Comments

ANTI-GUNNERS PURSUE GRAND SLAM OF HYPOCRISY — No Comments

  1. Yet when called out on their hypocrisy, they shamelessly, categorically deny any wrongdoing. It doesn’t even register on their radar that their own special treatment is an anomaly, even when you spell it out to them. They’re Important so obviously they need armed guards, but that’s totally different from the peasants being allowed to defend themselves from predators. The cognitive disconnect is astounding.

  2. The only thing new here is that the collectivist elite are more in our faces over what’s “good for me but not for thee”. They don’t try to hide it anymore; and why should they, their supporters want to be ruled by these so-called elites. They have always seen themselves as the exception to the policies they wish to impose on the common man (or common woman).

    It’s not now, nor has it ever been about public safety, it has always been about control. Former N.J. State Police superintendant Clinton Pagano best summarized it: “gun control is people control”. Well duh, who can argue with that? Thanks for your honesty COL Pagano! The real “National Conversation” that needs to be had with regard to the relationship between the people and their government is: “Who is serving whom”?

    Hypocricy is only one of the many symptoms that our government, or any other nation’s, for that matter, has become detached from the people they supposedly are elected to serve and become a self-serving end unto themselves.

    Darn, when I stared this reply I didn’t mean to climb up so high on my soap box.

  3. IIRC, Dianne Feinstein made a big show of turning in her revolver to the police chief when San Francisco passed a handgun ban in the early 1980’s. She turned in one gun. She owned two.

  4. What were Lindsay, Feinstein, MDA, the Brady Organization and those brave armed security guards thinking? Don’t they know we are told there is a 20 times greater chance of suicide, accidental death or assault by the gun owner, than the actual use of said gun in a self defense situation? Wouldn’t they all be much safer if they were unarmed and just used their cellphones to summon the police, if and when they come under violent assault? That’s what they expect of us peons. I suppose they are not only above the laws they propose for us, they are also above their own talking points.

  5. Of course those benevolent creatures who advocate reasonable gun control need armed men and women to safeguard them. How can they protect us and our helpless kids if diabolical gun rights fanatics viciously murder them?

  6. I used to believe that the anti-gunners lived in a different world but now I am convinced that it is a different dimension. The idea that one can eliminate a threat by denying a potential victim the right of defense is incomprehensible, at least in my dimension.

  7. I believe I read that the body guards that Bloomberg took with him retired and draw their pensions and are handsomely compensated by Bloomberg.
    His police commissioner retired with him and demanded the city provide him with city paid cops.
    That’s the story I read.

  8. @tc:

    That .38 revolver she turned in was actually given to her by the police for that show. Wasn’t even hers. She packed a .357 Magnum at the time.

    I’ve heard that she gave up her CA permit when she got one of those US Marshall’s Associate’s badges for being a Congresscritter. Lets her pack ANYWHERE in the US, including airplanes.

  9. This is just the usual group that seeks to turn the US of A into a third world hell hole. They see themselves as the .01% who will be the Ghods on Earth running things. Geoff Who has seen it since before the GCA of 1968..

  10. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments expressed, especially regarding the issue of control. With that said, is anyone else’s computer in need of a reboot anytine they click on an Examiner site? With all the pop-up,over.under, and sideways ads, my machne says “Phooey on it”.

  11. Dave in Atlanta, well said! I especially like your statement in paragraph three of your comment, “…become a self-serving end unto themselves.” Reminds you of a self-licking ice cream cone, doesn’t it?

  12. They deny our need for protection from actual predators and brush it off as paranoid lunacy, yet their first response to potential and justified anger from pro-gun groups is to try and match their firepower. Oh, the irony.

    This reminds me of that NY newspaper (Westchester’s Journal News?) that hired armed guards after publishing the names and addresses of legal gun owners to shame them last year. Talk about practicing what you preach. I suppose that by hiring out, instead of taking the means of protection into their own hands, the antis somehow feel they can keep a clear conscience? A pathetic form of magical thinking is what it is.

  13. It is not just who has permits and armed guards, it is what they are armed with. How many times has Pres. Barry read a TelePrompTer about modern sporting rifles belonging, not in America, but in foreign fields of battle? And yet what are his bodyguards armed with? He could take care of that real fast, wouldn’t even take an executive order, just tell the SS agents to toss them all into the next C130 to Afghanistan.

    And the funny thing is, has there ever been an attempt on a President with more than two assailants? Besides the Blair House (two gunmen) all the others have been with one gunman. So, statistically, the SS could take Joe’s advice and just carry double barrel shotguns instead of rifles.

  14. @ Mike – The Examiner site gives me problems also. I don’t have to reboot but it has caused glitches.

  15. “They” certainly have a high opinion of themselves and their inportance to society. Can’t see it myself.

  16. As we nod and agree about all these oh-so-evident truths, these supreme ironies and hypocritical stories, none of it changes the worst truth: the sad truth that they have the deep pockets and media control which provides them with the control of what the majority sees and hears every day. If we really want to educate America, this must change.

  17. These hypocrites feel their lives and families are worth protecting and our lives are not. Always have been this this way.

    Thanks for writing article and exposing this, the more embarrassing exposure the better.

  18. Unfortunately, when these hypocrites call out their armed troops, the left-stream media will accept all their LIES at face value when they claim their enemies are making death threats at them.

  19. @Jack: You said “Thanks for writing article and exposing this, the more embarrassing exposure the better”.

    One of the problems is that they *aren’t* embarrassed.

  20. This article and so many others like it, gives me that familiar feeling in the pit of my stomach.. the nauseating boil of disbelief, anger, and frustration. These domestic enemies of our constitution converting the masses of apathetic Americans onto a bandwagon whose sole mission is infringing on our rights!

    The domestic enemy is this “Two-Headed Totalitarian Nanny-Monster”.. One head is the power hungry elite who simply want more control and know this is the ultimate means; the other head is the hysteria-driven, tragedy exploiting, fact denying “do-gooders” who want everyone to continuously pat them on the back because using their emotion based reasoning – “they care the most!”.

    Their antipathy towards freedom, our constitutional rights, and law abiding fellow American citizens is sickening.

    They gain support somehow when they clearly preach the message: “Guns can only be trusted in the hands of the people we trust (like OUR armed guards), but guns cannot be trusted in the hands of the American public, because, well..WE don’t trust the American public!”

    16 year old’s can be trusted behind the wheel of a car to merge onto a 5-lane highway in rush hour though.. and the imaginary boundaries of dotted white lines can be trusted to keep order between these lanes, that the American public can be trusted to operate thousands of machines side by side at 80mph.

    Guns are the only object held responsible for the actions of people. Automobiles kill many times more people AND INNOCENT CHILDREN than guns do; yet, the two-headed nanny-monster could care less about those deaths.

    Why aren’t they out pushing for all cars to be “governed”? – after all, why do we need cars capable of going 120mph when the speed limit is 65mph? Why aren’t they out pushing for every car to come standard with breathalyzer ignitions to ensure no one commits another DUI car death? Why aren’t they pushing to ban cars all together because the average citizen can’t be trusted, and what reason does a person NEED their own car when there is public transportation?

    Driving is a privilege, with deadly consequences, yet it’s a privilege that is trusted in the hands of even teenage Americans.
    The Second Amendment of our Constitution states that gun ownership and the right of Americans citizens to arm themselves in defense of Country and family, at home or in public, IS A RIGHT. one that shall not be infringed!

    God Bless you all, God Bless America.

    Bryan
    Milford Firearms LLC
    http://nhfirearmsammo.com