This thread is a hilarious piece of fraud from the Master of Fraud on this website.
A cursory look at King Brown's posts over the years shows that he has been an anti-gun Troll who has been an ardent supporter of the most anti-gun politicians, namely our Liberal Left Democrats.
This is the guy who worked so hard with Ed Good to disrupt the intent of the "Preserve the 2nd Amendment Thread: Informational" that was pinned to the top of the subjects list here. King and Ed succeeded in getting it locked. You can read some of their crap here, but many of their disruptive posts had already been totally deleted by Dave Weber, so the worst of it is gone... except for what I have saved:
Preserve the 2nd Amendment thread - Informational Another look at King's posts will show that he has been highly critical of posting ANYTHING in this forum pertaining to either politics or Gun Rights ever since it became hard for him to hide his anti-2nd Amendment sentiments. So one naturally should ask, why the hypocrisy here? Is he attempting to start another shit-storm? Or is he attempting to fool people into believing that he has actually been a force to prevent anti-gun legislation in Canada?
King doesn't fight the Anti-Gunners in Canada... he supports them and votes for them!
There is a large body of evidence consisting of King's own words to show that he has been supportive of Gun Control. King can, and likely will claim that my opinions about him are wrong. But leave it to King to attempt to deny his own words:
Gun control doesn't work? I believe gun control works reasonably generally in Canada, providing a less violent society compared to some others, in good part because of our different culture.
Misfires seems near unanimous that there's no correlation between the number of guns and surpassing US gun violence, and that more guns lowers a homicide rate experienced nowhere else in the developed world.
I believe there is a connection---as most liberals do--- and that those conservative and liberal countries with exceedingly lower rates are a result of their democratically chosen, more-onerous, freedom-restricting regulations, common-sense or not.
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
There is also King's repeated assertion that our Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not the Original Intent of the Framers. Even after the 2008 Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, he has carried the lie of the anti-gunners and claimed it is a recent invention of the NRA, John Ashcroft, and activist judges:
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.
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.
Here he is lying about what Constitutional Scholar Marc Levin said about the RKBA, and once again attempting to portray Liberal Left Justice John Paul Stevens as a Conservative:
Levin and Stevens, on this evidence, appear to believe that the Second amendment should only apply only to those who keep and bear arms while serving in the militia, and not as an individual right. Stevens goes further in his book, saying democratic processes should decide on the matter, not the judges, as a remedy for "what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy."
All from a Reagan conservative and a Nixon-appointed jurist.
Some people may be fooled by his bullshit. Others will likely defend it, including some of our F.A.G.'s (Fake Ass Gentlemen), who would be wailing and gnashing their teeth... crying to Dave Weber... and asking everyone to support IGNORING or banishing me if I started an off topic political pro-gun thread.
Don't be fooled by this crap.