That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.If Anderson wins the primary, and then the general election, he will join Democrat Senator Dick Durbin (assuming Durbin also wins in November) as at least the second Illinois congressman to go on record supporting a body armor ban.
As contemptible as the people are who push laws restricting who can own a firearm, what kind of firearm it is, where it can be taken, how much ammunition it can hold, etc., those who would ban purely defensive measures like body armor, who would demand that we the people be perforated by every bullet that comes our way, occupy a level of loathsomeness all their own. [More]
Stumble it!
8 comments:
Maybe they will also try to ban dead-bolt locks and burglar alarms, since you don't need that kind of equipment unless you are planning something "untoward." Besides, locks and alarms might obstruct the Homeland Security S.W.A.T. team when they come to raid your home and confiscate your guns. And/or your TV, laptop, fax machine, typewriter, and whatever else they arbitrarily decide you don't "need."
Maybe when the Republicans regain power, they will ban condoms and birth control pills, since you don't need those unless you plan to do something that the Religious Right would consider "untoward."
Of course, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution are not "the Bill of Needs." The burden of proof is not on citizens to justify owning their own property, it's on the government to justify restrictions. That said, civilians do have a legitimate need for body armor. A lot of gas station attendants and convenience store clerks have faced a weapon more often than a whole precinct of police officers, and in fact have a more dangerous job.
So, is Hosta saying you can own an AR-15 for hunting, but not for defense against a home invasion robbery? Maybe you can own a car for drag racing, but not for driving to work. The whole "sporting purpose" distinction is a divide-and-conquer tactic to get hunters and skeet shooters to abandon the fight. But I've never met a "sportsman" who was gullible enough to fall for it.
Hosta doesn't want "to see a lot" of anti-gun legislation. But it wouldn't take "a lot." One federal law banning the private possession of weapons is all that they need. And they can make the definition of "weapon" vague enough to include whatever they want.
Instead of saying that many gas station attendants and store clerks have "faced a weapon" more often than police have, I should have said that they have "faced an armed criminal" more often than many police officers have. Weapons, by themselves, are just inanimate objects. They are only a danger in the hands of dangerous people.
Once again, the leftists want to protect the inalienable right of paranoids to never see anything that makes them "very nervous." After they ban assault rifles, maybe they can deport or imprison my obnoxious brother-in-law. He gets on my nerves sometimes. ;)
This proves beyond a shadow of doubt what many have been saying for years: they (the statist do-gooders) want us DEAD.
Post a Comment