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.
Options
WHY THERE ARE GUN BANS. THE REAL STORY
dkb2003
Member Posts: 816 ✭✭✭✭
I here time and time again on here about the dems and that they are going to take away our rights. Does anyone really know why the gun laws are the way they are today?..I mean do you really really know? I think there are people here that know why. Do you know why in CA that you cant have a 38. 2inch barr or why we cant have fully auto rifles? Or why we couldnt have our 9mm with a hi cap mag..Its simple..It started when the crack apademic hit the usa in the mid 80s and the fact that you had just about every african american male under 24 yrs of age carrying fully auto mac 10s and izu 9mm and ak47s. we had more murders in CA and across the counrty during the mid 80s and early 90s then this country has ever seen. We had to something about it. By changes those laws it hurt us but maybe saved thousands of lives. So the next time you talk about gun laws try blaming the real factor...THE GANG BANGIN PUNKS and not the DEMS...[:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p]
Comments
I guess you are too young to remember 1968....
early guns bans came in the South and were directed at blacks so that the KKK and other scumbags could harass them at will without fear of retribution.
you are right about the blacks though,
early guns bans came in the South and were directed at blacks so that the KKK and other scumbags could harass them at will without fear of retribution.
Thank you[:D]
Look up the Brady Bunch, and ALL the rest of the anti-gun groups. WHO founded these groups? WHO is funding these groups? WHO is running/promoting these groups?
For some reason, the LIBS do not like guns, do not want you, I, or anyone to have a gun(s).
Readin 'em weep 'O young dim...[;)]
Give me a break I am not stupid try again to tell me why we have so many gun control laws. Yes it started with keeping guns away from blacks but the old west was filled with "Do not bring your gun to my town" Then way back in 1934 they did away with most full autos.
Feel free to jump into the 80's and fill me in ....
Did they ever find the Uzi her body guard lost in San Diego?
But the amazing thing is that about 90% of all the gun violence I just mentioned above occurs in one particular area of the metro KC area and by one particular ethnic group. Of course the newspaper won't name that area or group but would rather act like EVERYBODY in the greater KC area is somehow responsible.
I am not going to name that group becasue I would be called racist. So everyone here can just assume it is the Eskimos or whatever group you want to decide I am referring to. Heck, it might even be the white group and since I am white, surely no one can call me racist.
But if that group would stop their excessive violence, we would not have enough gun violence in KC to justify all the anti-gun editorials.
Simply facts, not opinion.
Remember Clinton sending our troops to confiscate the guns in other countries. And to think people were dumb enough to vote a dems back into office.
The brave people of this country are like chickens when they feal a little fear. Sqauck Squack Sqauck Squack Sqauck Squack Sqauck Squack
And blindly run into the wolfs mouth.
I here time and time again on here about the dems and that they are going to take away our rights. Does anyone really know why the gun laws are the way they are today?..I mean do you really really know? I think there are people here that know why. Do you know why in CA that you cant have a 38. 2inch barr or why we cant have fully auto rifles? Or why we couldnt have our 9mm with a hi cap mag..Its simple..It started when the crack apademic hit the usa in the mid 80s and the fact that you had just about every african american male under 24 yrs of age carrying fully auto mac 10s and izu 9mm and ak47s. we had more murders in CA and across the counrty during the mid 80s and early 90s then this country has ever seen. We had to something about it. By changes those laws it hurt us but maybe saved thousands of lives. So the next time you talk about gun laws try blaming the real factor...THE GANG BANGIN PUNKS and not the DEMS...[:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p]
Before you step out and tell us how much you know and how intelligent you are, do a little reading and at least find out a few facts. I'm not going to take the time and effort to take your argument apart piece by piece, because it would be mostly "preaching to the Choir" anyway. The National Firearms Act of 1934 predates your 1980'S "GANG BANGING PUNKS" by a few months.
