Originally Posted by BillSmith
Dewey- Some of those here have asked, "What guns do you feel should be excluded?" You have admitted to not knowing and depending on your elected officials to make those decisions. The rhetoric of some of those officials, Diane Feinstein...who would severely limit the public's opportunity to own weapons or better Leland Yee...a proponent of restrictive gun control, who in turn is a 'gun runner'. They are not alone. Rather, every time there is an opportunity, new liberal voices cry for gun control.
Because a passionate lunatic commits a crime, I must lose the right to protect myself from passionate lunatics in the fashion I might chose. I've been trained & trusted, yet current California laws are so daft in their draft that it is not prudent to apply for a concealed carry permit. Nor store weapons that might be misjudged by someone reading a spreadsheet incorrectly, causing issue at my residence.
I can't use my phone in my car, I can't drive that car without filling it with corn syrup-laced gasoline that reduces the life my engine, I can't drive that car without wearing a seat belt, I can't...well, it's a long list...all foisted upon me because of previous idiotic behavior.
So, I cannot own weapons to protect myself from passionate lunatics, idiots and more importantly factions of our government that might overstep their authority because you don't want to protect yourself that way, the President and those like him are protected and others like you would rather rely on the insane idea that banning some weapons, requiring more paperwork, restricting areas of ownership/or possession will reduce incidents where killers kill.
I understand Feinstein, I understand Obama, I understand those that live in the privileged position of protection by those that have been trained & trusted. Then, those same secure politicians give you reasons to believe them instead of me. Classic 1984. If one serves those privileged few, issue that man a weapon. Private citizen? Despite clear language that allows a right to bear arms...no. The idea that liberal minded politicians will 'allow' ownership of hunting rifles instead of AR-15s and AK-47s is laughable. What is a bolt action deer rifle going to protect me from? An attack of government-sponsored mutant deer ramage? The Second Amendment is clear that I have the right to bear arms, for the reason of protecting myself from a well-armed enemy. A hunting rifle is NOT the weapon needed to provide a militia able to resist tyranny.
Question: Do you deny the need?
Believe me, I hear your message loud and clear. Before these discussions, my baseline was more accepting that restrictive conditions were inevitable. No longer.
Lastly, you didn't answer a simple question. I will reword, but basically repeat:
"If you are in favor of restricting or excluding some arms, then how can you say that you and the President are not 'coming for guns'?"
I'm not taking objection to what you say, I am pointing out that on one hand, you are saying I get to keep my guns, on the other, you have no idea what I might own. If you ban, exclude or restrict what I own, how is that not 'coming for my gun'?