Guest Post: Feinstein's Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party - Mao Tse Tung

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military - William Burroughs

Revolution?  Yes, it all sounds rather “extreme”, but the cold hard reality of our era is not going to comfort us with diplomacies and niceties, so honestly, why should I have to sugar coat anything?  We live in extreme times and there is no longer room for prancing around the ultimate consequences of that which is taking place in America today.  This country is increasingly sliding towards the edge of internal conflict.  The Liberty Movement and true Constitutionalists see it, subsections of Republicans and Democrats see it, and most of all, the federal government sees it.  In fact, they may even be counting on it. 

Over the past two years alone, multiple draconian policies have been enacted through executive order by the Obama Administration which build upon the civil liberty crushing actions of George W. Bush and press far beyond.  The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it.  You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state.  Our rights have been made forfeit.

There is no ambiguous or muddled separation between the citizenry and the government anymore.  The separation is absolute.  It is undeniable.  It is vast.  It is only a matter of time and momentum, and eventually there will be unbridled oppression, dissent, and conflict.  All that is required is a trigger, and I believe that trigger has arrived…       

Though made to appear “complex”, the gun control debate is actually an incredibly simple issue.  It all boils down to a couple of questions which gun grabbers rarely ask:  How does the 2nd Amendment affect the future?  That is to say, what was the original intent, and should we still value that intent as it applies to tomorrow?  And, what will really happen if it is forcibly removed?  Gun opponents act as though they are unaware of these questions, or maybe they don’t care.  However, it is vital to their safety and the safety of our culture in general that they do finally consider the bigger picture. 

We’ve all heard the prefabricated gun control talking points before.  Some of them so old they predate us.  They are numerous and most of them incredibly thin.  The gist of the anti-gun position, though, could be boiled down to these three points...

Common Anti-Gun Arguments:

1) The 2nd Amendment is “outdated” and no longer relevant in today’s modern society.

2) We do not want to stop you from “defending yourself”, or interfere with the American tradition of hunting, but people do not need “military assault weapons” for either.

3) Your claimed freedom to own guns should not supersede my freedom to live without fear of guns.  We exist in a society, and our society requires us to give up certain freedoms so that it can function.

Again, in response to these arguments, I have to ask, what does the 2nd Amendment mean for the future?  What was its original intent?  Gun control advocates would like to ignore the fact that the Constitution specifically protects a broad application of gun ownership, but when they cannot deny the legality of it, they instead turn to more abstract and existential methods of attack.  They try to twist the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to further their goals.  To respond briefly to each of the above fallacies:   

1) The right to self defense from ANY threat, whether it be an individual, or a criminal government, does not “outdate”.  It is a universal and eternal freedom.  It is a foundational pillar of natural law.  Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist, I would still have the inborn right to arm and protect myself and those I love, and the best way to do that is to own firearms.  The men who drafted the Constitution were far more intelligent than any pithy gun grabber today, yet, these socialist errand boys seem to believe that they have “surpassed” the wisdom of the Founders.  The amount of ego required to fuel such an attitude boggles the mind…

Gun violence and violence in general will not end simply by banning firearms.  The very idea that any society can remove all weapons from their sight is naïve to begin with.  Criminals always find a way.  Murder, rape, and mayhem will continue until you confront the root problem, which is the human mind, and the human heart.  Only when these two things are balanced in all people will violence end.  Disarming good men and women has never made a society “safer”.  When the power of defense is removed from the people, someone, somewhere, will seek to abuse their weakness.  The most armed entity of the time invariably becomes the subjugator, and usually this is the government.  Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc, all contained disarmed populations.  The guns were gone, and still millions upon millions died.  Modern day Mexico is a perfect example of a disarmed population that is now living in terror because of criminal organizations (which, of course, still have guns).  Disarmament does NOT end gun violence, it only changes the dynamic of who uses that violence, and it makes innocent victims easier to attack.

