Empty NRA criticism
After watching the talking heads asking “Why do we need assault rifles?” — it should be obvious. I will use David Gregory of “Meet the Press” badgering NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre as an example.
Mr. LaPierre was trying to use common sense in explaining that gun-free zones are an invitation for psychopaths to prey on schoolchildren and that a trained armed officer is the best deterrent for stopping these evil people. But politicians like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein piled on, citing “gun control” as the only alternative. Their motives are strictly political. They know armed people are a threat to their goal of total government control.
The aforementioned senators were part and parcel to the violation of our Posse Comitatus Act along with Attorney General Janet Reno when law enforcement used “armored vehicles” to incinerate 80 Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993. Prior to that, three people were killed in August 1992 at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, for being white separatists. Both accounts are called “tyranny” — and that is why we as citizens need to be armed.
By the way, no citizen owns an “assault rifle.” That is just a term to scare the uninformed into agreeing with the erosion of the U.S. Constitution.
President Obama just won a second term largely by using class envy to continue to divide and conquer this nation. He promised the “have-nots” the wealth of the “haves,” knowing he can influence popular opinions and votes that way. Roughly half of the population does not care about trading “liberty” for security. Hence, they unwittingly become enablers to destroy the Constitution.
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.