Democrats join Republicans to defeant anti-gun veto, for wrong reasons.

Some Democrats realize that it’s political suicide in Missouri to vote anti-gun, so they’re trying to override the governor’s veto, but not for the right reasons.

“The legislation would make it a misdemeanor for federal agents to attempt to enforce any federal gun regulations that “infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.” The same criminal charges would apply to journalists who publish any identifying information about gun owners. The charge would be punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

With the help of a few Democrats, Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature appears to be positioned to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a high-profile bill that seeks to nullify federal gun-control laws in the state and make criminals out of federal agents who attempt to enforce them.”

Nice right? But here’s what they really think.

“”We love our guns and we love hunting. It’s not worth the fight for me to vote against it,” said Rep. T.J. McKenna, D-Festus. But, he added, “the bill is completely unconstitutional, so the courts are going to have to throw it out.”

“Our Constitution is not a Chinese buffet, which we like and do not like,” the Jefferson City attorney told the AP. “The First Amendment is part of the Constitution that we must uphold. … (And) the supremacy clause means that states cannot criminalize the activities of agents of the federal government.”

“Being a rural-area Democrat, if you don’t vote for any gun bill, it will kill you,” Harris said. “That’s what the Republicans want you to do is vote against it, because if you vote against it, they’ll send one mailer every week just blasting you about guns, and you’ll lose” re-election.

“I personally believe that any higher court will probably rule this particular gun law unconstitutional — on that, I probably agree that the governor’s right,” Schieffer said. “But I may end up still voting for the gun bill, because I don’t want to be on record for not supporting guns.”

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-aid-republicans-missouri-gun-bill-223638149.html

Don’t worry, Schieffer, we now know you’re anti-gun.  Too bad none of you believe in the supremacy of the Second Amendment.

Tell me, politicians, how come it’s illegal to publish the phone and addresses of abortion doctors? Isn’t that covered by the First Amendment? No? Then neither is publishing the names and address of gun owners.

A private citizen is not a public figure unless he becomes one. These journalists are not interested in reporting anything but in outing gun owners so they can be harassed by their liberal neighbors and perhaps have their property stolen by courageous criminals (takes courage to break into a home where you might get shot).

Gun Confiscation in Chicago.

Were you convicted of drunk driving? Tax evasion? Watch out, Chicago cops are coming after your legally-owned guns:

“On a recent Wednesday here in the rundown suburbs south of Chicago, five police officers with bulletproof vests and Glock handguns knocked on doors and tried to talk their way into homes of felons and mentally ill residents who, according to records, held gun licenses. In its first six months, the unit has confiscated nearly 200 guns, but it has almost 5,000 more names to check.

Critics say such programs sometimes also confiscate the guns of people convicted of crimes unrelated to firearms, such as drunken driving or tax evasion. George Mason University law professor Joyce Lee Malcolm, a Second Amendment scholar and gun-rights advocate, said laws on who can’t possess firearms are too broad. “People that have committed a nonviolent crime are not a danger to the community,” she said, “so it seems wrong to seize guns from them.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323971204578625622172850706.html

And keep this in mind, a lot of psychologist are liberal, the American Psychological Association is anti-gun, so perhaps in the future a lot of gun-owning patriots will be labelled insane just because they believe in the Second Amendment.

Of course, there are a few pro-gun psychologists out there, so if you need help with any issue, ask the shrink on the first session how he feels about guns.

“if you’re dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship – a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc. – you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like “I’m carrying a gun right now and you can’t even tell,” especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, “threatening” behavior. But you might consider saying something like, “I sometimes carry a firearm, and you’ve never seemed to be uncomfortable around me.” Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach.”

http://www.mississippigunnews.com/a-psychologist-examines-the-anti-gun-advocates-mentality/

The Latest Lie: They’re calling gun control “crime control.”

Want to see evidence of how liberals change the language? Look no further:

“Even as we grieve for the victims of Aurora and Newtown, or lose promising young lives in Chicago and Indianapolis, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, America is enjoying an overall decrease in firearms violence. Many factors are involved, but an important one is the vigorous enforcement of firearms laws. That effort has spanned presidential administrations and has put trigger-pullers and predators in prison for long sentences. If you’re in a cell block, you’re not out with your piece, preying on your neighborhood.

That’s why I say that gun safety laws are not gun control–they are crime control.”

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/25/background-checks-arent-gun-control-theyre-crime-control/

See? He’s mixing two different things. Of course putting criminals in prison is crime control, but turning law-abiding people into criminals, like the guy who saved a child by shooting a pit bull in DC, that’s gun control.