What do we know about liberal gummint response to protest? I'm glad you asked. Unless you hang some of them, and burn things, they yawn, do something cosmetic, and Bob's your uncle. This Brit protest from two years ago accomplished nothing.
 

It boggles the mind that the sheeple do not understand why the guvmint wants them disarmed. Gun control is about control, not guns. I have said it before but if you want to crash a liberal's mental hard drive, let him or her make an argument on abortion and gun control and then swap their talking points. Use terms like 'sensible abortion control' or 'three day waiting period' and they go off like a bottle rocket.
Tim
 

...and Sally's your Aunt. While stationed in England from '92 through '99 I saw their gummint ban hand guns, knives and fox hunting. The same thing is being tried here by the same type of libtards.

WAKE UP!

One of the last comments is spot-on here as well: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. In Maryland, I'd be taking a HUGE risk being judged by 12 (though I'll still take my chances).

And, like Tony Martin, my house was recently broken into. Unlike Tony, CINCHOUSE and I were away that weekend. Had the bastards tried while we were home there'd have been an argument between us as to who gets to the use the .45 and who gets to use the .40.
 

You know it Rodger, but the only people likely to 'something cosmetic' are same ones who vote Liberals into control. We cosmetically vote. Not the sames. Are the Pentagon and CIA just as cosmetic. I was hoping for some undercurrent of protection. Is it only on TV that we have any "Jack Bauers" working to preserve America?
 

Tim, you are spot on as usual. No wonder it's useless to debate these people.
 

I might care more about the poor disarmed sheeple in Jolly Olde Englande if many Americans had not donated privatly owned firearms to the general home defense during The Battle of Britian when the Jerries were thought to be ready to cross the Channel. The NRA organized the weapon donations because
.
.
.
.
.
the general populace of England was not in possission of privately held firearms during the first half of the 20th centuary.
 

Heya Tim, that's a point I hadn't considered before. Like Juice, I'm glad you made it, and I'm gonna be considering its ramifications.
 

In England it started with getting a cheap permit at the post office, and no carry laws.

They then moved the permits to the Police Station ... and suddenly you needed influence to get a pistol permit, and the permit had all sorts of conditions, like not carrying it in public.
 

I've been a Cop for over 30 years and I do not wait for, or expect, the Police to protect me and mine. That is not now and never has been the historical purpose of the Police in our society. That's why the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. To empower each individual citizen to protect themselves, their loved ones and any invited guests in or upon their premisis from criminal attack (as well as guard against illegal govenment subjugation). The Police (in reality) are intended to be an assistance to the citizenry in that regard -- patrolling the "public" areas, highways and byways, etc. in an attempt to intercept the criminal before he arrives at your doorstep -- and to come to your aid if an when needed (or help you clean up the mess afterwards). I don't know of any REAL "street-wise" Cop who wants the law abiding citizenry disarmed. In this day and time we need all the help we can get!
 

Just noticed. Must have been taped with a Japanese camera.