Who thinks the Bloods, the Crips, the Latin Kings, MS-13, Vatos Locos, the 18th Street Gang and all the others will have their activities curtailed in the slightest?
It may turn out that Weinstein does not personally own any firearms and relegates the task of carrying them (in places “ordinary” citizens may not) to bodyguards (but I wouldn’t bet on it).
…nothing they demand will have the slightest impact on the violence that their own policies and edicts make inevitable.
…where is the consolidated itinerary of cities, locations, dates and times, and is withholding that information intentional?
Ladies, these people really don’t want you armed. And there’s no shortage of shrill, ignorant women who agree.
If they’re going to mandate we get approval from their system, it’s on them to make sure adequate resources are allocated to rectify errors.
The shameful level of subject matter ignorance is hardly new.
“The [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] scheme is fatally flawed,” Savage demonstrates.
AMA meddling to undermine a fundamental right is nothing short of malpractice.
Unable (yet) to attain their goals by force, they resort to fraud via professional propagandists.
This was clearly a damaged, a violent, and of relevance, a guilty young man, and as we’ve seen in similar cases, the government knew about him.
No semi-automatic handguns or rifles were involved. No so-called “assault weapons”…
Divided we fall, and they’re doing their part to separate and then push.
Rosenthal knows that ignorance leads to bigotry and fear, and that those in turn lead to hatred and a demand that “something must be done.”
Plus, why would he want to let the women have an equalizer?
They’re just doing this to try and embarrass NRA, and to smear the Association and its members as racists who don’t care about the plight of non-whites.
Any manufacturer who continues to supply Dick’s with anything firearms-related is choosing to give them aid and comfort.
These are precisely the measures gun owner rights advocates should expect from manufacturers.
Like “gun control,” it’s basically about driving a narrative and attendant actions with emotions rather than with verifiable facts.
It was done for no other apparent reasons than Kashuv disagreeing with prevailing “progressive” sentiment on guns.
Think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers.
If someone is proven to be a danger, the only way to protect society is to keep him away from the rest of us for as long as he remains a threat.
Naturally, media bias against guns and for the rampant cultural terraforming that threatens to politically eradicate “legal” ownership will be the standard for “right thinking”…
Can such in common use at the time arms contribute to the common defense?
But he wants to expand infringements and punishments to be applied to prior restraints that have nothing to do with harmful actions.