LOOK IT UP!
quote:Originally posted by dkb2003
I here time and time again on here about the dems and that they are going to take away our rights. Does anyone really know why the gun laws are the way they are today?..I mean do you really really know? I think there are people here that know why. Do you know why in CA that you cant have a 38. 2inch barr or why we cant have fully auto rifles? Or why we couldnt have our 9mm with a hi cap mag..Its simple..It started when the crack apademic hit the usa in the mid 80s and the fact that you had just about every african american male under 24 yrs of age carrying fully auto mac 10s and izu 9mm and ak47s. we had more murders in CA and across the counrty during the mid 80s and early 90s then this country has ever seen. We had to something about it. By changes those laws it hurt us but maybe saved thousands of lives. So the next time you talk about gun laws try blaming the real factor...THE GANG BANGIN PUNKS and not the DEMS...[:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p]
Before you step out and tell us how much you know and how intelligent you are, do a little reading and at least find out a few facts. I'm not going to take the time and effort to take your argument apart piece by piece, because it would be mostly "preaching to the Choir" anyway. The National Firearms Act of 1934 predates your 1980'S "GANG BANGING PUNKS" by a few months.
LOOK IT UP!
Then there were the city sheriffs who enforced gun bans within city limits... back before the automobile was even introduced.
The armament problem exists because of economics and the breakdown of colonialism. There were always gangs but the availability of cash today, allows criminals and third worlders to discard their spears and knives and buy AKs and "Nines".
Drug money nationally and oil money internationally, both arms thugs
and gives them mobility they didn't have.
I remember poorer times when Negroes couldn't afford guns and the weapons of choice were a single edge razor in the hatband or a straight razor.
In those days noone ever knew an Arab.
This discussion is becoming too P.C.
The armament problem exists because of economics and the breakdown of colonialism. There were always gangs but the availability of cash today, allows criminals and third worlders to discard their spears and knives and buy AKs and "Nines".
Drug money nationally and oil money internationally, both arms thugs
and gives them mobility they didn't have.
I remember poorer times when Negroes couldn't afford guns and the weapons of choice were a single edge razor in the hatband or a straight razor.
In those days noone ever knew an Arab.
According to your post then every honest citizen should be armed not disarmed. loosing your gun rights to the anti gunners is the same as loosing them to gangs and thugs.
firearms = power
no firearms = no power
The Founding Fathers recognized this. They new that the right to keep and bear arms would be the first to fall when a tyrannical government manifested itself. The reason those sheriffs and marshalls created those anti-gun laws was because of power. If the people have the ability to challenge "the law", then "the law" has no power. If the sheriff has all the guns and you have none, then the sheriff is in charge. S**t rises to the surface, so it didn't take long for the big cities, states, and ultimately the Feds to see that the sheeple would actually allow the government to disarm them. Hence NFA 1934 (blamed on the ORIGINAL gang-bangers, with Italian names), GCA 1968, FFLRA 1986 and AWB 1994.
-Wolf
How Gun laws started, I can't tell you, But ODDS are some liberal bureaucrat who never cared about GUN CONTROL went on a rampage because[V] their loved one was shot by a "gun toting maniac".In theory you would think "the Maniac" was the problem and the gun an extention of his or her anger.Change the Judical System and not the gun laws maybe this direct approach to the problem will give the criminal more to think about when they're hangin' from a rope.But then again we wouldn't want to infringe on their rights. Right Back To Liberal!!!! HMMMMMMM!!!!!![V]
Unlike what you see in those movies, everyone did not carry a gun and the few gun bans that were tried were no more effective than they are today.
In addition, in say 1870, the morals and ethics of the general populace were much higher than they are today. A man's word was his bond or he did not succeed in business. Get pregnant out of wedlock and a girl had to spend a few months with her aunt back East. Horse thieves and abortionists were hung, promptly. Murderers, too. And everybody believed in their country, even the ex-rebels.
Today, we listen to rap music that tells us to get a shotgun and kill cops. Black culture denigrates women and treats them almost as property; it hails the welfare parasite who is "getting over on Whitey." Illegitimate births are so common that we are surprised to learn that an expectant mother is actually married. Half the population views cops as the enemy, the ofay. Judges, lawyers, and prosecutors use cocaine at parties and then walk into court on Monday morning to try a drug case. Blacks are 7 times more likely to commit murder than whites, but anyone who dares to say so is instantly labeled racist rather than realist. And most liberals subscribe to the theory "Blame America First."
