Posted on 09/13/2014 9:27:30 AM PDT by rktman
In a stunning op-ed released Friday, the NY Times finally admitted that “assault weapons” are a made-up political term fabricated by anti-gun Democrats.
Op-ed writer Lois Beckett also admitted that once the term was manufactured and used to outlaw a class of weapons that dishonest anti-gun Democrats had used to con an entire nation, nothing happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
WHEW ..!!! You mean somebody found their brain .. after sitting on it all these years ..????????
I think you wonder correctly.
“Once rights are abolished by government, they will never be re-instated.”
You don’t debate rights ... you exercise them. And you do whatever is necessary to those who would deny you those rights.
Is this it? I guess it’s supposed to run tomorrow looking at the date.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
That looks like another op-ed “myth” piece. This is not what I cited at #49. Click on my link at #49 and you’ll get this old NYT article that apparently is the one that started all the “assault weapon myth” opinion articles that followed:
Rifle Used in Killings, America’s Most Popular, Highlights Regulation Debate
By ERICA GOODE
Published: December 16, 2012
This NYT article did present pro & con arguments for so-called “assault weapons” control but certainly did not admit the term “assault weapon” is a myth.
“Some adults who avoided pot only because it was illegal will have smoked pot that they otherwise wouldn’t have - and the millions who already smoke it despite its illegality will have no longer given that money to criminals.”
And they’ll all set home and stare at their navel, because they will be fired for failing a whiz-quiz.
Nope. Just in the header. All meaningless drivel in any case. We know what’s right and they think they know what’s right for us. Unfortunately, they’re wrong.
>If or when gun rights are taken from the people, it will be up to us or a future generation to take them back.<
.
It will be up to us to keep them — a future generation will be unable to take them back.
Do you have an historical example of a society that decided to acquire gun rights and succeeded to do so?
The people in the UK and Australia lost their gun rights.
I doubt that they will ever get the right to bear arms back, especially today when they are needed to protect themselves while they are surrounded by ISIS terrorists.
An example is our Social Security system where, in most cases, the recipient does not get back what he contributed?
Rights can not be abolished by a government. They can only be abridged.
You yourself posted the evidence that fewer than half of U.S. workplaces test.
Oh. I doubt it too. I was trying to emphasize that the right to arms will need be taken (i.e. by force).
And yes, an unarmed or a very lightly armed civilian population stands very little chance in taking that right back from an armed government. The slippery slope eventually leads to North Korea.
No. I am not aware of any instance in history where a people have been able to secure the right to arms. That’s why I qualified my statement by saying that “it was not a very easy or likely thing to do.”
Indeed, what good is SS once we have no rights nor means to be able to enforce it?
The whole machine is run by other actors than us.
It is a potemkin social justice defense budget.
the defence budget should allocate for militaries retirements and things like this, now it is syphoned off, Russian/Soviet Oligarche style whereby Russian veterans are starving despite all the Putin pretense of taking care of them by stealing from Westerners territories.
Then you got antigun billionaires like. Bill Gates who should use the money like Howard Hughes for defense and instead squander it in policies favoring narco terrorists, illegals etc... Giving charity aid to enemy military front groups and anticivilizations.
We are run by a bunch of little peace nick shts who have too much money from trade and legal tricks.
He he he.
Assault is a verb not an adjective.
Top one half of one percent of earners they said. Only temporary they said. How many decades later...
“You yourself posted the evidence that fewer than half of U.S. workplaces test.”
Huh? I don’t know of anyplace that doesn’t. Burger doodle perhaps, or a law firm?
Most test because their insurance carrier requires it for lower rates.
Huh? I don’t know of anyplace that doesn’t.
Then you don't read the links you post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3185886/posts?page=51#51
That isn’t a link I posted, but it’s obvious you didn’t read it.
“And, in a survey of 342 large firms (that
is, firms that have more than 200 workers) in the
State of Georgia, Terry Blum, and others report
that 77 percent of the companies engaged in some
type of drug testing between 1991 and 1992.”
77% were testing 22 years ago, far more are testing now. That article/study/link is from 1996, hardly up to date info.
More comments here.
Yes it was - just click that post's To 50 link.
but it’s obvious you didn’t read it.
“And, in a survey of 342 large firms (that is, firms that have more than 200 workers) in the State of Georgia, Terry Blum, and others report that 77 percent of the companies engaged in some type of drug testing between 1991 and 1992.”
77%
Of large firms. In Georgia. The nationwide all-firms figures in table 1 of the .pdf are lower.
were testing 22 years ago, far more are testing now.
There's no evidence on the table for your claim.
That article/study/link is from 1996, hardly up to date info.
Feel free to post more current info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.