Sunday, February 17, 2013

Who Let The Cat Out?

Of the bag, that is.

One of the anti-constitution bills submitted for consideration in the Washington State legislature, this year, requires Police 'Visits' to gun-owner homes each year.

Yeah, this columnist desperately tries to explain it as a mistake, and it was, just not in the way he means.

This mistake, the the quote from the bill's author expose exactly the agenda of those who feel their own beliefs trump any of the meanings of the constitution.

8 comments:

  1. The columnist feels that it may block "common sense" gun regulation. In other words, he want the water to be cold when the frog into is dropped into it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It wasn't a mistake. These people actually think they can get away with home inspections. Oops.

    There isn't a sheriff's deputy in the entire country who will perform this duty.

    That leaves the gun inspection and confiscation task to a fed. A federal agent, steeped in the sociology and cultural diversity classes he was required to take to "earn" his degree in Criminal Justice, may get a reality check.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And now, even more, this time from the 'Justice' Department.

    Beans bouncing and rolling everywhere!

    They admit in this memo that any 'assault weapon' ban would not work without both registration and confiscation. Worse yet, they go farther and say;

    "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. . ."

    So, they are lying, they know they are lying, and they have no intention of letting any truth of the fact that They Are NOT Doing Anything To Reduce Violence, but simply to be sure citizens do not have access to effective weapons, into the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Something to make note of: the "billions of rounds of ammo" story is off by orders of magnitude.

    Donald Sensing used to blog and comment at Winds of Change; I see no reason to doubt him.

    So not crazy-large purchases by DHS, but still large.

    Question: why the shortages of ammo? (Really could just be people stocking up).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lewy, it's not only DHS, and it is not only this year. There have been large purchases by DHS, Social Security(?!?!) NOAA (?!?!) and many other agencies that you would never expect to have armed agents.

    Secret Service, FBI and IRS are easily understandable, but SSA & NOAA?

    ReplyDelete
  6. DWT is right. What does NOAA need with ammo stockpiles?

    I know many people have stocked up on ammo, but with prices doubling or tripling, and supplies limited to small boxes, I can't help but think individual sales have tapered off substantially. Even so, supplies are sparse.

    Guns are still affordable, and don't even make it to the store shelves, from what I've seen first hand. They're uncrated and distributed to a waiting line of buyers. Handguns and semi-auto rifles are in high demand.

    I'm curious; how is the ammo supply where you all live?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. The photographic targets include a young boy, a pregnant woman, a teenaged girl, and a mother with children.

      They cost 99 cents each in bulk.

      The feds have bought nearly $5 million worth.

      So far.

      Delete