The personal thoughts and comments of Gene, "The Aggie."

Use any information found here at your own risk. I am not responsible for the consequences of your use, misuse or abuse, of this information. I do not advocate or condone violence except for lawful protection of life, liberty and, in very limited cases, property. Nothing included in this site is to be taken as legal advice.


NOTE:
"The Aggie" neither controls or
endorses the sites that Google displays in this ad bar.

'Gun-Free Zones' are only gun-free, until somebody brings a gun. - Unknown

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

CCRKBA Says April 16 'Lie-Ins' Are For Lyin' Anti-Gunners

H/T to Keep And Bear Arms DOT Com.


"Gun control fanatics will use this event to lobby for gun show legislation, waiting periods and whatever else they think the public wants to hear," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "when in fact, Virginia Tech is the text book example of how stringent gun laws utterly fail to prevent such shootings, and exacerbate them by making it impossible for the victims to fight back and defend themselves.

"Gun grabbers suggest that closing a mythical 'gun show loophole' will prevent such crimes," he noted, "but Cho didn't purchase his guns at a gun show. He bought both pistols at gunshops, after passing background checks and waiting the mandatory 30 days between purchases. Steven Kazmierczak, the Northern Illinois University shooter, bought all of his guns at one gun shop. He passed background checks and had a required Firearms Owners Identification Card. These killers obeyed every applicable law - laws pushed by the gun ban lobby - yet they now tell us that these laws weren't enough. Their laws failed. Their entire philosophy has been a monumental failure. It is time for America to turn its back on this dangerously deceptive ideology. (Emphasis Added - Gene)
Are gun-grabbers just muddled in their thought processes or are they actually malicious? Let's see if we can sort things out.

  • MUDDLED:
    Most anti-gunners that I have met seem to have accepted their philosophy at a young age & never questioned it. Of course, the ones I'm thinking of are middle-aged and left-leaning in their politics. Others have allowed a tragedy they experienced, or observed, or heard about, or read about, or . . . to formulate their beliefs concerning the utility of inanimate objects and their use.

    The only exception, to my knowledge, is conservative in the political realm. She stated she was simply "afraid" of guns. As in a phobia. Non-rational fear of an inanimate object. She could discuss guns. Even admitted firing one at least once - it was not a traumatic experience she said. However, the mere thought that a gun was somewhere nearby sent her into mild twitching. OK, not really "twitching" but obviously uncomfortable and nervous about the existence of a gun in her presence. In other words, knowing that a lawful concealed carry licensee was in her field of presence disturbed her. Didn't matter that the instrument in question was never visible at any time! Go figure! Since she and her husband were well-respected in our church, our pastor told us to leave the weapons at home and we had no desire to harm our friend, we left that church immediately. By the way, Texas law says if any one responsible for an area notifies, in any way, a licensee that he/she is unwanted, they must remove the offending inanimate object. That, we did.
  • MALICIOUS:
    Now, our politicians, Teddy Kennedy, Chucky Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Clinton (both of them!), Barack Hussein Obama and even John McCain, have carefully thought out agendas designed to remove access to all of the "boxes" from the people. I'm of course referring to:
    o - The Jury Box
    o - The Ballot Box
    o - The Cartridge Box

    I'm certain some (Most? All?) of our pols don't think we need one or more of the three foundational boxes of American society. However, we the people must disagree with them and re-educate them as to their responsibilities to we the people.

    In addition, who is qualified to determine if a weapon is appropriate in a given situation? An attorney in Washington D.C? One in Austin? One in Houston? Where the h . . . is he/she when the brown stuff hits my oscillating blades? You know that answer!

Call the cops? Have you tried that lately? I have no beef with the police force here are anywhere else. They work hard, they try hard and they almost always do a good job - of investigating. They apprehend the perpetrators - after the fact. They can not legally, or practically, prevent crime committed on your, or my, person. They just aren't going to be there. However, you and I are going to be there whenever a crime is committed on ourselves. Who do you think is responsible for your security?

Please rethink your personal security!

No comments:

Popular Posts