Chuck Schumer Thinks He Is More Important Than You

Chuck Schumer is not a supporter of the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. He is in favor of more gun control and more restrictions on Americans in violation of our Constitutional right. But Chuckie is not completely against the Second Amendment. Chuck has a gun permit and carries one even though he is in a state where it is extremely tough to get any kind of carry permit. The kind of permit Chuckie has is nearly impossible to get.

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office — the investigative arm of the US Congress — slammed Schumer’s use of police resources for personal protection. It’s clear that Schumer believes he’s special. He wishes to ban private citizens’ ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.

“No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much — he’s able to protect himself,” says a 25-year police veteran.

Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an “unrestricted” pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it’s evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules — one for Americans and one for himself. American Daily

Yes, Schumer is part of the political class that thinks he is more important than you. He thinks he deserves more protection than you so much so that he even has police officers who escort him. He can defend himself and he has an escort detail of police officers.

Most citizens I know do not want their own police officer and if the state of New York wants to pay cops to tag along with Chuckie then it is their business as long as it is only New York taxpayers footing the bill.

But what we do want is to be able to exercise our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The people of New York (and all of the states for that matter) deserve THE EXACT SAME carry permit that Chuckie was able to get. The people are his boss and if he can get a permit then they all should have one.

In fact, if we were to follow the Constitution (assuming that requiring permits is not a violation of it) then people should be issued permits unless there is some compelling reason not to allow an individual to carry.

Obviously Schumer feels that he has certain inalienable rights that the rest of us do not. He would like to disarm you while packing his own heat.

And this people, is why we need to get rid of all these pukes.

It is November or never.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

24 Responses to “Chuck Schumer Thinks He Is More Important Than You”

  1. Adam says:

    “Chuck Schumer is not a supporter of the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.”

    Let’s be clear on this. Schumer is not a supporter of the right of Americans to keep and bear any kind of arm in any kind of situation. You know, a stance that is in agreement with the SCOTUS?

    Of course in your mind and apparently the mind of the author you cite it’s a black and white issue. Schumer can’t support restricting the sale and use of handguns and assault rifles without being called anti-gun and a hypocrite when he owns a handgun himself.

    It’s a ridiculous argument. To my knowledge Schumer has never supported a complete ban on hand guns or most types of guns and is in support (and compliance) of the carry permit system of New York. In fact he has been recognized for his support of hunters in New York because he isn’t against people legally using firearms.

    How is he a hypocrite?

    • Big Dog says:

      New York’s laws infringe upon the rights of people and the permit requests for the rubes (you know, ordinary folks) are denied. If Schumer were some guy no one knew he would not have that permit.

      He was one of 16 Senators to vote against the Vitter Amendment, which prohibited the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster. While a target of the NRA-lobby, Schumer has supported hunters sponsoring legislation to provide millions in outdoor recreation grants to landowners who allow hunting and fishing on their private property. Field and Stream Magazine designated Schumer one of their 2008 Hero Awards for his efforts.[29] Schumer is also a supporter of providing hunters with tax deductions for donating venison and other game to feeding programs. Wikipedia

      Schumer thinks that the government should be able to confiscate weapons in an emergency. This is anti American and against the Constitution (…shall not be infringed) And yes, he is a benevolent man. He got millions in outdoor recreation grants for people to hunt or fish on their own private property.

      Here is a clue, I do not need permission to hunt or fish on MY OWN PROPERTY. How nice of Chuck to let folks do things where they live. Maybe next he will give grants to people that alows them to LIVE in the homes they buy.

      But Chuck would not be a party to legislation that would ban guns. It would never be his intent:

      Ms. Feinstein made clear her real objective after passage of Feinstein-Schumer in 1994: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate…for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” Patriot Post

      • Adam says:

        “If Schumer were some guy no one knew he would not have that permit.”

        He’s not just some guy though so I hardly see how it matters.

        “Here is a clue, I do not need permission to hunt or fish on MY OWN PROPERTY.”

        It wasn’t giving permission so hunters could hunt on their own land. It was paying land owners to allow the public to hunt on that private land.

        “But Chuck would not be a party to legislation that would ban guns. It would never be his intent…”

        What? You cannot logically attack Schumer for the view of a co-sponsor when that view did not make it into the bill that Schumer sponsored. Or can you?

  2. Mr. Ogre says:

    I agree with you, Adam. Schumer does not support any American having any arms at any time. Well, except for himself and others that are more equal than some.

  3. Schumer is a self-promoting social fascist. He constantly pops up at social events on Long Island and arrogates the privilege of droning on to whoever’s there about whatever he feels like talking about. He’s the only man I’ve ever met who subtracts from the total of human knowledge by his very presence. And he selectively dismisses portions of the Constitution that clash with his preferences, such as this one:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” — Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    Why oh why isn’t there anyone running against him?

    • Adam says:

      “And he selectively dismisses portions of the Constitution that clash with his preferences, such as this one…”

      You are aware that the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the phrase “shall not be infringed” does not prevent the government from limiting ownership of certain types of firearms and restricting guns in areas such as school zones, right?

      Schumer’s stance on guns does not clash with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2nd, but it does seem to clash with your interpretation. In this case I’ll have to side with the SCOTUS. No offense to you or anything…

      • Big Dog says:

        So you are admitting that since Schumer is a Senator he received special treatment. And you give the SCOTUS decision wide latitude. It did not say that people could be put through burdensome and impossible processes in order to get a gun permit. It said that types of weapons could be regulated (this does not give states the permission to ban commonly used firearms but those like fully automatic weapons) and that guns could be regulated in certain zones (like schools and bars) and this is about the extent.