2) Because the legal argument over the “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is essentially over, and the Supreme Court has ruled that gun rights do indeed apply to individuals, and not just collective bodies like the National Guard, gun grabbers are now reverting to the argument that we ARE allowed to defend ourselves with firearms, but the kinds of firearms we are able to use can still be limited.  The goal of this argument is to fool gun owners who only possess conventional firearms (hunting rifles) into believing that they will not be personally affected if they support a ban on military style weapons.  These wishy-washy hunting enthusiasts are often referred to as “Elmer Fudds” because of their gullibility.

All gun confiscation programs start by chipping away at the outer barriers of gun ownership.  Like termites slowly chewing away at the wooden skeleton of a home, anti-gun proponents start small and end by destroying the entire edifice.  Anyone who believes Feinstein’s legislation will begin and end with AR-15’s and AK-47’s is living in fantasy land.  That said, the 2nd Amendment was not established for hunting purposes.  Nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers do they mention “hunting” as their primary concern.  Instead, gun rights are protected in order to ensure that the citizenry remains dominant over any centralized government that turns to corruption.  We are supposed to police our own political leaders, and without military style arms, this becomes increasingly difficult. 

Gun grabbers will argue that our government is not the enemy because it is derived through democratic elections.  They will say that we can change it anytime we like in the voting box.  I would point out that regardless of which party is placed in power through elections, nothing in terms of our direction as a country has been changed, and, that both parties support almost identical policies.  For instance, Obama has come out in favor of nearly identical policy initiatives to Bush, and I can almost guarantee that many Republicans will sign onto the gun control efforts of Democrats despite their supposed pro-gun rhetoric.  When the two party system becomes a one party system, voting becomes irrelevant. 

Finally, they will admonish the idea of an armed citizenry keeping the government in check as a “fairy tale”.  They will claim that in the face of modern military might, constitutionalists would be crushed.  For what can an AK-47 do to an F-15?  Apparently, they have never heard of Afghanistan, which has used AK-47’s and 30 year old armaments to repel two technologically advanced armies; the Soviet Union and the U.S.  Of course, the Afghanis did not allow themselves to be disarmed…   

3) Here is where we get into the nonsense of intellectual idiocy.  The only real skill which academics seem to have is jumbling piles of logical fallacies together to make a single argument that sounds “rational”, but, in fact, isn’t.  The third debate point is an extremely collectivist one, and collectivist arguments generally exploit the idea that individuals must sacrifice their personal freedoms in order for the group to function. 

The truth is, the group does not matter.  The perceived collective concerns and fears of a mass of people are not relevant.  All that matters are the concerns of the singular man or woman, and whether or not those concerns are legitimate.  If a person “fears” guns and gun violence, then that is their private problem, not the problem of our entire society.  We as gun owners should not have to relinquish our rights because others are afraid of what MIGHT happen to them.  We should demand that they control THEIR fear, instead of being allowed to control OUR guns.  Just because a portion of our country shares this individual fear does not make that fear any more credible, or any more our problem.      

Do They Know What They Are In For...?

Feinstein’s campaign for gun control is not hers alone; it has been the overall establishment’s work in progress for decades.  I covered the broad based arguments of gun control advocates above because I wanted to illustrate the tangibility of gun ownership.  I want to show you where we stand as constitutionalists, and I can say confidently that our moral and intellectual footing is strong.  To be clear, when defenders of a particular idea are right in their position, they are much more likely to fight and die for that position, and they are much more likely to win.  

In the beginning I asked what the 2nd Amendment means for the future of this country.  Not only if it continues, but if it disappears.  If I was a gun control proponent, I would weigh the aftereffects of my actions carefully, because the penalties will likely be dire…

I have heard it argued that Americans are passive.  We didn’t rise up against the last Assault Weapons Ban. We didn’t rise up against the Patriot Act.  We didn’t rise up against TSA molestation.  We didn’t rise up against warrantless wiretapping, the assassination of U.S. citizens, or even the NDAA.  The people who make this point, though, are not looking at the larger issue.  It is one thing for our government to pass legislation; the wider application of that legislation on our streets and at our doorsteps is another matter. 

