Media Matters is a left wing organization that rides Obama's dick and pretends to be objective. They are vehemently anti gun and pro gun control. This is yet another example of how liberal elites view themselves as above the law and their own rhetoric. This anti gun guy had his minions carrying guns to protect him that were illegal.
So liberals want to ban private security now? No one wants to take away your right to protect yourself, or your right to hire someone to protect you.
No but this guy is preaching more gun control when he, himself can't even be bothered to follow the laws on the books. This stinks of liberal hypocrisy. And we all know the left would ban ccl nationwide in a heartbeat if they could.
^^ this wasn't mentioned in the OP at all.. it was more about the gun control advocate who knowingly allows his security people to use illegal handguns to protect him. nothing to do with banning private security or taking ones right to protection away.. (unless there was talk of that in the article that i didn't read?)
The Weekly Standard reports that the elected representatives aiming to infringe on citizens' right to self-defense have exempted themselves from gun control legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Nowadays, those of America's self-imagined ruling class are acting more like aristocrats than servants of the people. 2nd Amendment for Some: Feinstein's Gun Control Bill Exempts Government Officials Independent Journal Review I'd be willing to bet good money exemptions for the rich & hollywood elite will be added later.
No one is trying to take away your right to own guns. If that's what you believe, then you are buying into the false narrative neocons have invented.
No one is literally taking away guns yet. But slowly over time we are being limited to pointlessness. Eventually we could end up like Canada or Australia if we keep making small gun control measures
Not all of them, but a large portion of them. Including ordinary semi-auto handguns. We have what's called the "Safe Handgun Roster", which means manufacturers have to build guns specifically to CA standards, such as a "loaded chamber indicator", then submit 3 working versions to the state, and pay a fee every year to keep that particular gun on the roster. Minor changes, including the COLOR of the firearm, require a resubmission, and another extortion fee. So if a manufacturer offers the same firearm in 2 different finishes, they must submit 6 guns and pay 2 separate fees for each one. Most new handguns are not eligible to even be submitted, because they do not have the CA-specific "safety features". As technology advances, manufacturers cannot afford to keep old models on the list, and are not retooling their plants to make CA-specific weapons. This means whole manufacturers will eventually be banned in CA. If Glock were to stop producing their Gen-3 models, Glocks could not be sold by CA dealers. The only way to get a Glock is for an out-of-stater to move here and sell their already owned Glock. Law Enforcement is allowed to purchase these "unsafe" guns, of course. As far as carrying firearms goes, CA is a "may issue" state. You have to prove "good cause" to your local sheriff or police chief. Most of the counties only consider being a politician or celebrity as "good cause". There's only a handful of licensed carriers in my entire county. And onto current legislation. CA already has an "assault weapons" ban. There are a few thousand people who owned "assault weapons" before the ban, and thus were grandfathered in, if they registered them. A bill has been introduced this session to remove that grandfathering, and require all registered "assault weapons" to be destroyed, or turned in. AB 174 Bill Text - AB-174 Weapons: grandfather clauses. So yes, they ARE trying to take guns, and it's not a neocon false narrative.
Irrelevant as the great and wise AW said before me, he was violating laws he lobbied for. He is obviously part of the elite who support laws that restrain the average joe's rights but who believe they are above such laws. If he was a gun rights advocate and had broke the law I would not have posted this because that would be ideologically consistent the guy like most liberals is a hypocrite.
How does one guy breaking the law equal representative of "liberal" thought? How do THEY think they are above the law, because of this individual's actions? How are MOST LIBERALS hypocrites because of this incident? Are liberals running to his defense? I mean, you wouldn't want to spout of baseless rhetoric - you made that clear in your first post - so please, enlighten me.
[quote name='"Penelope420"'] How does one guy breaking the law equal representative of "liberal" thought? How do THEY think they are above the law, because of this individual's actions? How are MOST LIBERALS hypocrites because of this incident? Are liberals running to his defense? I mean, you wouldn't want to spout of baseless rhetoric - you made that clear in your first post - so please, enlighten me.[/quote] ^^^this is how we feel when ANYTHING about abortion comes up. One person can say they are going to make a bill and your all over that shit.
What the fuck does this even mean? Examples? David Brock isn't a politician, he's not a representative of the people, and he hasn't proposed any bills. He's a journalist.
[quote name='"Penelope420"'] What the fuck does this even mean? Examples? David Brock isn't a politician, he's not a representative of the people, and he hasn't proposed any bills. He's a journalist.[/quote] Sorry I'm not going to go on an abortion thread search for your posts especially since I'm on my phone. My point is that in those threads you blow things out of proportion and they are ALWAYS trying to take away YOUR rights.