Guns, Waiting Periods and Anger

6653 "authorized firearms officers" like my friend A in my previous post.

Hahahahaha, lying idiot. If you ever got a single fact into that little pea brain of yours, it'd be a miracle.

That it is in fact more dangerous as you are more likely to end up in armed confrontation and the other guy is almost certainly to have the advantages of intent and surprise. Not to mention that the chance of an armed intruder coming into your house while you are there is extremely small.

1) The site from which you quote labels itself as: "Real Liberal Politics." Nuff said on that point.

The need to protect yourself and home with a gun is nonsense. That it is in fact more dangerous…….

But, that said, ANY individual has the right to engage in civil disobedience based upon their own interpretation of what really is legal. And if a huge proportion of local LEOs are finding gun control laws both dangerous and unconstitutional, then perhaps that's worthy of note.

If you think that's having it both ways then I can't help you.

Like I posted earlier, this guy has the worst critical reasoning faculties on the site

huge proportion of local LEOs are finding gun control laws both dangerous and unconstitutional

, it was a self-selected Internet poll, in which more than 15,000 of PoliceOne.com’s 400,000 registered members chose to respond, either because of email solicitation or a link to the survey on the PoliceOne.com website.
And there was no question asking whether “background checks” would have an “effect on violent crime.”

“Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?” Nearly 80 percent of respondents answered “no.” The question says nothing about requiring background checks, which would be much different than prohibiting private transfers, period.

The survey asked, “Would requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally-licensed dealers reduce instances of mass shooting incidents?” Forty-five percent said no, and 31 percent said yes. The remainder were unsure.

Forty-five percent said no

"no one gets a permit in California to carry a gun on the streets—except for law enforcement and some DAs. So the average citizen has no business carrying a firearm on him, period. If you’re out in public—or even in another person’s home—and you’re involved in an incident while carrying a gun, you’re in trouble."

no one gets a permit in California to carry a gun on the streets—except for law enforcement and some DAs.

Feinstein got one. Power has its perks.

In 1995 a hearing on terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing, Feinstein recounted how, in the 1970s, she was the target of the New World Liberation Front which first attempted to blow up her home. After the bomb failed to detonate, Feinstein explained, she decided to arm herself.

"Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms," Feinstein said in the 1995 hearing.

"When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon," she said. "I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. Now having said all of that, that was a period of time ago and I’ve watched through these 20 years as terrorism has increased both on the far extremist left and the far extremist right in this country."
Feinstein got rid of the permit once the New World Liberation Front was no longer a threat to her.