Comment: I don't see...

(See in situ)

I don't see...

the activism.

Specifically, at the moment, I don't see people taking
the golden opportunity to confront the hypocrisy on the
issue of:

Prohibited Persons

(and yes, I want to)

The gun grabbers, at present, are framing the whole issue in terms of "gun safety"
and "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" - how could anyone be against that?

When the issue of "prohibited persons" - the forty or however many million Americans who are prohibited - on pain of ten years in federal prison - from their 2nd Amendment rights altogether.

You're an elderly disabled person wanting to protect your couple of medical marijuana plants from marauding thugs with a single shot shotgun? Makes no difference at all - you're a felon - Eric Holder and Diane Feinstein say so, and so does 18 USC § 922(g) & (n)

So does this sound defensible? Of course not, but does DiFI have to worry about this? Of course not, because we are letting the control freaks define the debate and not making the slightest attempt to call them on this blatant hypocrisy.

Thousands of people asking the simple question, "Do you support the existing definitions of "prohibited persons" barred from the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights to the possession of firearms?" of their representatives would be a huge step toward redefining the whole debate.

If they agree that marijuana consumers are felons if they exercise their RKBA well, let them defend *that *. And if they answer otherwise, then ask them what they are doing to fix the system and decriminalize freedom.

Yeah, I would *love* to see this, but I don't...