It's all about Gun Control while everything else is just ... It's ALL about Gun Control.

So...

I see this gem of a link that mentioned that "Tom Brokaw says it's time for people to 'Say Enough'. So yeah, I was curious as to what he had to say. If course, it was about the Orlando slaughter and my curiosity was peaked.

Sorry.... It's Face Book and I couldn't find a link to one on YouTube, so it is what it is...

Video

The short of it...

Mr Brokaw says that people should say enough is enough! Big guns shouldn't be in the hands of anyone because they're only meant to kill people.
"If it turns out to be connected to some kind of international group, politicians will jump all over that and say we gotta do something about them, but... Lets say it's a domestic shooting. We gotta do something about that.

You know, I'm a gun owner...

Wait for it... wait for it...

I've been saying this for months now. It's time for people to come together and say, "Enough".

Blah Blah Blah... We don't have any dialogue going on in America about all these mass shootings".


Well.. actually... We kind of do. Trump has been talking about it while no one else seems to want to. I get the feeling this was all about gun control. Look folks...

Guns don't kill people. Radical idiots who hate America kill people. Disturbed people kill people.

My problem is, this recent issue will serve up "GUN CONTROL" in a big silver dish to a political left wing agenda when it has EVERYTHING to do with radicals more than guns.

Ok... so you take big guns out of the hands of owners. What about explosives? Didn't they just catch some guy loaded to the gills with weapons AND explosives? One of those are already banned. The average joe can't have any of that without a license and I'm 100% sure the kind that this radical moron was carrying when he got caught on the way to a gay pride parade was not the kind that you can even obtain with a license. So what about that?

Why is it a gun control issue when it should be a radical issue?

So yeah America... let's not focus on the real issue. Let's focus on guns because without guns, radicals can't blow you up or kill you. They can't kill large amounts of people quickly because explosives are already banned and we just need to ban all automatic weapons so they cant shoot a bunch of people in a short amount of time.


Look.... If someone wants to take out a horde of people all at once, they'll go to whatever they can. They'll just do down the list of items till they obtain what they can. Any person with some sense knows... If you can get high explosives when they're banned BIG TIME, you can certainly get AKs.

It's a radical issue. Not a gun issue. It's a sick, demented person issue, not a gun issue. Removing the weapon will not stop the death. They'll simply get another weapon. Focus on point. Don't switch it up to something that had nothing to do with the original plot and ploy of the monster that did the killings. The gun was a tool. a TOOL

While the lust for blood was so very real!

Mr Brokaw says that people should say enough is enough! Big guns shouldn't be in the hands of anyone because they're only meant to kill people.

So Brokaw wants the state, and the people to IGNORE their RIGHTS.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

www.law.cornell.edu...

IGNORE IT people!.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

IGNORE IT people!

www.law.cornell.edu...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

www.law.cornell.edu...

IGNORE IT people!

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

www.law.cornell.edu...

IGNORE IT people!

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

www.law.cornell.edu...

IGNORE IT people!

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.law.cornell.edu...

IGNORE IT peopl!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

www.law.cornell.edu...

IGNORE IT people!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

IGNORE IT PEOLPLE!.

After all that GD piece of paper doesn't mean anything RIGHT ?

RIGHT ?

Every single amendment listed GUN CONTROL violates.

You have been judged and executed in the the kangaroo courts of public opinion.

Where YOUR rights are determined by what ever the mob says.

Oh wait.

IT DOESN'T work like that.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Everybody, EVERYBODY, of legal age who can pass a physical and a psychological test should be trained properly in handling and target shooting, and issued a gun. You want to stop terrorists and criminals, don't give them easy, soft and squishy targets. Criminals and terrorists don't care about registering firearms, they get theirs off other criminals and terrorists. Take away the legal law abiding citizen's guns and you have soft targets for criminals and terrorists operating in both the private and public sectors.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: neo96

You didn't say it, but I will. They'll get my guns when they pry them out of my cold dead hands.