But changing any of these problems would mean that the liberals and secular progressives are wrong, and we can't do that. Even admitting that there are problems would violate the rules of political correctness.
So the Democrats, the party of secular progressives and extreme liberals, moves for more gun control because it sounds good and is the easiest way out. Only thing is, it's not the way out, it's the way to hell.
When it comes to being a threat to our freedoms, Hillary is probably the most dangerous politician in America today, and that takes into account a lot of scoundrels, thieves, and perverts.
Given the proper mind-set...if what you say is true...the proper thought should be..
" Hillary represents REAl opportunity here in America to reclaim our Citizen Rights..."
Since she is just george bush in a DRESS...both wishing only to increase their own power by taking yours away...but you believe that bush is some sort of saviour.
When it comes to being a threat to our freedoms, Hillary is probably the most dangerous politician in America today quote:
Given the proper mind-set...if what you say is true...the proper thought should be..
" Hillary represents REAl opportunity here in America to reclaim our Citizen Rights..."
Since she is just george bush in a DRESS...both wishing only to increase their own power by taking yours away...but you believe that bush is some sort of saviour.
If you believe that about Hillary, then you know nothing about her. Even her most slavish apologist, Margaret Carlson, questions Hillary's sincerity and motives.
And please do not tell ME what I believe.
Amen to you, Brother Highball. The only difference between George and Hilary is that George allows himself to be manipulated by his keepers , while Hilary actually BELIEVES in the master plan. I don't know which is more dangerous, the puppet or the puppetmaster.
I didn't see George W. Bush at the UN discussing our 2nd amendment rights on July 4, 2006. I've never seen George W. Bush sign any Gun bans into law. Hilary will. Be afraid.
Ahhh, yes...the driving attitude of those men, couple hundred years ago...I an SURE it was " Be Afraid"...
Given the pansy assed, crawl under the bed 'men' we are afflicted with today...ya....
quote:If you believe that about Hillary, then you know nothing about her. Even her most slavish apologist, Margaret Carlson, questions Hillary's sincerity and motives.
And please do not tell ME what I believe
I wil tell you EXACTLY what you believe. You waste our time telling us about the she-demon...and NOTHING about a president presently engaged in wiping out the last bit of security and privacy you enjoy. You fear a woman that looks you in the eye and tells you that she despises you...
and find nothing wrong with a president telling you that the Second Amendment gives the individual the Right to own a gun...and "We are going to enforce the Federal Gun Laws"..all in the same breath.
I prefer My Treachory honest, at least.
If you agree with the polices put in place over the last 6 years...you have traded off your freedom for security. May your chains rest lightly on your shoulders...and I curse your putting them on MY shouders...one smart enough to recognise fascism when seen.
quote:Hilary will. Be afraid.
Ahhh, yes...the driving attitude of those men, couple hundred years ago...I an SURE it was " Be Afraid"...
Given the pansy assed, crawl under the bed 'men' we are afflicted with today...ya....
quote:If you believe that about Hillary, then you know nothing about her. Even her most slavish apologist, Margaret Carlson, questions Hillary's sincerity and motives.
And please do not tell ME what I believe
I wil tell you EXACTLY what you believe. You waste our time telling us about the she-demon...and NOTHING about a president presently engaged in wiping out the last bit of security and privacy you enjoy. You fear a woman that looks you in the eye and tells you that she despises you...
and find nothing wrong with a president telling you that the Second Amendment gives the individual the Right to own a gun...and "We are going to enforce the Federal Gun Laws"..all in the same breath.
I prefer My Treachory honest, at least.
If you agree with the polices put in place over the last 6 years...you have traded off your freedom for security. May your chains rest lightly on your shoulders...and I curse your putting them on MY shouders...one smart enough to recognise fascism when seen.
Tell me Highball..do you even care about our 2nd amendment rights? Do you believe the government should have the right to tell us what gun we can and cannot own? Do you know what the UN and her want to install on this great country? I have to say I totally do not hate Hillary, she does have maybe one or two views that I am for but her stand on guns is why I do not like her. You want to talk about security and privacy, do you have something to hide? The Patriot act, which I presume you are referring to, is here to help weed out the terrorist cells here in America and any other terrorist related activity. What does she want to do? Pull out of Iraq and hope for the best. Now lets not make this out into a personal battle because this is not a place for it and don't want to get kicked off, I just got here. Please though, reevaluate Hillary.
