OK, my keyboard is definitely having a bad second Monday... I deleted my 1st attempt to edit offline. Here's what I was trying to say.
I'm still reading but got to the part about the Joyce Foundation and decided to comment. I'm not sure just how far the re-defining of words has proceeded, but when I read the part about their
“gun violence” prevention program and its goals I had to stop and check.
They claim to have as their first two listed goals:
1. Advance and implement federal, state, and local policies and practices that reduce easy accessibility of guns to those at risk of violence
and
2. Support policies to reduce easy accessibility of guns to those at risk of violence.
Now, the way I read that indicates that they want to prevent 'victims' from having access to guns.
"... those at risk of violence."
Aren't those the people who will be hurt by the violence of which they speak? They don't want people to be able to have guns to protect themselves.
THEIR WORDS.
Either there is more stupidity in these organizations than I believed, or they're just plain evil.
(I double checked their website, that's not a typographical error on my quote.)
IACP does some good work and creates networking opportunities among chiefs of police. That being said, anything IACP puts out on firearms regulation is extremely suspect.
In addition to their beholding to the groups and individuals mentioned, IACP is actually run by major cities chiefs of police who uniformly reflect the anti-firearms rights views of their mayors, city managers, and city councils.
Sorry to double post, but it's a long article with lots of good reading.
The 'membership' of the IACP strikes me as not dissimilar to AARP. A lot of people joing because the fit the membership requirements and there might be discounts on shopping.
I have to wonder if a lot of those memberships are also labels for the office? Some people collect patches, badges, coins, etc. without paying attention to what each individual item actually stands for. It looks good on the resume or in a frame on the wall.
I don't know many on the Left that go so far as to think very hard about much, unless it's to have an argument.
I've often been accused of giving people too much benefit of doubt. So, there's that.
OK, my keyboard is definitely having a bad second Monday... I deleted my 1st attempt to edit offline. Here's what I was trying to say.
I'm still reading but got to the part about the Joyce Foundation and decided to comment. I'm not sure just how far the re-defining of words has proceeded, but when I read the part about their
“gun violence” prevention program and its goals I had to stop and check.
They claim to have as their first two listed goals:
1. Advance and implement federal, state, and local policies and practices that reduce easy accessibility of guns to those at risk of violence
and
2. Support policies to reduce easy accessibility of guns to those at risk of violence.
Now, the way I read that indicates that they want to prevent 'victims' from having access to guns.
"... those at risk of violence."
Aren't those the people who will be hurt by the violence of which they speak? They don't want people to be able to have guns to protect themselves.
THEIR WORDS.
Either there is more stupidity in these organizations than I believed, or they're just plain evil.
(I double checked their website, that's not a typographical error on my quote.)
Lee thanks for the article and exposing this false "ghost gun" baloney.
Sheriff Hoffman
IACP does some good work and creates networking opportunities among chiefs of police. That being said, anything IACP puts out on firearms regulation is extremely suspect.
In addition to their beholding to the groups and individuals mentioned, IACP is actually run by major cities chiefs of police who uniformly reflect the anti-firearms rights views of their mayors, city managers, and city councils.
Sorry to double post, but it's a long article with lots of good reading.
The 'membership' of the IACP strikes me as not dissimilar to AARP. A lot of people joing because the fit the membership requirements and there might be discounts on shopping.
I have to wonder if a lot of those memberships are also labels for the office? Some people collect patches, badges, coins, etc. without paying attention to what each individual item actually stands for. It looks good on the resume or in a frame on the wall.
I don't know many on the Left that go so far as to think very hard about much, unless it's to have an argument.
I've often been accused of giving people too much benefit of doubt. So, there's that.