Feinstein’s bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective.  The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable.  It reaches far beyond the Assault Weapons Ban of the 1990’s, calling for the creation of a massive database of almost all gun owners in the United States.  This database will require citizens to submit their EXISTING firearms to cataloging, and the owners to be filed and fingerprinted like criminals. 

The bill will ban the outright the sale, manufacture, and transfer of at least 120 models of firearms (which have not yet been named).  It will ban the manufacture and sale of most if not all semi-automatic rifles and the bill specifically targets handguns as well.  Large capacity mags and mag fed weapons will essentially disappear from gun stores.  Though, those guns designated as “hunting rifles” will be exempt (for now).

Feinstein has also openly agreed with NY Governor Andrew Cuomo that government buy back programs (forced selling of firearms at a reduced price) and even physical confiscations are on the table:

To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) in the United States.  If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands.

Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons.  Why?  Because gun registration reeks of fascism!  Some might call this “cliche”, but let’s just examine the guidelines of the Nazi Gun Registration Program of 1938:

- Classified guns for "sporting purposes"

- All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.

- Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law (meaning officials could have guns, citizens could not).

- Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

- The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.

- Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

You see, we’ve witnessed the Feinstein gun bill before, many times through history.  We know how it ends, so, there is very little incentive for us to go along quietly.

The database itself is truly the crux of it all.  It basically begs to be defied.  When a government has become openly hostile to common people, destructive of their economy, and oppressive of their individual rights, it only follows that gun registration will lead to outright confiscation later down the road or imprisonment for the owner.  Many Americans are simply not going to fall into the same trap that past societies have fallen into.  The eventual refusal of millions of citizens to voluntarily register will lead to a definite federal response. 

The Department Of Homeland Security has obviously taken this into account, at least partly, by stockpiling over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the span of a year, most of which are used in weapons distributed by the government for domestic enforcement.  Their projected scenario, I believe, involves limited resistance from people like myself; “gun nuts” and “liberty freaks” who are on the “fringe” of the populous.  At least, that’s what the headlines will say.  In the end, who will care if a few “conspiracy theorists” take a bullet in the quest to end gun violence, right?  But then again…

What I see in America is a much harder stance against gun confiscation than at any time in recent memory, and far less compromising than in the 1990’s.  Gun grabbers are, in my view, walking into a hornets nest.  Most average firearms enthusiast may be less aware of the deeper problems at hand, but they know when they are about to be raped, and will react in kind.  We in the Liberty Movement are often accused of “radicalizing” people against government authority, but I have to say, if that is the case, then the Feds are doing a much better job than we ever could.

Simultaneously, the UN (which most gun owners despise) is helping matters along by using the recent Sandy Hook shooting as a springboard for a reintroduction of their failed international Small Arms Treaty:

"European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States, where gun control is an explosive political issue."

"Newtown has opened the debate within the United States on weapons controls in ways that it has not been opened in the past," Abramson said, adding that "the conversation within the U.S. will give the (Obama) administration more leeway."

The UN has always claimed that their small arms treaty would NOT restrict private gun ownership in the U.S., and that it only deals with the international trade of illicit arms.  Yet, they try to use gun control actions in the face of Sandy Hook as a rationale for reopening negotiations?  They can't have it both ways.  Either they are trying to tie the treaty to domestic gun ownership in the U.S, or they aren't.  Will our government sign on to an international agreement to restrict private gun ownership on top of Feinstein's gun grab bill?  

To put this in the most basic terms: registration and restriction equals revolution.  Count on it.  It is not a matter of what we "want", it is a matter of what is necessary.  Without a citizenry armed with weapons of military application, we lose our last deterrent to tyranny, and thus, we lose everything.  When backed into a corner, a victim has two options: he can lie down and die, or, he can fight regardless of the odds.  Sadly, this is where we are in America; fear, servitude, subservience, or civil war.

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws - Edward Abbey

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Karlus's picture

It wont pass. Even a water down version wont pass....

dwdollar's picture

With the right "crisis" they can pass about anything...

Transformer's picture

Michael Moore carrys.  Well... not really... but, he hires someone to carry for him.  You can do that when you are a rich Elite.


And on Meet The Press, Sunday, the host of the show, Gregory, railed against armed guards at school.  And guess how it is where he sends his kids to school.... yep.

A good illustration of what it means to be an Elite.

Harlequin001's picture

What a load of bollocks. Do you really think that Americans are any different than anyone else on this planet?

Stop kidding yourselves. This only ends when everyone has had enough, and that only ends when the freebies do.

Revolution my arse.

The mans a fucking idiot.


hedgeless_horseman's picture



Revolution would cause disruptions to gasoline supplies, 24 hour pharmacies, television programming, and fast food.  We The People of the United States of America know this as fact.  Therefore, no revolution in America.

F. Bastiat's picture

Not necessarily.  Slow and steady's the way to go.  Precision, accuracy, no disruption.

john39's picture

perhaps civil chaos was the goal all along... more divide and conquer, no matter how terrible the cost.

F. Bastiat's picture

Chaos plays into the despot's hands. 

We've already seen the despot foment domestic insurrections against us in the case of the "Occupy" movement.

economics9698's picture

Bull shit.  Kill a few politicians, bankers, and fortune 500 CEO's and see what results you get.

The Yids have been assassinating political leaders for centuries to get their way.  Turn the fucking tables on the sub human bastards.

F. Bastiat's picture

Random, wanton, anarchist violence is sure to fail.  Your marxist "revolution" would be over in two weeks.

economics9698's picture

Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy ring a bell?

They all supported hard money, which side won?


Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

In order to insure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganinzed into the First Galactic Empire!!  For a SAFE and SECURE society!!!!!

Michaelwiseguy's picture

There won't be a Civil War. There will be an armed "Insurrection" by the American People against the Federal Government!

The mainstream media is engaged in Sedition of the US Constitution and deliberately engaging in Social Engineering of the American People 24/7/365. The people must demand a new FCC regulation requiring TV news to carry an hourly warning label warning people of their psychological social engineering practices.

The law abiding People of America are the Government and the people in DC are our elected representatives. Why would the American people grant the Federal Government a monopoly power of firearms and disarmament of the American People? Guns and Rifles are people power.

Try Senator Dianne Feinstein in a Federal Court For Treason To The Constitution 21k signatures so far.

The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.

An outline of her bill may be found here:

Diogenes's picture

When has the government ever knuckled under to people with guns?


When has it knuckled under to political influence and "contributions"?


So forget buying more guns and forget shooting the bastards no matter how bad they deserve it. If you really want results, ORGANIZE.


Michaelwiseguy's picture

Publish the home addresses of all congress critters, government bureaucrats, and cabinet employees. We'll take it from there.

12ToothAssassin's picture

Im not worried because Feinstein has vowed to "take these dangerous weapons of war off our streets” so this must mean police, sheriff and all officers of the peace, right?

formadesika3's picture

"When has the government ever knuckled under to people with guns?


When has it knuckled under to political influence and "contributions"?


So forget buying more guns and forget shooting the bastards no matter how bad they deserve it. If you really want results, ORGANIZE."


ORGANIZE means Join the NRA. If the NRA is too tame for you, join another political lobbying group for gun rights but by every means possible support ORGANIZED resistance to gun control. All gun owners must put their money where their mouth is.

The fight is not over. The Supreme Court has interpreted for gun owners a solid foundation to protect their 2nd amendment rights but that doesn't mean that gun-grabbers have given up the fight. They will use other means to try to subvert the 2nd amendment. This is the crucial next phase of the battle.

LFMayor's picture

piss on the NRA,  just another breed of political leeches.  Use your money to arm yourself.  Some goddamn suit and tie you send money to isn't going to save the world for you, you'll have to do it your damn self.

PowerzThatB's picture

Who do you think bankrolls the lawsuits against the anti-2nd amendment grabbers that allow you to have a gun? You might want to look into joining; they do a lot more good than I think you realize. And you can join AND arm yourself. 

Anusocracy's picture

Wage a verbal war on government like it has been doing on us.

The more derogatory the words, the better.


