed in vehicles everywhere, snipers on the rooftops, helicopter over the crowd, two marine ospreys, unmarked vehicles full of guards, armed marines on the landing field and a heavily armored vehicle to ride in yet he doesn't think we should have a gun to protect ourselves. Hipocrit.
     
  13. Diamondback

    Diamondback A cold, wet green Hell Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,926
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    I'm gonna let y'all in on the Dirty Little Secret of Executive Protection services, as someone who used to be in the field... most of the people who require such services have done something nasty unto someone and are hiring others to try to stand in Karma's way.

    I left the profession because while my first and only Principal was an innocent, eventually staying in would mean having to take blood-money and potentially trade my life for that of someone the world might be better off without.