Inadvertent Honesty?

I often ask victim disarming gun controllers how they expect their infringement du jour to apply to criminals who already bypass laws. For instance, I recently asked Senator Johnny Isakson [R-GA] how he expects to get criminals — who already obtain their firearms through unlawful channels around 93% of the time — to submit their black market purchases for “universal background checks;” otherwise known as preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI) prior restraint of rights.

I almost never get an answer. Certainly Isakson hasn’t answered yet.

This why:

Tucker Zings Progressive’s Attempt at Comparing the Border Wall to Lawful Gun Ownership
“And to borrow the NRA’s argument though, if we put a wall up though to block out illegal, you know people from coming here to want to harm us, people who come here legally are going to be the only ones stopped by that wall because people who are going to come here illegally or to harm us are going to figure out a way around it, just like they’re going to figure out how to get guns.”
[Former aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)] Hahn laughed and then continued, “No, no. Law-abiding people will be stopped by the wall but the people who wish to break our laws will avoid the wall. That’s the right’s argument for everything! It should be accepted here too!”

Don’t build a wall, because it only stops law-abiding people.

Do pass victim disarmament laws because they only stop law-abiding people.

Masks off. They aren’t even pretending anymore. As we all knew, the laws are never intended to do anything but infringe human/civil rights. Criminals aren’t even supposed to be affected.

That’s why Democrats (and Republicans like Isakson) see no irony in announcing new PPYI legislation to “honor” Gabby Giffords, who was shot by a man who passed a background check.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

One thought on “Inadvertent Honesty?”

  1. And Gimp Giffords was not even the intended target forthat shooter. He was after the judge he actually killed, and all the others injured or killed were collateral damage. But Giffy somehow has head sufficiently swelled as to render HER the “Person of Importance” and thus “justify” her life rant against guns.
    Suppose she had been involved in a vehicular assault where the causing driver had targeted George, and as George’s car spun out of control in the melee, Giffy’s car also got hit, and she injured. Would she then be so dead set against anyone ever owning or driving an Assault Ford?

    She’s a real nutjob, and so is her KenDoll excuse of a husband. Both are making political hay out of this, and profittieng hugely as well as feeding their inner tyrant natures. Neither are content unless they are busy about telling others how they should live. Both also forget we fought a war over precisely that about 240 years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *