Posted on 10/02/2019 8:49:17 AM PDT by Red Badger
On Sept. 25, the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 ½ hour “hearing” entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.”
That framing of the issue underscored the erroneous notion that Americans need protection from inanimate objects, rather than from violent criminals who have and always will use any means at their disposal to harm innocent, defenseless people. It also revealed the unfortunate agenda of the proceedings, which was to emphasize politics and finger-pointing over any useful exploration of how Congress might take meaningful steps to improve public safety, The NRA-ILA reports.
The most startling claim of the proceedings came when Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department in Virginia responded to a question from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) about whether she would support a ban on hunting rifles. “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” Brackney replied.
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) even asked her directly, “Okay, so you then stand for the proposition to ban any type of firearm, because any firearm can be used and misused to kill people.”
Rather than answering the question directly, Dr. Brackney began talking about police and the social contract. Rep. Steube tried asking again, only to be interrupted by an anti-gun committee member who tried to raise a point of order. She claimed that Rep. Steube was “attacking” the witness – when in fact he was merely trying to get a straight answer – and requested that he “tone down his words.” That exchange took up most of Steube’s remaining time for questioning, which was not reinstated.
Again, however, Rep. Steube tried, to clarify, asking, “Any type of weapon … that can be used to kill people should be banned?” “Sir,” Brackney replied, “you’re adding the word ‘type.’ I said ‘any weapons,’ so that’s my answer. Thank you.”
LEGISLATIVE TESTIMONY “Protecting America From Assault Weapons” Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives September 25, 2019 Amy E. Swearer Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies The Heritage Foundation
These are the lies that will be told in the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks—both by Democrats and by moderate Republicans. It is no longer a “conspiracy” that the Democrats are “coming for your guns”, they openly admit it now. They have also learned that President Trump stands in their path, so they have been passing state laws and when certain states refuse they then turn to large companies such as Walmart.
The days of saying, “It will never happen” or “shall not be infringed” are days of the past, because it is happening and horrifically infringed upon.
OK, stand corrected. Even “IT” can pound sand.
Ask an equal number of chiefs of police and Sheriffs about the second amendment and see where the truth resides. Sheriff is a county elected position, chief of police is a municipal appointment/hire. Sheriff (in most cases) takes an oath that includes the Constitution of the United States. Chief of police may include it, but the types of folk being hired can be counted on as political animals (not that Sheriff is not).
This Charlottesville CP is a phd and in a college town. That kinda seals the deal on being a leftwing operative. Would be interesting to see what the Sheriff over that jurisdiction had to say.
Support your local Sheriff!!!
KYPD
Thanks Red Badger.
This has been their goal from the start.
> Then of course thugs probably remember how to make zip guns... there is no end to it. <
The thugs would still be well-armed. No need for zip guns. It would be just like Prohibition. Back then, if you wanted illegal booze, you could get illegal booze.
Only the government can be trusted with guns - Beta O’Rookis
“Okay, so you then stand for the proposition to ban any type of firearm, because any firearm can be used and misused to kill people.” Rather than answering the question directly, Dr. Brackney began talking about police and the social contract. Rep. Steube tried asking again, only to be interrupted by an anti-gun committee member who tried to raise a point of order. She claimed that Rep. Steube was “attacking” the witness – when in fact he was merely trying to get a straight answer – and requested that he “tone down his words.” That exchange took up most of Steube’s remaining time for questioning, which was not reinstated.
“I would suggest that Chief Brackney lead by example, and refuse to carry any guns herself. And that goes for her staff as well. No guns while on duty. No guns while off duty.
They could be like the British police. Just carry a whistle. Come on Chief Brackney, what do you say?”
One might be surprised at the number of officials at that level do, and would recommend just that. At that level they are little more than bureaucrats and office commandos.
Sad but true...no longer law enforcement officers but law enforcement managers.....very detached from actual police work.
KYPD
A police chief with a phd?? What could go wrong.
Educated way beyond their intelligence...................
Tell me, Mr. Police Chiefman, have you figured out how to contain the “shiv” yet?
Pre Crimes division-= arresting people for crimes they ‘might commit someday’
Red flag laws-= anyone with a grudge can turn someone they don’t like, into an instant felon unable to ever own a gun again-
This is no surprise:
Charlottesville Police Department seeing a ‘mass exodus’
Three days in the doghouse for gender violation.
OK, Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department in Virginia, you and your officers first.
If you had as many skeletons in the closet as this criminal masquerading as a police chief you’d want guns banned too.
They've already refused to go after gangs and criminals.
Yup,FOAD;will NEVER comply!
Except for HIS guns
I heard about this action concerning British bobbies not carrying from Robin Williams when he said, “Stop!! Or I’ll say stop again.”
If she’s serious, the first guns that have to go are police. Then the only people that will have them will be criminals and people trying to protect themselves from them since the police don’t want to and can’t as they are outgunned at that point.
They will never reach a stage where criminals will not have them, so if you can’t raise the bridge, lower the river. Allow civilians to protect themselves.
rwood
rwood
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.