Go here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
Look under homeland security, Dec 2005 Against Patriot Act, March 2006 For Patriot Act, does she know what she doing?
Look under Gun control, limit access to weapons Sep 2000, plus all the other things that she doesn't want you to know about till she gets it there.
quote:Hilary will. Be afraid.
Ahhh, yes...the driving attitude of those men, couple hundred years ago...I an SURE it was " Be Afraid"...
Given the pansy assed, crawl under the bed 'men' we are afflicted with today...ya....
quote:If you believe that about Hillary, then you know nothing about her. Even her most slavish apologist, Margaret Carlson, questions Hillary's sincerity and motives.
And please do not tell ME what I believe
I wil tell you EXACTLY what you believe.I stand in awe of really good mindreaders such as you. NOT!quote: You waste our time telling us about the she-demon...and NOTHING about a president presently engaged in wiping out the last bit of security and privacy you enjoy. You fear a woman that looks you in the eye and tells you that she despises you...
and find nothing wrong with a president telling you that the Second Amendment gives the individual the Right to own a gun...and "We are going to enforce the Federal Gun Laws"..all in the same breath.You seem to know so much about President Bush. Why should I waste my time telling you what you have already prejudged?quote:
I prefer My Treachory honest, at least.Honest treachery? The Clinton years were full of assaults on the Second Amendment. Have you forgotten that? But did you know that the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted almost no violators of Federal gun laws. No felons attempting to buy. No extra sentences for federal law violators using firearms. But they did have time to burn to death a few men, women and children. How honest was that?
Oh, yes, I forgot. Hillary wasn't the president, was she? "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president" -- Hillary Clinton. Oops, so much for that idea.quote:
If you agree with the polices put in place over the last 6 years...you have traded off your freedom for security. May your chains rest lightly on your shoulders...and I curse your putting them on MY shouders...one smart enough to recognise fascism when seen.I haven't seen any signs of intelligence yet, but I can wait.
A challenge: tell us what policies you disagree with. Please, though, be specific. Don't just say "telephone tapping," for example. Tell us the section from say the Patriot Act that authorizes "unconstitutional" wire taps, and then use your "smart enough" mentality to demonstrate why the provisions are, indeed, unconstitutional.
However, I am pretty sure what your reply will be. "It's common knowledge," or "I'm not going to waste my time telling you what everyone already knows."
You see, if these "policies" (they are actually the law of the land, not policies) are unconstitutional, there has been plenty of time for the ACLU or another anti-American, pro-Communist, pro-Terrorist organization to have taken the laws to the Supreme Court. There has been plenty of time for the Democrat party to draw up impeachment papers. There has been plenty of time for every liberal Congressman, and Hillary, to state exactly what it is about the laws they are going to change.
None of that has happened.
Conclusion: the laws (not policies, laws) that you think you don't like are not unconstitutional. You simply don't know what these laws really contain, but you do know what all the liberal talking-heads on the MSM tell you to believe.
So prove me wrong.
Show us that you can think for yourself. Give us a sign.
Enumerate your complains in clear English.
Explain their significance.
Like they say in poker, put up or shut up.
I'm waiting.
They make exactly as much sense as demorats...none. Freedom is just a word in a book..quaint and old fashioned. Enjoy your Fascism.
As for the guy questioning my stand on the Second Amendment.
Any Gun...Any Time...ANYWHERE. THAT is my stand.
Now...please tell me the gun laws you agree with...so we all can see that you actually ARE anti-gun..all in the guise of gun owning Second Amendment supporter, in the finest tradition of the NRA....
quote:You want to talk about security and privacy, do you have something to hide? Now,,as for your putrid questioning of my honesty and criminal activity, because I object to Big Brother..you really ought to grow a pair. Your stark fear allows you to turn over to the goverment all pretense of being a man.
Were you INDEED a man...the idea of privacy would be born and bred into the MARROW OF YOUR BONES and not turned over to slimy officials of ANY stripe...EVER.
