Do the Moonbats really Care about our Rights?

Apparently not, if two sites brought to you by the paranoid diaperwaists of the "Freedom" States Alliance have anything to say about it. They would do away with not only the Second Amendment, but would gladly let other rights fall in the interests of pursuing their crusade against that particular part of the constitution.

For example, personal property. The Fourth Amendment acknowledges this right, but no right is sacred to the moonbat on jihad against 2A, as exemplified by this "campaign:"


What these puppets of the Brady mentality don't get are the ramifications of controlling the sale of personal private property. This approach threatens not only Second Amendment rights, but could set the tone for eroding Fourth Amendment rights as well.

Other things to bear in mind: How many of the crimes "facilitated" by "loopholes" comprise the total number of violent crimes in the U.S.? I am willing to wager it is a very low percentage, which would make it an even more miniscule portion of the total number of guns in this country. You can't really justify throwing tons of money into legislation (and, if it were to pass, the implementation) for such a tiny problem.

The poop overflows the Depends in this next site, decrying the "Shoot First" measures taken by several states to defend would-be victims' rights when it comes to using deadly force in self-defense.


This is the logical conclusion of this Stockholm Syndrome these moonbats have for criminals. Take it easy on the perps and punish the victims--the idea doesn't sit well in the 16 states (and the 8 that are considering passing similar measures) whose citizens believe in the right to defend themselves.

Thing of it is, every self-defense incident where a perp got perforated undergoes an investigation. That involves legal measures, with the very distinct possibility of a ruling NOT in the victim's favor, and the loss of freedoms that ensue.

Even one story this site puts up acknowledges that not every situation where a person uses a gun to stop a crime ends up with the gunner getting off scot-free. There are criteria a case needs to pass before exonerating a gunner.

But it's lost on the moonbats, who have always valued hysteria over rational thinking; in fact, their attitudes seem to override a person's Fifth Amendment rights, assuming that every gun used in self-defense is murder.

That's three Constitutional Amendments these folks would gladly shove aside.