"BUT ..."

Fisking Kim Kardashian

Quote of the day—Kim Kardashian | The View From North Central Idaho:

(Hat Tip: Joe Huffman)

I’M NOT AGAINST GUNS AND I’M NOT AGAINST PEOPLE OWNING GUNS. AFTER WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IN PARIS, I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE SAFE AND TO HAVE ARMED SECURITY. ALL OF MY SECURITY TEAM IS ARMED, BUT THEY ALSO SUPPORT STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS AND BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD RESTRICT ACCESS TO FIREARMS FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, ANYONE PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THOSE AT A HIGHER RISK OF COMMITTING GUN VIOLENCE.

Everyone knows and values Kim's  respect for and her honor of the Second Amendment.

Not.

Kim, there are laws already on the book which disallow "people with mental illness" from owning firearms,.

And we already know that you can *(and have)* hired armed security professionals ... a precaution which is probably wise, since your position disallows you from arming yourself..   Your precautions seem reasonable to most of us, because nobody expects YOU to take personal responsibility for your safety.

Why should you, when you can hire trained, experienced protection personnel whose  proficiency at arms is far superior to your own?

BUT the rest of us cannot afford hired guns to protect ourselves; we are like those who breed and raise swine; we have to do the dirty work ourselves.

Which includes "Taking Out The Trash".

You say:
 I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE SAFE AND TO HAVE ARMED SECURITY

Yes.  And if I could afford it, I would hire 24/7 professional security to protect my life, even though I'm not quite so "High Profile" as you are.

But I do not think the words of the Second Amendment mean what you think it means.

It doesn't mean that we can hire armed men to protect ourselves ,.. if we can afford it.

It means that we common men can legally acquire whatever means neccessarty to protect ourselves and our families, home and property ... if we are willing to accept the responsibility, and if we can afford it.

 (Many of us think, as you do, that we can NOT afford to NOT take steps to provide for our personal security.)

When you say that you support "Stricter Gun Control Laws", what you are saying is that you support stricter gun control laws on LAWFUL and LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS~

We already have laws against felons and madmen owning firearms.  So when you use the word STRICTER ... we automatically understand that you want to restrict the rights of law-abiding private citizens to own firearms.

STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS are exactly that; if we have already eliminated criminals and madmen from owning firearms (which we have), then your statement leaves only one segment of the population which you would ".. restrict access to firearms ...";  honest, law-abiding citizens.

As a veteran (Viet Nam infantry platoon sergeant, 1969/1970) I personally resent your implication that a simple MISDEMEANER or a "Temporary Restraining Order" (which can be registered by any domestic partner without any evidence of foul play .. and cannot be challenged in many states) should be grounds for undermining my Constitutional Rights.

In case you are not aware, a misdemeanor charge is generally considered somewhat less imposing than a Constitutional Right.   While we are all well aware that the confusion of an interpersonal relationship is difficult to resolve in the courts, the denial of one's Constitutional Right is somewhat akin to dropping an Atomic Bomb; it enturbulates all parties, and affords no benefit to anyone.

SO ,. when you suggest that it may be appropriate to  RESTRICT ACCESS TO FIREARMS FOR ...   ANYONE PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR we can only assume that either:

*(1) you don't know what the heck you're talking about ..

or
*(2) you don't care what damage you may cause as long as your political goals are satisfied.

It's difficult to decide which agenda could cause more damage, but it's perfectly clear that you do not much care.
All you want to do is to make a political statement; one which you have not carefully thought through.

Idiot.

Oh .. and go watch Joe's response.

H/T:

I recognize the difficulty the anti-gun people have in getting knowledgeable people to support their side, but they really should keep highly visible dimwits on a shorter leash. This dimwit is advocating for the denying someone convicted of shoplifting a jar of baby food 30 years ago their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm. On top of that she believes she has a right to feel safe and to be protected.
However, the topper is that one paragraph after advocating for the explicit infringement upon the rights of people she claims, “we can find ways to do that, while still protecting the rights of the American people”. You can’t find ways to infringe upon the rights of people while protecting their rights.