“Government Officials Can Still Own Assault Weapons Under Feinstein Bill”
And of course, they aren’t affected by ObamaCare. Because they’re a special breed, you see, and those who manage us and make us functional economic units in the service of the state deserve rights that the rest of us don’t. For the trouble of having constantly to police us. IBT:
Not everyone is exempted from owning military-style assault weapons under new legislation proposed by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Weapons used by government officials and law enforcement will not be prohibited by the law proposed by the California Democrat, which would prohibit the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named semi-automatic weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Any weapons legally owned before the bill’s enactment would also be exempt, although those firearms would have to be registered in a national database.
Some tea-party affiliated conservatives have alleged the Obama administration is attempting to strip citizens of their weapons in a move that has constantly been compared to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi takeover of Germany. Pro-gun extremists, such as NRA board member Ted Nugent, have recently stated that any additional gun laws are the first step toward all-out confiscation, an event the conservative blogosphere argues could potentially lead to the rise of a totalitarian state. The exemption of government officials and law enforcement from the Feinstein bill may encourage that line of thinking.
Gee, ya think?
The article’s author, Ashley Portero, seems quite concerned that it might — further inflaming “pro-gun extremists” to conclude that a legislative move to disarm private law abiding citizens, when coupled with exemptions for government officials for those same types of weapons, might could possibly be construed as an ingredient in the rise of many totalitarian states.
Which extremist thinking is all extremist and such. And shows in its very extremism an extremist bent, perhaps means enough, from a mental health perspective, to deny such potentially violent — because armed, you see — extremists from owning unregistered firearms or high capacity magazines.
They’re like a loaded gun, these extremists are. They may not have gone off yet, but one day they will. That is, if we allow them to stay loaded. And extreme. Which is really not something a compassionate nation does.
Exempting government officials, then, provides a measure of protection against such extremists and their potential violence. Even though we know that “assault weapons” are rarely used for self-protection. Until they are. And if that happens, I think we can all agree that it’s best that those weapons be in the hands of government officials, who by virtue of being government officials are good and moral and righteous and deserving and special. Not to mention, there to protect us from the pro-gun extremists. Thank God.
Also, shut up.