COLUMBUS, Ohio – New research shows how support for a generally liked policy can be significantly lowered, simply by associating it with a group seen as “radical” or “extreme.”

In one experiment, researchers found that people expressed higher levels of support for a gender equality policy when the supporters were not specified than when the exact same policy was attributed to “radical feminist” supporters.

These findings show why attacking political opponents as “extremists” is so popular – and so effective, said Thomas Nelson, co-author of the study and associate professor of political science at Ohio State University.

“The beauty of using this ‘extremism’ tactic is that you don’t have to attack a popular value that you know most people support,” Nelson said.

“You just have to say that, in this particular case, the supporters are going too far or are too extreme.”

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Gun Grabbers are Racists and Terrorists.

A Nanny Moose's picture

This really isn't a stretch. Disarming of negros in this land, goes back at least to the 1750's

ceilidh_trail's picture

Gannett published the names and adresses of all gun registrants in Westchester county, NY. So turning the tables sounds like a fine and fair idea...

lincolnsteffens's picture

Wasn't that just a great idea! Now criminals looking for guns know which houses

to watch. When the owners to leave they will have all the time needed to

locate them.

Transformer's picture

It's funny, cause the gun grabbers who published the list of gun owners don't realize that they are at the same time saying to robber and thieves, Hey!  Everybody else, isn't likely to have guns.  AND, the list tells robber and thieves who not to rob. 


Obviousman's picture

"When has the government ever knuckled under to people with guns?  NEVER."


Historical fail.


The theft of the 1800 presidential election, where a threat of a march on Washington by 20,000 armed members of the Pennsylvania citizen militia (among others) stopped the Federalist-controlled House from throwing the presidential election to the (Federalist) loser of the election.

The Coke-Davis affair, in which the carpetbagger Reconstructionist Texas Governor Coke refused to vacate the Capitol building after losing the election to Govener-elect Davis. He was persuaded to vacate after news of citizens preparing for an armed confrontation at the Capitol reached him.

The citizen uprising in Las Vegas NM in 1879, to reclaim their town government from a mob of criminals with such complete control that they could and did murder citizens with impunity because they even owned the coroner's office.

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee (August 2, 1946), during which a town took their government back from a corrupt machine that used election fraud to retain control of the town indefinitely.

And let's not forget just over the border, where armed men of the Oka tribe had to physically stand off government bureaucrats intent on turning their sacred burial grounds into a golf course despite signed treaties. They won. If they hadn't had the means of resistance, the government would have bulldozed right over them. That happened in 1994.

So just because you didn't see something happen doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Thanks for the history lesson. Please don't mind if I use it in future posts. I'll add;

Manuel Zelaya Arrested: Honduras President Detained By Soldiers

The 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis was a political dispute over plans to rewrite the Constitution of Honduras. It began when Honduran President Manuel Zelaya planned to hold a poll on a referendum on a constituent assembly to change the constitution. A majority of the government, including the Supreme Court and prominent members of his own party, saw such plans as unconstitutional,as they could lead to presidential re-election, which is permanently outlawed by the Honduran constitution. The Honduran Supreme Court had upheld a lower court injunction against the 28 June poll, However, the constitutional process for dealing with this situation was unclear; there were no clear procedures for removing or prosecuting a sitting president. The crisis culminated in the removal and exile of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by the Honduran military in a coup d'état.

Citxmech's picture

Thanks for the link!

PS I'm loving these petitions lately.

PPS If we don't get more signatures on this petition than that one to deport Piers Morgan, I'm going to be very disappointed.  GET TO WORK PEOPLE!

Bad Attitude's picture

When it comes to those Whitehouse petitions, I don't trust Dear Leader with the names and contact information connected.

Pegasus Muse's picture



"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"   

-- Thomas Jefferson

Pegasus Muse's picture

This is what happens when a country bans citizens' right to own firearms:   

Australia Bans Guns, Crime Rate Increases | Gun Control Fail

NotApplicable's picture

"Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy ring a bell?

They all supported hard money, which side won?"

The evil side won, duh.

