CBS Sacramento: A federal court has rejected a challenge to California’s gun safety law, possibly paving the way for a requirement that new guns mark the bullets they fire so they can be traced. The ruling on Wednesday was a defeat for two gun rights groups that argued the Unsafe Handgun Act violated the constitutional right to bear arms. The law prohibits the manufacture or sale in California of any gun that doesn’t meet certain safety requirements. It was aimed at outlawing cheap [read more]
Addressing President Obama’s planned announcement on measures to reduce gun violence tomorrow, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made a comment that raised some eyebrows both inside the briefing room and on Twitter.
Carney pushed the president’s plan for action over the status quo, paraphrasing a comment Obama made at his press conference yesterday as “if even one child’s life can be saved by actions taken in Washington, we must take these actions.”
Veteran CBS News Washington Correspondent Mark Knoller was the first to quote Carney’s statement on Twitter and it quickly garnered a barrage of outrage from conservatives who took exception.
Then came the demands to ban football, cars, and so on. The twitter posts briefly point out what a hypocritical fake that whole argument is (along with the people who make it).
If a child’s life (or an adult’s life) is worth regulation and disarmament, then disarm the police. After all, poor Mr. Eurie Stamps was killed by a SWAT officer who stumbled over his prone body while (the officer’s) finger was on the trigger of his weapon, causing sympathetic muscle reflex to shoot his weapon, thus killing innocent Mr. Stamps. Mr. Stamps isn’t the only innocent human victim who has been killed by police. Dogs also die by the score in SWAT raids across America as a routine practice by police. They simply couldn’t care less.
Oh, you say, but it has to be different for law enforcement officers?
Those kinds of guns are made to kill people, and no one should be killing people, except in the line of duty.
But why should anyone kill anyone else in the line of duty? Has this author read the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee versus Garner? Law enforcement officers can only shoot in self defense, i.e., to save their lives. Use of weapons to enforce the law isn’t allowed.
So the author is only allowing shooting in the line of duty, and duty only includes self defense. Does that mean that it applies to me too? I see self defense as my religious duty. God requires it of me.
In reality, following their arguments to their logical conclusions isn’t in the game plan. They aren’t interest in your safety. That argument is fake, and they quickly give it up when challenged. They’re only interested in allowing government-sanctioned violence. They don’t want to admit it, but they’re Fascists. So the next time you read another advocacy commentary for gun control in the name of your safety, make a mental note of that person as a complete fraud and dismiss it as another Fascist attempt to fake his way through the issue.