In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I'm well aware. I'm also deeply concerned about the depth of our differences. My hope is that there is still some common ground but I doubt it more ever passing day.
You are both on the correct path. You and I are willing to allow the progressives to live their lives as they choose. Conversely, they want to allow us to live our lives as they choose. And they seem blind to the difference.
I think they are simply wrong on many points, politically, socially, culturally, intellectually.
They think I am simply evil.
I am at a loss to see how the disconnect between those two attitudes ends well. But end it will, and I like my odds.
Liberals can only hope that granting of power to a central government will not result in total government and a police state. And they are stupid enough to leave it up to hope.
....it comes down to states rights....What Mass. wants,does not mean what 'Bama wants...its called traditional values...Having an English Degree doesn't mean your right..My son has one, but has a "Tavor"...which if the degree has any bareing, he would turn it into a plow shear...16 Gauge, welcome to absurdity...long live your pointless reason for posting... a change in scenery is always welcome....I have some reservations about the validity of all are nothing firarm regs, but its like anything else,we are all human.and the agreed to disagree rule is invoked...[:o)] There is no way you can espouse Liberal Values , and promote yourself to act in favor of firearm freedoms...Welcome to the "grinder"....
quote:Originally posted by varsity07840
Come on people, let's get past all the rhetoric and get down to reality. Since 2008 the gun lobby has preached the gospel that
Obama is going to take your guns. Well, it's 2015 and I still have mine and unless you're a bad guy, which you all say that you're not, then you all have yours. Why is it that every time we have a mass shooting , the gun lobby goes on the defensive and says that
The incident is another opportunity for gun rights people to take guns away? History tells us that after decades of gun violence that it's never happened. In fact, in a number of states, gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced.
New York SAFE Act ring any bells?
A direct result of Sandy Hook.
My state has instituted universal background checks, eliminated FTF sales as a result of Sandy Hook and other incidents.
Other states have put in place additional restrictive laws because of these incidents, so yes, there is concrete evidence that the left will use these incidents to restrict ownership rights. Interestingly, all of the weapons purchased for these shootings have been done using the NICS system. The recent shooting in Charleston is unique, of course in that the 3 day delay acceptance portion of the NICS system was implemented.
Obama has recently stated that one of his main regrets is that he was unable implement common sense gun control laws at the national level.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by varsity07840
Come on people, let's get past all the rhetoric and get down to reality. Since 2008 the gun lobby has preached the gospel that
Obama is going to take your guns. Well, it's 2015 and I still have mine and unless you're a bad guy, which you all say that you're not, then you all have yours. Why is it that every time we have a mass shooting , the gun lobby goes on the defensive and says that
The incident is another opportunity for gun rights people to take guns away? History tells us that after decades of gun violence that it's never happened. In fact, in a number of states, gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced.
New York SAFE Act ring any bells?
A direct result of Sandy Hook.
My state has instituted universal backggun rights, relative to carry have been enhancedround checks, eliminated FTF sales as a result of Sandy Hook and other incidents.
Other states have put in place additional restrictive laws because of these incidents, so yes, there is concrete evidence that the left will use these incidents to restrict ownership rights. Interestingly, all of the weapons purchased for these shootings have been done using the NICS system. The recent shooting in Charleston is unique, of course in that the 3 day delay acceptance portion of the NICS system was implemented.
Obama has recently stated that one of his main regrets is that he was unable implement common sense gun control laws at the national level.
+100
And I will take the easy one!
"gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced"
And this is over the vocal objection of the Liberal/Democrats.
Mainly in RED States.
(ref. Texas open carry)
Maybe when up is down and down is up. Until then, pretty sure the answer is no. The country is too divided, people are too stubborn, white folks are terrified, both parties are bought and paid for. It's much easier on the blood pressure to just lurk and read. Good luck.
I simply do not get it. You quote Feinstein word for word, lamenting that she could not get enough votes to confiscate all firearms, quote the President saying outright that he doesn't believe anyone should be allowed to have a gun, and its "out of context?"
Anyone with a seventh-grade education can read the particulars of the UN "Small Arms Treaty" recently signed by John Kerry "on the behalf of the American people" (feh) and heartily endorsed by the President and most of the other Democrats.
I realize that it has no teeth unless ratified by the Senate, but the principle of the idea that our so-called leaders would support such a thing, and the progressives say "no one is calling for civilian disarmament," and slide right up to a ballot box and vote for these traitors?
i would wager 99.9% of those in favor of banning firearms have never been the victim of any sort of crime or personal assault...and truly believe that law enforcement will immediately answer a 911 call for help and save the day.....to many tv shows
Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to make it illegal to be in possession of high-capacity ammo magazines, likely setting up a new Second Amendment battle in the Golden State.
After passing the measure with a 12-0 vote, Councilman Paul Krekorian reportedly challenged the National Rifle Association.
"If the NRA wants to sue us over this, bring it on." he said.
Even though California law already prohibits the manufacturing of high-capacity magazines, lawmakers argued the so-called "loophole" that allowed people to own them has become a public safety issue amid recent shootings.
People who own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds will have 60 days from the time the law goes into effect to destroy, legally sell or surrender them. Violators will face a misdemeanor charge, The Los Angeles Times reported.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the NRA urged Los Angeles officials to start enforcing federal gun laws before passing new gun control measures.
