what difference does it make?

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI: I think that you took one piece of it. We’re talking about no further sales of assault weapons. What is the justification for an assault weapon? No further sales of those, no further sales of the increased capacity, 30 rounds in a gun. We’re re talking about background checks which is very popular, even among gun owners, and, hunters.

We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves in their homes and their jobs, where, and that they — and the workplace and that they, for recreation and hunting and the rest. So we’re not questioning their right to do that.

17 Comments!

  1. DougM (Progophobe)
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 11:32 am |

    How about a woman’s right to choose …
    the means of her self defense?

  2. MikeG
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 11:42 am |

    Chris Wallace didn’t even call her on that?

    Putz.

    To be fair, he probably drifted off as soon as Nan opened her cake hole. I know it happens to me a lot.

  3. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 11:50 am |

    The trickfuck herein, is the definition of an “assault rifle”. Peloosei & Feinsteinburgovich`s defintion is NOT an automatic-firing weapon, upon once pulling of the trigger. To them, it means something that *looks like* a machine gun! Which has been prohibited since 1934! (An analogy = say, if Feinstein`s younger female relatives dress like a hooker, then they are, in fact, hookers!!!!!!!!!!!…)

    Congress has been using this ploy since the daze of Al Capone! Congress bitches are using it over and over, as if it is a fucking unique law, that has never been in effect! And, we keep electing these (cunts…) both women & flatpeters…) as if we think they shive a get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!….)

    Nothing will change to our desires for freedom, unless and until we vote them out of office………………

  4. Steve Skubinna
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 12:16 pm |

    So we’re not questioning their right to do that.

    Bullshit. That’s exactly what they’re questioning. But baby steps…

  5. Jess
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 12:25 pm |

    When it comes to constitutional issues, confusing the amendment that defines what to with your mouth with the amendment that defines what to do with firearms can lead to tragic accidents.

    From some of the things she says, I wonder if she has had such an accident. It would explain a lot of things.

  6. kevino
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 12:49 pm |

    RE: “We’re talking about no further sales of assault weapons. What is the justification for an assault weapon? No further sales of those, no further sales of the increased capacity, 30 rounds in a gun.”
    The big question in my mind is: “OK,if we’re talking about ‘No further sales of assault weapons’, then that *MUST* include THE GOVERNMENT. Local police can’t have them. State police can’t have them. And the Federal government can’t have them.

    We will now sit back and listen to the howls of protest from law enforcement officials who demand assault weapons as absolutely necessary to protect themselves and the public.

    And to Rep. Pelosi I say, “I’m a citizen, and I don’t need to justify anything to you. But if I did, here are the arguments from the law enforcement experts on how assault weapons are absolutely essential to protect themselves and us. When I look for the tools that I need to protect myself and my family, I look at the tools that law enforcement needs to protect themselves and us. After all, we live in the same country, and the same violent offenders that would attack a cop are the same violent offenders that prey on citizens.”

    Thanks for playing.

  7. JoeBandMember™
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 1:08 pm |

    The progressives, and many conservatives, DO WANT TO TAKE ALL OUR GUNS.

    In WA Republican State Rep. Mike Pope, a Seattle cop, and USMC veteran, has agreed to a state background check and a 50.00 plus fee for the transfer of ANY firearm, even those willed as part of an estate. It establishes a data base of gun owners, ready for the next step which is confiscation and a serf society.

    We must remain alert and engaged in the process, or we will have not only no gun rights, by NO RIGHTS AT ALL.

    Friend or foe cannot be determined by party line.

  8. Merovign
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 2:11 pm |

    Trying to “logic out” what leftists do is a lost cause. They never give the correct reason – Absolute Power.

    The good news for Pelosi is there’s no legal bar to legislators being mentally ill. Bad news for the rest of us.

    They need to be taught what “no” means. The process is just long and tiresome and there are no guarantees.

  9. geezerette
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 3:02 pm |

    #2 Mike G—-Chris Wallace would rather kiss her saggy butt that call her on anything but it didn’t stop him from getting in the face of the President of the NRA. I’m surprised he didn’t wag his finger in his face. I’ll bet I/won’s telepromters are burning up waiting for him to let we gun owners have it in his speech Tues. .

  10. Posted February 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm |

    I do not think she was confused at all. First amendment ….. She “avows” that, Second, not so much.

  11. Posted February 10, 2013 at 5:21 pm |

    Why are the feds stockpiling ammo like it’s going out of style, while simultaneously attempting to infringe on our Second Amendment rights? Something seems downright spooky here.

  12. JoeBandMember™
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 7:07 pm |

    I’m gettin’ a real uneasy feeling about all this crap, the only answer to which is to buy more ammo, where, when and how I can.

    What say youse people?

  13. Lord of the Fleas
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 8:26 pm |

    ^ Well, JBM, if’n I were living in the Hew Hess of Hay, I’d be doing pretty much exactly that.

    And depending on where I was living, I’d be moving – to Texas or rural Nevada or someplace like that. Downtown Any-Big-City is not going to be the place to be in a year or so.

    Slightly OT, though this is the only political/gun-related thread going at the moment, but this seems to be an interesting observation.

  14. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 11:22 pm |

    just click it — it’s only 10 seconds and it’s perfect.

  15. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 11:23 pm |

    make that 4 seconds.

  16. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 11:27 pm |

    there’s no legal bar to legislators being mentally ill.
    How about terminally stupid and inarticulate? Can we have that much?
    Jeezebus, Perfidious Twat sounds like a drug hazed 20 year old phys ed major. Like, yannow, I mean… judging from the condition of her brain, she must have played NFL football for twenty years, yannow, brain damaged.

  17. geezerette
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 12:06 pm |

    She’s another example for the need of Term and age limits , along with testing for intelligence . She’s had her face done so much when she talks her lips don’t know what to do when he tongue is wagging and her teeth are chomping.