Like a Trojan Horse, or more accurately, a snake in the grass, King Brown continues to dishonestly portray himself as something he is not.
Once again, King is pretending to be pro-gun... even though he has consistently supported and defended those Liberal Left Democrats who are most responsible for 20,000 plus gun control laws and constant assaults upon our 2nd Amendment;
It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
Of course, it's only natural for King to neglect to mention that a PAL is necessary to purchase a firearm in Canada, and that many firearms which are perfectly legal here are absolutely prohibited in Canada (except in some Democrat controlled enclaves). Just ask King to go out and try to legally buy something as simple as a .25 or .32 caliber handgun. King knows he can't, yet he will continue to lie and tell you that Canada's restrictions are less than ours. Dishonest omissions of critical facts come as naturally to King as breathing.
Here's King, in his own words, once again denigrating the NRA and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the words of the 2nd Amendment:
The Court departed from the original understanding of the Second. The NRA and other groups rejected the original interpretation. Even as late as 1991, the jurist Burger appointed by Nixon said "the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller, what Burger said was fraud was accepted by the court. Interesting stuff.
Here's more from the dishonest guy who is now here attempting to portray himself as a supporter of the NRA:
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
Dave, Dave, Dave: you're like those fundamentalists who claim Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. There was no NRA at time of the Founding Fathers. The change was recent to what the Second is today. You acknowledge as "infringements" all those jurisdictions making the Second what they want it to be. But still the law.
Whether Americans carry because they can or have to is not the issue. They democratically make decisions on how they want to live. Their homicide record is not edifying among modern societies. It is a violent country.
Here's a direct quote from King Brown in answer to me shortly after the Newtown shootings in 2013. It is not possible to use the "QUOTE" function since the thread was locked. King was actually counseling us to give in to Obama and the anti-gun Democrats as he was also criticizing the NRA for Wayne LaPierre's comments:
(Quote: King Brown)
"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind." There is a reason we are taught even as children to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. King Brown's posts here in this thread illustrate exactly why it is my opinion that he is the single most dishonest person to post on this forum.
It is not wrong to have a divisive "us and them" attitude when you are dealing with people like King. They do us much more harm than good.