Now, tell me, just how do you propose to make society a better place by relying upon evil to do your bidding? All you do is to further empower it over you.

economics9698's picture

Jesus himself would approve killing moneychangers.  The one time Jesus flipped out, around the moneychangers. 

Race Car Driver's picture

It's why The Ring had to be destroyed. Evil begets evil and cannot be used for good.

FEDbuster's picture

The banksters also tried to kill Andrew Jackson.

Fifty million American households own at least one firearm.  There are 300 million + firearms owned by American citizens.  If only three percent of households rise to the challenge, it would be in excess of 1.5 million patriots drawing a line in the sand.  Imagine if you will hundreds of Ruby Ridges or Wacos everyday, day after day, month after month.

"The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants. "  Isoroku Yamamoto 

What is a "Three Percenter"?

Michaelwiseguy's picture

A "Million Man Gun and Rifle March on DC" would do it too.

The Gooch's picture

I imagine 1,500 (seasoned) would throw them for a loop.

A million? They'll be killing each other to crawl into felonious bunkers. 

Bunkers without sunlight. SOMA won't save them. They'll freak out on each other like the cannibals they are. Straight, No Chaser

Citxmech's picture

Personally, I think the better avenue to armed insurrection against the feds is to mobilize from the grassroots up and just ignore the leaches.  Don't let your state take their blood money, don't cooperate at any level, localize your economy to minimize the extraction of federal taxes, and make them irrelevant.

And regarding Feinstin's latest assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I truly hope that she gets her ass kicked back to Kalifornia on this proposal - and her state's population wakes up and gets her out of there, but if that's going to happen - we all need to start making a huge stink NOW - and that means letters and phone calls, etc.

Don't forget the uproar over TARP - >90% against - and they just rammed it through anyway.  We need to make sure this ends differently.

F. Bastiat's picture

Tend to agree with that. Ignore, ridicule, move ahead.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Feinsteinian Politics in her hometown of San Francisco...

San Francisco says this:

  • No to owning pet gold fish of either sex
    (too cruel-not a choice)
  • No to circumcision of baby boys
    (too cruel-not a choice)
  • Yes to abortion of either sex baby humans
    (not cruel-is a choice)

Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here somewhere?


San Francisco Considers Ban on Goldfish as Pets to Prevent Their 'Inhumane Suffering'

As for people who would argue that it’s just a goldfish? “That’s how we are in this society,” Gerrie said. “Some people say, ‘It’s just a human’ – when it comes to some that kill. It’s a matter of degree. Where do you stop?”


San Francisco Circumcision Referendum Stirs Anti-Semitism Debate

Under Hess’s proposal, circumcisions performed for other than a “clear, compelling and immediate” medical need would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of as much as $1,000 and up to a year in jail.


The penalty would give a circumcised man “more legal standing to complain and file suit after the fact,” said Lloyd Schofield, 59, who is spearheading the effort in San Francisco.


SF Area Pro-Choice Coalition Stands Up for Choice; Forty Organizations Join Forces to Protect Women's Health

The rally and march are in demonstration against anti-choice extremists who will descend on San Francisco on the same day to push a radical agenda that opposes access to reproductive freedom in all is forms including access to abortion, birth control services, and medically accurate sex education. Supporters of the anti-choice protest include groups with a history of intimidation and clinic harassment, who oppose not only women's rights, but also other civil liberties like freedom of religion and marriage equality.

economics9698's picture

Yids wanting to kill goyim, what a fucking surprise.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



We Americans willing to accept contradictory laws, even argue for them, what a fucking surprise.

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Following The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to the letter. Disgusting.

Cosimo de Medici's picture

I've heard there are people who want to wipe out Government contractors.  Can people like you (Government contractors) "Go Galt"?  I guess not, tough to get the GovCheese in the Gulch.  Better deflect the anger and blame it on the Joooos.

Agent P's picture

Circumcision is a cruel and brutal procedure.  After I had mine done, I couldn't walk for a year.  True story.

Pseudo Anonym's picture


I couldn't walk for a year.

that's what happens when you have it done in your fifties