So this Georgia lawmaker, State Rep. Erica Thomas, went on Tucker Carlson in defense right after the first March for Our Lesser Rights Lives rallies and rightfully took the kids to task for not understanding that complex problem do not have simple answers. He had a simple question: what would happen in Georgia if a law she supported went into effect? That law, supported by Thomas, mandated that Georgia State Police were to go and seize all “assault weapons” (obligatory reminder: there is no such thing as its a made up Progressive political term) and “high” capacity magazines.
She proves, once again, that you cannot trust what politicians say but what they do. She spends the entire time avoiding Carlson’s rather simple and straightforward question: what would happen and aren’t people going to get killed over this. She would not admit to the “seize” part means mandatory confiscation and would not admit that anything wrong would happen. She kept sidestepping and could not be honest about what she wanted to do. This Progressive was all set in declaring, without any due process, that law abiding citizens were to be declared criminals with the signing of a piece of paper just like Deerfield, Illinois (here and here) has done with Boulder, Colorado now looking to do the same.
I’m going to apply this rule to Steve Marchand, too; he’s running to be the next Democrat Governor here in NH. His gun control policy (note to Steve: you’re not about gun “reform”, are you?)? I have no intention on believing him on anything concerning his incremental “I’m not here to take away your guns or the Second Amendment”. Nope, no truth in him at all from my perspective as he’s just the guy swabbing the grease on the proverbial slippery slope to confiscation. After all, Democrats fought for “Civil Unions” for homosexuals stating that’s all they wanted. Yeah, sure – that lasted right up until they had majorities in the NH House and Senate and held the Governor’s office. They lied. And Marchand will prove me right as being a liar-in-the-future if he gets elected:
Ban on military-style semi-automatic weapons
In most mass shootings, AR-15s, or other military-style semi-automatic weapons, are the weapon of choice. They are designed to kill humans quickly, and can easily fire 30 to 60 shots per minute. Ideally, such a ban would occur at the federal level, as it did until the law expired in 2004. However, in light of the unique level of mass shootings in America, a growing number of states are taking the matter into their own hands while urging the federal government to act.
Notice the wording – he deliberately makes it ambiguous about HOW he would ban it but mark my words – it won’t be just a ban on the sale of modern sporting rifles, he will confiscate them. He will – don’t doubt me. I just wonder if he has the courage to admit it. I also if he will, as some others are trying to do, try to ban semi-automatic pistols as well – after all, they are used for the vast majority of shootings.
I do wonder, however, if he knows the actual breakdown on shooting statistics. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he does – which would make him a liar for trying to gin up fear against semi-automatic rifles.
In that case, we all need to be Mark Robinsons – after all, is Marchand, a paragon of “diversity” going to go against a black man? After all, don’t African-Americans rate higher on the Democrat Identity Politics Totem Pole with vastly more Absolute Moral Authority? Listen to your betters, Steve, listen to your betters.
UPDATE: Drat, forgot this as well – the Punishing Progressives want to do the same thing in Oregon as what Thomas wants to do in Georgia:
In Oregon, a new initiative from a religious group is taking it a step forward. They want to ban any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine, and that can hold more than ten rounds. They also want current owners of these firearms, law-abiding Americans, to take them out of the state, register them, sell it to a FFL dealer, destroy it, or turn them over. That’s right, folks—full-blown gun confiscation. Filed by an interfaith religious group in Portland, Initiative Petition 42 would also require legal gun owners to surrender or register their assault weapons or face felony charges, according to language released Tuesday. The group said it aims to get enough signatures to put the measure before voters in the November general election. They would need 88,000 signatures by July 6 to get the measure on the ballot.
The proposal defines an assault weapon as any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and any feature like folding or telescoping stock, or that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition…The proposal would require any person in legal possession of an assault weapon to sell, surrender or remove the weapon from the state, or render it inoperable, within 120 days of passage, according to the language.
So, not only do they wish to do away with the Constitutional restriction on Government about infringing on the Right to keep and bear arms, they’re totally cool with the idea of illegal takings – government essentially taking goods away from law abiding citizens and not paying for them. And if it means time in the slammer, well, that’s a small price to pay.
I wonder if they remember enough history to know that the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World’ started because a government thought that disarming its subjects was such a great idea?