"Instead of passing new bans that criminals ignore and prosecutors neglect-while leaving good, law-abiding citizens disarmed-maybe Los Angeles should improve its shameful record as one of the worst cities in the U.S.when it comes to enforcing existing federal gun laws against criminals," the gun rights group said.
It wasn't immediately clear if the NRA planned to fight the magazine ban via the legal system.
Comments
I'm well aware. I'm also deeply concerned about the depth of our differences. My hope is that there is still some common ground but I doubt it more ever passing day.
You are both on the correct path. You and I are willing to allow the progressives to live their lives as they choose. Conversely, they want to allow us to live our lives as they choose. And they seem blind to the difference.
I think they are simply wrong on many points, politically, socially, culturally, intellectually.
They think I am simply evil.
I am at a loss to see how the disconnect between those two attitudes ends well. But end it will, and I like my odds.
Come on people, let's get past all the rhetoric and get down to reality. Since 2008 the gun lobby has preached the gospel that
Obama is going to take your guns. Well, it's 2015 and I still have mine and unless you're a bad guy, which you all say that you're not, then you all have yours. Why is it that every time we have a mass shooting , the gun lobby goes on the defensive and says that
The incident is another opportunity for gun rights people to take guns away? History tells us that after decades of gun violence that it's never happened. In fact, in a number of states, gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced.
New York SAFE Act ring any bells?
A direct result of Sandy Hook.
My state has instituted universal background checks, eliminated FTF sales as a result of Sandy Hook and other incidents.
Other states have put in place additional restrictive laws because of these incidents, so yes, there is concrete evidence that the left will use these incidents to restrict ownership rights. Interestingly, all of the weapons purchased for these shootings have been done using the NICS system. The recent shooting in Charleston is unique, of course in that the 3 day delay acceptance portion of the NICS system was implemented.
Obama has recently stated that one of his main regrets is that he was unable implement common sense gun control laws at the national level.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by varsity07840
Come on people, let's get past all the rhetoric and get down to reality. Since 2008 the gun lobby has preached the gospel that
Obama is going to take your guns. Well, it's 2015 and I still have mine and unless you're a bad guy, which you all say that you're not, then you all have yours. Why is it that every time we have a mass shooting , the gun lobby goes on the defensive and says that
The incident is another opportunity for gun rights people to take guns away? History tells us that after decades of gun violence that it's never happened. In fact, in a number of states, gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced.
New York SAFE Act ring any bells?
A direct result of Sandy Hook.
My state has instituted universal backggun rights, relative to carry have been enhancedround checks, eliminated FTF sales as a result of Sandy Hook and other incidents.
Other states have put in place additional restrictive laws because of these incidents, so yes, there is concrete evidence that the left will use these incidents to restrict ownership rights. Interestingly, all of the weapons purchased for these shootings have been done using the NICS system. The recent shooting in Charleston is unique, of course in that the 3 day delay acceptance portion of the NICS system was implemented.
Obama has recently stated that one of his main regrets is that he was unable implement common sense gun control laws at the national level.
+100
And I will take the easy one!
"gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced"
And this is over the vocal objection of the Liberal/Democrats.
Mainly in RED States.
(ref. Texas open carry)
Anyone with a seventh-grade education can read the particulars of the UN "Small Arms Treaty" recently signed by John Kerry "on the behalf of the American people" (feh) and heartily endorsed by the President and most of the other Democrats.
I realize that it has no teeth unless ratified by the Senate, but the principle of the idea that our so-called leaders would support such a thing, and the progressives say "no one is calling for civilian disarmament," and slide right up to a ballot box and vote for these traitors?
No. I just don;t get it. [V]
See... Your problem is that you don't have feelings![;)]
Feelings. Nothing more than Feelings. Wo Wo Wo Feelings....
[;)][:D]
Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to make it illegal to be in possession of high-capacity ammo magazines, likely setting up a new Second Amendment battle in the Golden State.
After passing the measure with a 12-0 vote, Councilman Paul Krekorian reportedly challenged the National Rifle Association.
"If the NRA wants to sue us over this, bring it on." he said.
Even though California law already prohibits the manufacturing of high-capacity magazines, lawmakers argued the so-called "loophole" that allowed people to own them has become a public safety issue amid recent shootings.
People who own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds will have 60 days from the time the law goes into effect to destroy, legally sell or surrender them. Violators will face a misdemeanor charge, The Los Angeles Times reported.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the NRA urged Los Angeles officials to start enforcing federal gun laws before passing new gun control measures.
"Instead of passing new bans that criminals ignore and prosecutors neglect-while leaving good, law-abiding citizens disarmed-maybe Los Angeles should improve its shameful record as one of the worst cities in the U.S.when it comes to enforcing existing federal gun laws against criminals," the gun rights group said.
It wasn't immediately clear if the NRA planned to fight the magazine ban via the legal system.
It will impose laws upon its citizens but will not enforce them upon its illegal residents.
Is there any way we can trigger the 'Big One'?
Brad Steele
LA is a Sanctuary City.
It will impose laws upon its citizens but will not enforce them upon its illegal residents.
Is there any way we can trigger the 'Big One'?
We could only hope. OOPS is that hateful or mean spirited?
Wait, we could ask Bush. If he could steer a hurricane perhaps he has the code.