RSS

Gun Control Hypocrisy

17 Jan

GunFree3The following video illustrates that people who favor gun control, or even the elimination of gun rights, nevertheless have brains enough to know that they are safer in their gun-free homes so long as would-be burglars, rapists or even murderers don’t think they’re “gun-free” and therefore fear that there might be guns in their homes.

Those who advocate gun control do not advocate advertising that their homes are gun free.  They realize that doing so becomes an invitation to burglars, rapists, murderers, etc.

The video illustrates that the 2nd Amendment even protects those who don’t —but might–have guns.

If the 2nd Amendment were gone, we would all live in a zone every bit as “gun-free” as the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

video    00:10:54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wt1Zy_ASNyA

 
8 Comments

Posted by on January 17, 2013 in 2nd Amendment, Video

 

Tags: , , ,

8 responses to “Gun Control Hypocrisy

  1. annagolinska

    January 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

    Double talk. Veritas? ….the goddess of truth and a daughter of Saturn…
    “The Roman Catholic church retains much of the Saturn worship in its ritual. Saturn also relates to Lucifer. In various occult dictionaries Saturn is associated with evil. Saturn was important to the religion of Mithra, and also the Druids.” –Fritz Springmeier, “Bloodlines of the Illuminati”

     
  2. Jake

    January 17, 2013 at 7:37 PM

    This gun debate is starting to get hilariously out of control. Whats being spewed by the left is leaving me speechless…so here’s my latest word on all the nonsense.

    Until government can honestly produce proof that for a specified duration (say 10 years) that not a single thug, criminal, thief, rapist, or murderer was ever a part of ANY swat team, Law enforcement agency, any branch of the military, or any code enforcement or within ANY federal, state, or local government bureaucracy, then we as Americans retain our right to defend ourselves with equivalent firepower. Once the possibility of all threats have been permanently removed during that decade, then we can have a discussion about their proposals. Hows that for “false equivalency”?

     
  3. Gary Lochte

    January 17, 2013 at 11:29 PM

    Hi Al: the entire 2nd amendment public argument is a diversion. The right to self defense is a freedom of religion issue. Self defense and defense of others is a freedom of religion issue.

    Is it not true that Jesus Christ admonished his followers to take up weapons for the purpose of defending themselves,their families, and friends?

    Is it not true that we are commanded to defend our very lives?

    Is not our death costly to the heavenly Father? Does not the scripture say “Precious ( costly) is the death of his saints?”.

    The 2nd amendment is a matter of Christian admonition which the founders knew to be true. They wrote it into the Bill of Government limitations (Bill of Rights).

    In the shadows of this entire debate is the fact that gov-co wants brave, Christian Americans disarmed in order that they (gov-co…the great Satan) may conquer, enslave, and kill this great population. Ultimately, Gov-co is “gunning” for the Word of God. If Christians are not alive to manifest the light of God’s world, what then? It is a spiritual battle which also is manifested in the senses realm.

    America is still the last-great hope of humanity via the spoken Word of God. Wake up people!
    We need guns, but above all we need God.

    May the return of His Son, our lord and savior Christ Jesus, come quickly.

     
    • Adask

      January 18, 2013 at 2:19 AM

      Hi Gary,

      Genesis 9:6 tells us why we must not murder a man:  he’s made in God’s image.

      I’m a man.  I’m made in God’s image.  I am thereby not merely obligated to not murder another man made in God’s image, I believe I am also obligated to defend any other man made in God’s image (including me) against murder by someone else.

      Thus, I don’t see self-defense as merely a right.  I see it as an obligation to defend the “image of God” that I inhabit as my body.

      Incidentally, in your last email you complimented me on my presentation on the Joyce Riley show.   You though my presentation was the most concise or articulate yet.  

      That might be so, but I didn’t think the presentation was that good.  

      So, it occurred to me that the presentation may have seemed “articulate” only because your own understanding of the “man or other animals” concept has improved to the point where you more easily follow my comments.  

      My point is that maybe I didn’t do a better presentation; maybe you did a better “understanding”.

      Thanks for your email.

      God bless you and yours.

      Al

       
  4. Lex Mercatoria

    January 18, 2013 at 1:43 AM

    The gun-grabbers don’t believe their own b.s.

     
  5. EarlinOregon

    January 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

    The Three United States

    http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm

     
  6. EarlinOregon

    January 21, 2013 at 4:29 PM

    Limits of Federal Jurisdiction

    June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled
    Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States:
    Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction
    Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II,
    which report is the definitive study on this issue.

    Therein, the Committee stated:

    “The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part,
    acquire legislative jurisdiction
    over any area
    within the exterior boundaries of a State,”
    Id., at 46.

    http://constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

    .

     
  7. EarlinOregon

    January 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

    The Three United States

    The standing 1945 Supreme Court definition of the term United States:

    The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses.

    [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign
    occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

    [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends,

    or [3] it may be the collective name of the states
    which are united by and under the Constitution.

    [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

    http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm

     

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s