Absolutely! I’m sure the criminals will comply! Problem solved.
Background checks for sexual predators in the schools? Heck no! ( Not important.)
Taking guns away from the law abiding? That's the Progs most important issue. ( And.. people wonder why liberalism is a mental disorder?)
1) Well, as soon as the president submits to one...
2) You mean laws prevent crimes? That gun-free school zone worked so well in Littleton, Colorado last week.
3) Isn’t insanity the act of doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result?
When you’re out of new ideas, just reboot old ones that didn’t work.
What’s that definition of insanity again?
And the definition of insanity is - to keep doing the same thing over and over, in hopes that THIS time, it will work.
Background checks are not particularly effective, but they do serve to provide an obstacle in the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Simply calling some program a “background check” does not assure that the probable factors that lead to misuse of firearms are or may be considered. Some very slight misdemeanors are considered to be a “threat”, while other peculiarities are totally overlooked. Mostly, these things are instituted because of a total misunderstanding of what the concept of self-defense involves.
The police force is not and cannot be the personal guardian of each one of us. They can pursue and capture criminals, but they cannot prevent the commission of a crime, except in very rare and exceptional circumstances. Self-defense is the first and sometimes only line of defense.
There are other and perhaps mostly effective forms of self-defense, the primary objective is to discourage or disable the potential attacker. Not all forms of self-defense involve use of a firearm, but there has to be some means of regaining superiority over the attacker.
And if that is a .38 slug through the heart, so be it.
Okay so a bunch of women want to infringe our rights, I mean Bloomberg and other women.
Cops in New York Using Gun Classifieds Site ARMSLIST To Trap Gun Owners? Maybe.
December 24 2013
by Dan Cannon
Share This Post
This interesting post on ARMSLIST was brought to our attention by a reader.
Here is the text from the ad, posted from an anonymous account (spelling errors part of original post),
BEWARE THERES A SCUMBAG ON HERE SELLING MULTIPLE CALS IN ROCHESTER AND SURROUNDING AREAS!! THIS SCUMBAG AGREED TO MEET THEN I WAS SURROUNDED BY POLICE. THEY SIMPLY INTERIGATED ME AND CHECKED MY PERSONALS. THEY ARE ROUNDING UP GUN OWNERS TO SEE WHAT YOUR BUYING AND WHAT YOU MAY BE FEEDING,ALONG WITH RECORDING YOUR VEHICLE INFORMATION WHICH LEADS TO RESIIDENCE… THIS GUY HAS MANY POSTINGS OF FIREARMS AND RANTING POSTS I ASSUME TO BLEND IN WITH THE CROWD. THESE COMMUNISTS PIGS ARE GETTING SMARTER EVERYDAY! DONT BUY AMMO ON ARMS LIST UNLESS ITS FROM A REPUTABLE DEALER. IF YOU PICS OF AMMO CANS OR BOXES OF AMMO TAKEN OFF THE INTERNET…STAY AWAY. MY ENTIRE NIGHT WAS WASTED AND NOW THEY HAVE MY PERSONAL INFO ..I REPEAT DO NOT BUY FROM THESE CLOWNS THERE RECORDING EVERYONE TO STRIP YOU IN THE FUTURE AND ARREST NON COMPLIANT AND REGISTERED ARMS AS FOR THE GUY POSTING THESE ROT IN HELL.
Hmmm, definitely interesting to say the least.
On some level it seems to make sense if you want to catch gun owners with unlicensed guns in a state with registration.
Remember, New York has a gun registry. Attempting to buy 9mm ammo but the only gun you have registered is a .45. Could that be enough for cops to search your home? In pretty much every other state I’d say absolutely not, but remember this is New York we’re talking about.
It was widely reported a couple of weeks ago that New York City residents had started receiving surrender/confiscation notices about long guns that might be illegal under city law, so perhaps there is a state wide crack down on guns.
Of course, we have no way to verify whether this post is true or if it’s just some classic interwebz trolling.
The fastest and surest way to Create Criminal Thugs is to increase the amount of SINGLE MOTHERS, Shouldn’t their focus be on Banning SINGLE MOTHERHOOD???