Office Of Gun Control

[eddiememphis]

https://kimmonson.com/featured_articles/how-the-new-office-of-gun-control-shall-infringe-on-the-second-amendment/

She explains how nonprofits and advocacy groups gain control and shape policy.

"In short, lobbyists have become experts in incremental agendas, and lobbyists often use the Trojan Horses of non-profits or advocacy groups to promote their agendas with grant funding and the facade of public support.

Private interest groups understand that they can engage as "stakeholders" in these roles to achieve their objectives, and government officials defer to these "community partners?"and "experts" over their constituents.

At the CDPHE SMART hearing in January 2023, Sen. Rhonda Fields (D) declared that gun violence is now considered a "health crisis" in the state of Colorado. CDPHE Director Jill Hunsaker Ryan assured the joint health committee that CDPHE will take a "public health approach" to gun violence.

The "public health approach" to any crisis is always concerned about safety. You can lose your job or school or guns, but you can always thank CDPHE for keeping you "safe.""

She goes on to list seven "red flags" that should concern every gun owner in Colorado.

[BPTactical]

Slimy fuckers

[ray1970]

So wouldn?t it just be easier to vaccinate people to protect them from bullets?

[ray1970]

Oh, and for anyone not familiar with this organization, I can assure you that the well being of the people or the environment is only a cover. Their main goal is to generate revenue for the state under the guise of caring about anything.

[eddiememphis]

Oh, and for anyone not familiar with this organization, I can assure you that the well being of the people or the environment is only a cover. Their main goal is to generate revenue for the state under the guise of caring about anything.

I disagree. The main goal is not generating revenue.

The main goal is limiting individual ownership of firearms.

By establishing the office under the guise of "public health", it will be used to declare gun ownership a mental health issue.

Since it has been declared that gun violence is a health crisis, gun owners are now carriers of the disease that will need to be dealt with.

There will be gun owner registries as a result that can be accessed by companies such as banks and insurance companies.

[ray1970]

I disagree. The main goal is not generating revenue.


I didn?t mean as it applies to their gun nonsense. I just meant in general. Their goal is less about protecting health and the environment and more about levying fines.

[TEAMRICO]

I wonder why they don’t focus on the actual perpetrators? What are they hiding as far as the race and age group responsible for all this gun violence?
We could get to the root of the problem if they showed exactly who was committing the crimes they blame gun owners on.
Race, age and location of these crimes.
I’m sure it would not be who they claim it would be.

[Tyris]

They dont care about the violence. This is why no one gives a shit about chicago's south side. Violence is only important to them when one of the protected classes gets smoked trying to kill someone. Its like a game warden noticing a deer disembowel a mountain lion.
The greater agenda wants civil disarmament so they can further push their agenda without fear of reprisal for their government employees and agents.
These cunts get their talking points from the WEF: force all people into dense cities, remove automobiles, remove meat, remove gardens, remove any method by which someone could be self sufficient.
21st century serfdom. Forced subservience.

[electronman1729]

LOL Rhonda Fields can't even own a gun.

[Clint45]

See, one of my biggest issues about "let's have a conversation about common sense gun control," is that they deliberately exclude experts on guns, Criminology, and Constitutional Law from these discussions... then propose laws which defy logic and common sense.

Now tell us how you propose to take Ghost Glocks with happy switches away from gangbangers.

[eddiememphis]

Anytime someone in politics says, "let's have a conversation...", it's not a conversation.

It's similar to when your kids want to go to Pizza Hut. You say, we are not going to Pizza Hut. You allow them to whine and complain, and present their reasons why you should go to Pizza Hut. But in the end, it has already been decided, we ain't going to Pizza Hut.

When is the last time anyone can cite that a Town Hall meeting or a "conversation" has influenced a legislative bill?