Feinstein and her cohorts have introduced another assault weapons ban, following the language of the '94 ban. Using fear as a weapon, they are working to remove our rights and our liberties from us, all while saying they want to keep us safe as they are government, but they fail to see or accept that it is the government that failed so horribly in this last mass shooting. Or rather, many of them have admitted that the laws we already have on the books should have stopped the most recent killings had the government done their job right the first, oh I don't know, 7 or 8 times with the murderer. He was tried and imprisoned for beating his infant/toddler step son so violently he cracked his skull, and assaulted his wife just as viciously, and according to the charges, with enough force to have been considered attempted murder. For this he got one year in jail and a bad conduct discharge.
You're kidding me, right?
Most of us here hate the government creating BS laws, but this is one that matters to us. When a person intentionally commits violence for the sake of violence, we want them punished appropriately. When a man strikes a man, and its a "fair fight" we see a day or two in jail and a fine as reasonable, or at least I do, but there are other acceptable punishments/recompense that don't include incarceration or even the legal system. When a man strikes a man in a sucker punch or other manner to have a significant and unfair advantage and they do it for no reason other than to commit violence, lock their ass up for a long time, make them work to pay the taxpayers back for being a burden, and were all good with it. Woman vs Woman, same basic standards, Woman vs Man, still the same standards, despite the feminists demanding equality until this point then wanting any man who even defends himself seen as the aggressor no matter what, but I digress... Most of us here are semi old school in our belief that some people deserve a little more protection at least in some circumstances, especially when it comes to violence against them. Which brings me to children. Any grown man that intentionally, or in many circumstances intentionally negligently harms children, but most especially infants, toddlers and preteens, the way he did deserves decades of incarceration, if not death. He got one year and a discharge that some guys get for having an NCO say "no rank" and then deciding after getting his butt whooped that rank mattered the whole time. But still, He should have been restricted from firearm purchases had the government done its job despite failing in sentencing him to a harsher and longer incarceration.
The laws we have already should have worked but the government failed to do what it was legally bound to do. Not only did they fail, but a man who is essentially nothing in the world outside of his friends and family before that morning, just a "Joe Plumber" from Texas, is the reason it didn't get any worse and became something much more to many. Its coming out that the shooter had more firearms in the car, and it is reasonably believed that he was going for another firearm to go back to finish the slaughter he started when Stephen Wileford shot the murderer. As the murderer ran, he knew that Mr Wileford wasn't going to let him get away, so he called his dad and said he wasn't going to make it, good bye. That piece of trash got to say goodbye to his family, meanwhile hundreds of people in that community never got to because they were murderer or their loved ones were murdered. But that Good Samaritan had help that morning, Johnnie Langendorff was driving by and saw the commotion, and stopped, had a rapid discussion with Mr Wilendorf, and helped him chase and stop the murderer. Two men did what liberals scream only the government should be able to do. How much worse would it have been had those two men not done anything? I'm glad we can only speculate on that and don't have real concrete answers.
Mr's Wileford and Langendorff did what Americans are supposed to do, they responded and helped their fellow man. They did what so many believe only the government should do. But what those people fail to realize, we are the government. Yes, we have representatives, but they are supposed to represent us, not seek power over us and gain an advantage because of their position, which FAR too many do. How do they have multi million dollar mansions and fly all over the US when they make less than $200,000 a year? How do so many go from so so wealthy to millionaires while in office? Titles of Nobility are prohibited by the Constitution, yet they wield "Congressperson" just as crookedly as the nobles that inspired the nobility ban in the Constitution. We are all sovereign here in the US, accountable to no man or woman, but beholden to Constitutional, reasonable, and just laws. The government isn't corrupt, its the people in government, but most especially those who make the laws in a way that really only they can benefit from. They do not worry about repercussions because for some reason we just don't hold reprehensible and powerful people accountable for reprehensible acts. That's one thing the French got right during their revolution. I don't think we need to go as far as they did across the board, but there are some serious accusations that are ignored because the accused are members of Congress or other high ranking government person.
We The People means more than far too many give it credit for. We are the ones responsible for our selves, family, neighbors, greater community, city, county, state, and nation. We are supposed to be the ones that do many of the things the government does. We should do it, instead of or in concert with them. With the government wanting to restrict our ability to own firearms, I get worried. They say we should arm other nations people who try to revolt against their tyrannical government, but fail to admit that its likely that the revolting populace and assistance wouldn't be necessary had the populace been able to be armed the whole time to begin with. They say that our governemtn would never be tyrannical, but probably thought the same things about the government we are now fighting at one point or another in history. Then they say "we are the government, we have planes and tanks, what will your AR's do against that?" When a government official says that, to me it means we need our weapons all the more, because they already think they have an advantage and are bullying us into caving to them. They also fail to admit that we, the US and our amazing military, have been given a VERY hard time by guerilla warfare all over the world. We are too conventional and the government doesn't want our troops to be unconventional, or dangerous in reality, just in "looks". AN armed populace can do some serious damage to a tyrannical or attacking conventional military, its proven time and time again.