People can and should exercise all their rights. Give an inch and the government think they're a ruler.

a reply to: StallionDuck

So some terrorists want to kill average Americans and the ####tards want to disarm the average Americans.

#### you.

#### you and the horse you rode in on.

Try to take my guns, you freedom hating Nazi-bastards!

I've got to revisit this.

What kind of celebritard thinks that disarming a population UNDER ATTACK, is a smart thing to do???

And more than likely, every damned one of these brain-dead inbred morons has an armed body guard!!!

these idiots and I include the politicians, if they were storming the beaches of Normandy, would have thrown their weapons on the sand in the hopes that the Nazi's would do the same!

a reply to: DBCowboy

You used my favorite made-up word, "celebritard," in a sentence. I love you for that!

Gun control is a fantasy. It depends on an illusion that there are actually authorities "out there somewhere" that might "fix things" if only we would let them.

But it is only an illusion. Granted, it's an illusion that keeps both the red and the blue team fat, rich, happy and flush with merch...

There are approximately 5400 gun-carrying, badge wearing FBI agents in the USA. That's our Federal police force, in a nutshell, and I have no doubt they do good work, most of the time. But all of them, and every last DEA, DHS, IRS, INS, CIA, Military (active duty and retired), City, County and State Cop, etc still add up to less than 1 in every 100 people in the USA.

Short of the second coming of Christ, or full scale alien invasion, there is no force large or coordinated enough to take the guns from everyone who has them or would refuse to disarm, for better or worse.

Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Gun control is accepting that government can take care of all threats to you and your family better than you can.

Which is such absolute bull, since government doesn't care about you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Be fair.

Realistically -- there is about a 1 in 1000 chance that a cop of some kind is close enough to come to your assistance, even though most aren't legally obligated to. Those are better odds than the lottery!

a reply to: StallionDuck

The anti gun debate in the US is actually about transferring guns from the populace to the state. Its got nothing to do with crime. To test the governments claimed concern for the physical safety of Americans, put it up against a comparative measure.

Compare the govts concern for your physical safety against their concern for your financial welfare and compare.

Only in recent days I read that Oklahoma road police now have card reader that bypasses your pin number and they max out or empty your credit cards on the spot, for suspicion of the money having something to do with crime. This exemplifies the govts concern for your financial safety

a reply to: Azureblue

What this guy said.

You know full well why they're making it out to be about guns and not radicals- they don't care about radicals, they don't want the public having guns.

Take away the second, and we won't be able to defend our first. End game, anyone?

a reply to: StallionDuck

I saw Mr. Brokaw last night on a channel and He said "The 'minority' of these shootings are done by Muslims..." I thought I was hearing things so I went back and played it over and He said 'minority' and NOT "majority".. I'll try and find it..

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: Azureblue

What this guy said.

You know full well why they're making it out to be about guns and not radicals- they don't care about radicals, they don't want the public having guns.

Take away the second, and we won't be able to defend our first. End game, anyone?

Put the govt claim of concern for our safety up against a comparative measure. Compare the govt claim about concern for our security against their concern for our financial security and see how they compare.

The truth is that it's not about Gun Control at all. Gun Control is a smokescreen that politicians throw up whenever they need to distract the population from other things, like the TPP or the fraudulent Democrat primary.

Yes BIG guns only have one purpose.... to kill people.

Especially all enemies, foreign and domestic

I thought that was the whole point of the second ammendment.

But thanks for the news Mr Brokaw.

Why don't you people Create 'Citizens up in Arms League', make it official (since you are the 'actual' boss of the guys you pay to keep you safe right) and then.... Tell them all of them 'in the Gov't that you're taking their Gun rights away.

Why Not? I mean has anyone tried it? Has anyone even considered doing to THEM what they're trying to do TO YOU?

You are Paying them after all, shouldn't you have a Legal Say in all of this?

Just a thought...