        New York imposes restrictive fees and impossible barriers and then says no. That is not what the SCOTUS said. Schumer is in favor of banning weapons because they LOOK scary. There is no other reason to have the inappropriately named assault weapons ban. The ban was against the cosmetic items on the weapons and not the functionality. The exact same functioning weapon without the cosmetic items were allowed.

        The ban did not help, it did not make things safer and it did not stop criminals from using the scary weapons.

        And don’t tell me Schumer did not know hoe his coauthor felt when he made this statement; “Chuck Schumer, who confessed to the Los Angeles Times, “We know if we push it too far, we’ll have no bill.”” Link Or perhaps you think he is not against people owning guns when he says things like this:

        “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!.” “We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!”
        –U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer NBC Nightly News 11/30/93

        The land owners could charge people themselves or let them hunt for free. No need for Schumer to be involved so how is this support for hunters? He gave away taxpayer money for something they could do themselves. People can decide to let folks hunt or to charge them to hunt on their OWN property.

        • Adam says:

          “So you are admitting that since Schumer is a Senator he received special treatment.”

          He holds one of the highest offices of our land. The list of “special” treatments would be as long as my arm I would imagine. I don’t know why this merits pointing out.

          “And you give the SCOTUS decision wide latitude.”

          I do no such thing. DC vs Heller explains among other things:

          * The 2nd is not unlimited
          * Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons are still lawful
          * Guns can be restricted in sensitive locations
          * Felons and the mentally ill can be denied the right
          * Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are valid

          So remind me again what Schumer has done that runs counter to that list.

          “And don’t tell me Schumer did not know how his coauthor felt when he made this statement…”

          I didn’t say he didn’t know how the coauthor felt, just that how she felt does not make it his view to attack him with.

          “Or perhaps you think he is not against people owning guns when he says things like this…”

          Or perhaps you’d like to find a source for that quote that provides the context instead of just repeating it like the thousands of other conservatives on the Internet.

          “He gave away taxpayer money for something they could do themselves.”

          They weren’t doing it apparently. Field & Stream magazine felt it was a worthy and useful piece of legislation. But I’m sure Field & Stream is just another branch of the liberal media, right? Covering the ass of a gun grabbing anti-American “social fascist” to make us rubes think he cares about hunting…?

  4. Big Dog says:

    You really do spin for the libs. Tel me, in all the things you cite from Heller, where it says that they can have intrusive rules or charge lots of money to prohibit people.

    As for his special treatment, here is where your lib shines through. This guy works for US, we do not work for him. Why is there a special rule for him? Why do the rules OUR RIGHTS not apply equally?

    I guess it would be OK if he was allowed free speech but you got arrested for it, I mean since he has more rights than the rest of us.

    Our rights are not based upon who we are, they are for ALL of us.

    And therein lies the reason you are a liberal, rights are only rights as long as you agree with how they are aplied.

    • Adam says:

      “Tell me, in all the things you cite from Heller, where it says that they can have intrusive rules or charge lots of money to prohibit people.”

      What you consider to be intrusive or “lots of money” is pretty relative. So you accept that they can place prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons but not in the form of different types of permits and fees?

      “Why is there a special rule for him? Why do the rules OUR RIGHTS not apply equally?”

      You’re going to continue to argue that his position as US Senator should not entitle him to anything that you and I can’t get ourselves? What’s next? Obama can’t sit in the Oval Office unless all of us get to as well? I mean, why does he get a special desk when he works for us. Shouldn’t we get the special desk?

      “And therein lies the reason you are a liberal, rights are only rights as long as you agree with how they are applied.”

      Wait. I thought the reason I was a liberal is because my parents are government dependents who raised me to be dependent as well. If you’re going to keep changing the way you label me you’re going to need to keep me more in the loop.

      • Big Dog says:

        Obama gets to sit at the desk because people electd him. It is entirely different when we discuss our Constitutional rights which, contrary to what you might believe, being elected to office is not one of

        • Adam says:

          The US Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS (you know, the authority) says a city cannot completely ban handguns in homes but that it is within it’s rights to limit concealed carry inside a city by way of things like permits. That’s something you’ll need to come to terms with or else you’re going to continue to look foolish when you accuse Schumer of having some right you do not have.

      • Blake says:

        We are not changing the way you are defined as a liberal, we are finding more ways in which you CAN BE defined as a liberal-

  5. Darrel says:

    And Adam cleans their glocks again.

  6. Big Dog says:

    I fired a 45 revolver a few months ago and hit the center of the target all 6 times. If you ever want to shoot, and I mean if you really want to learn, then let me know and you can come don my way and I will take you to the range and you can use my guns and I will supply the ammo (I will even provide you with hearing protection). I will teach you how to shoot.

    Now, Schumer, DOES have a right I don’t. If I were a NY resident I could not get the type of permit he has even though I can afford all the fees, have a clean record and have much more training with a firearm than he has.

    The SCOTUS might have said they could regulate with permits but I am sure hey did not indicate that the permit process was to be designed to thwart a right.

    Imagine what would happen if a rule were made that a person had to have a burn permit to burn a US Flag and that it cost 25,000 dollars and you had to burn it on your own property.

    How many people like you would be against such a restriction on free speech?

    I am not concerned about what the SCOTUS or Schumer says because they have not the power to keep us from our rights.

    • Adam says:

      It’s not $25,000 to get a carry permit so I hardly see how the comparison holds. Indeed though, the SCOTUS did not ruled about specifics of the permit process but perhaps they will eventually and New York City will be forced to change direction.