How Will Holder Start Rounding Up New York Guns?

The strategy will probably be identical to what his buddy Janet did in Waco.

Holder will pick an individual or group of gun confiscation holdouts, and start a media blitz explaining that these people have illegal weapons and are an immediate threat to their community. Then they will go in with the storm troopers and kill a group of law abiding citizens.

The press will of course go along with it, and thank Obama and Holder for murdering law abiding Americans and destroying the Bill of Rights.

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to How Will Holder Start Rounding Up New York Guns?

  1. kbray in california says:

    “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

    That quote further clarifies the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and the intention of the Second Amendment for those who desire to corrupt it.

  2. M>C> says:

    Two simple questions–a yes or no will do:
    1. Background checks–yes or no?
    2. Any one can buy any weapon any time–yes or no?

    • You are spamming and will be dealt with accordingly if you keep it up.

      No one I know has ever purchased a gun without passing a Federal background check, and I know a lot of people who own guns..

      Now stay on topic or you are banned.

      • M>C> says:

        A 1994 telephone survey on private gun ownership conducted by the Police Foundation and funded by the Justice Department: The survey asked the 251 participants who had acquired guns in the previous two years, “Was the person you acquired this gun from a licensed firearm dealer?” The answer choices were “yes,” “probably was/think so,” “probably not,” “no/definitely not,” “don’t know” and refuse to report. Cook and Ludwig found that 64.3 percent of those surveyed (Table 3.14) said that they had purchased or traded for a gun that came from a licensed dealer or “probably” did. The 40 percent figure comes from assuming that the remaining 35.7 percent — which has been rounded up — did not.
        Time for a new survey, I think.
        33 states require no background checks at gun shows. Florida varies by county.

      • What does this have to do with New York and John Holder?

        This is 2013, not 1994. It is much harder to get a gun now.

        Neither Holmes nor Lanza would have been stopped by Obama’s laws.

        A security guard would have stopped them. Instead of purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, Obama could have hired security guards. AR-15 ammo is a dollar a round.

        Try using your brain. Americans are not giving up their guns.

    • Your goal is to ban rifle sales.

      • M>C> says:

        33 states require no background checks at gun shows. Florida varies by county.
        Columbine High School had two guards, one armed.

      • Columbine High school had no security guards in the school. There was a sheriff eating lunch in the front parking lot in his car, as the killers walked in the back door and started killing people.

        That is not security, that is malfeasance.

        I’m really tired of your off-topic BS. You don’t give a shit about protecting children, you are just another fascist.

      • kirkmyers says:

        Background checks are virtually worthless. They don’t stop criminals from acquiring guns, but they do make it difficult for anyone else to buy a weapon. Such laws are also dangerous. Why? Because they permit the government to gather information that can be used to create a national database of gun owners. Such a database in the hands of a tyrant like Obama could eventually be used by his Department of Homeland Security Blueshirts to confiscate everyone’s firearms. We must fight every attempt by the government to create a list of gun owners via “universal background checks” or any other similar legislation.

    • methylamine says:

      You seem to be asking this question hoping for the negative on the first, the affirmative on the second–and gleefully rubbing your soft chubby hands together anticipating them. You’ll then no doubt pounce–A HA!–and cry “discredited!”

      But you see, it won’t work. Because those answers are correct, if you love freedom and abhor tyranny. Those answers (no,yes) were the default position when this country was great, and free, and prosperous; when its foreign policy hewed to “…friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”

      You may not even fully realize it; but you’re on the side of tyrants.

      I would rather have ten thousand violent criminals heavily armed roaming the streets, than a disarmed populace and a heavily armed government. If you knew history, you’d think the same; because historically, governments are many orders of magnitude more dangerous than criminals. No scratch that–they ARE criminals, with the distinction of having people like you supporting them.

      I’ll repost my other reply to you in case you miss it, so you can parade my “extremist” answer in front of your statist friends:
      No background checks.
      Yes any weapon.

      It is axiomatic;
      a) peaceful people use their weapons–ANY weapons, including my vicious-looking Barrett 50 caliber rifle–for peaceful and defensive purposes.
      b) lawless people use their weapons for lawless purposes–and obtain those weapons regardless of the “law”.

      Therefore, it is incumbent on the lawful to protect themselves against the lawless, with the best available tools.

      “Background checks” are a joke. Those who fail them, and desire a weapon, will obtain it by other means. Those who pass them have created a convenient record for criminals in government–a much more lethal sub-class–to confiscate lawful peoples’ weapons

      Clear enough for you?

      • Hugh K says:

        When/If the left ever demands a national database for those having abortions, I might consider a national database for legal gun owners. With the left, taking away citizen’s rights is all about the children….except when it comes to abortion. Scalpels have caused far more mass murder of children in this country than guns; yet, strangely, the left supports abortion on demand with zero transparency. Hypocrites all!!!

        BTW – Barrett 50 cal…..nice

    • Hugh K says:

      Two simple questions–a yes or no will do:
      1. Background checks for abortions –yes or no?
      2. Any one can buy any abortion at any time–yes or no?

  3. BC says:

    M>C>, how are those gun-confiscation/background checks/bans working in all of your liberal shitholes around the country? Which areas have the worst murder rates? (I’ll give you a hint: They’re not in “Shall Issue” states and areas where law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves.) Do you really think that someone who is determined to commit a mass murder is going to give two shits about acquiring their means ( be it firearms, explosives, etc.) through official channels? Take your National Democratic Socialist Workers Party bullshit and shove it directly back up your ass. Your brain will enjoy the company.

  4. darwin says:

    This “M>C>” person is extremely ignorant of history, has no idea why the United States was founded, and is naïve to the point of idiocy.

    The sole reason to take away guns is to protect elite leftists. Leftist policies eventually become extremely unpopular, especially as leftists become wealthier and more powerful .. and the rest of us grow poorer and weaker. Leftists ensure their safety by disarming the public. Once disarmed they can feel free to “fundamentally transform America” without fear.

  5. gator69 says:

    If I am not mistaken, they have already set up neighbor against neighbor, with a gun snitch program.

    Nudge.

  6. Made in Manhattan says:

    There’s no love lost for (Eric) Holder in NYC after the ridiculous plan to try KSM downtown. Not to mention the drone controversy. But…..do you have any evidence for the charge you’re making? Crime in NYC is lower than it’s been in decades.

  7. Hugh K says:

    You’ve just got to get out of Manhattan more often – March 22,2012 — Gun Violence Dips in Manhattan Despite Citywide Rise — Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120322/harlem/gun-violence-dips-manhattan-despite-citywide-rise#ixzz2PEJCkC6M

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s