I see a lot of this from the less educated forum members. They are unable to debate because they have nothing to debate with except an opinion. They have nothing to back up the opinion. Once they are called upon to provide a reasoned argument, they immediately resort to name-calling (bushbots, demorats), insults (no sense, fascism), and brave talk.
In the absence of logic and knowledge, what else could we expect? Here we have someone who doesn't even know what fascism means, and yet offers his weak opinion as if it was taken straight from the Gospel?
Opinions, of course, are like rectums: everyone has one. Some, like Highball's, are less than rational.
Highball is also the originator of this not-so-brilliant statement: quote:I wil [sic] tell you EXACTLY what you believe.
What he meant to say was that he would be both sides of the argument. (He figures to be sure to win that way.) Lots of luck!
He would tell me what I thought, and then he would tell me how it was wrong. No opposition, so he has to win.
Highball fails to realize (which is no surprise as he fails to realize a lot of things) that since he is the father of both sides of the argument, he is arguing with himself, and thus is guaranteed to lose.
I confer the Double-Duh Award for Appalling Stupidity to Highball for that one. DUH! DUH!
Able to throw words about..able to make make
black into white at will.
I have no intension of debating you on the minutia of this or that law.
I operate out of a simple fact.
That which makes goverment bigger and more powerful is evil. I don't expect big brother to like that..and I don't expect them to ignore that position in the populace much longer.
The line between freedom and slavery grows more visible every day. Folks like you have staked your honor, your futures, on big brother. We indeed have nothing in common.
Pointless to debate bushbots.
They make exactly as much sense as demorats...none. Freedom is just a word in a book..quaint and old fashioned. Enjoy your Fascism.
As for the guy questioning my stand on the Second Amendment.
Any Gun...Any Time...ANYWHERE. THAT is my stand.
Now...please tell me the gun laws you agree with...so we all can see that you actually ARE anti-gun..all in the guise of gun owning Second Amendment supporter, in the finest tradition of the NRA....
quote:You want to talk about security and privacy, do you have something to hide? Now,,as for your putrid questioning of my honesty and criminal activity, because I object to Big Brother..you really ought to grow a pair. Your stark fear allows you to turn over to the goverment all pretense of being a man.
Were you INDEED a man...the idea of privacy would be born and bred into the MARROW OF YOUR BONES and not turned over to slimy officials of ANY stripe...EVER.
The blanket of liberalism that shrouds over your is pathetic. You bash me for supporting 2nd amendment rights and agreeing with the government about the Patriot act. "Your stark fear allows you to turn over to the goverment all pretense of being a man", well oh brave man...HA...what do you think the government should do to combat terrorism in our nation. Sit around and wait for something to happen. To tell you the truth, I live in a rural area that has a very slim chance of terrorist attacks but I still care about the saftey of Americans and not just my own well being. I still have MY privacy, let the government listen to what I say or do, I have nothing to hide or fear. If that means stopping another 9/11 from happening then let them tap my phone. So let me get this straight from your vague stand on guns which any thug could of came up with, you want Hilary and the UN in charge and make the choice for millions of gun owners in America. Your answer questions with questions the sign of a liberalist. You say I am anti-gun but you want Hilary in charge. You say what is wrong with everything in the world but have no idea what to do about it and criticize everyone else who tries to do something about it. Some gun laws I agree with because psychos, lunatics, and inner city gangsters don't need guns, they are the cause for gun bans and half the fooey why every demo wants to get rid of them . Gun bans I disagree with on all fronts because guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Gun laws must be enforced to ensure that we keep our 2nd amendment right.
I still find it remarkable how you can read minds. I think tallcharlie sumed up the rest.
"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society."
- George W. Bush, 1999
"The President supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban... We'll continue to work with the Congress, and they know the President's position."
- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, May 14, 2003
quote:I didn't see George W. Bush at the UN discussing our 2nd amendment rights on July 4, 2006.
Exactly right. I have never seen George W. Bush DEFEND the 2nd Amendment in front of the UN either.
But I'm not sure how criticism of G. W. Bush can automatically be assumed as support for Hilary. That is indeed a classic Bushbot diversionary tactic. "Pay no attention to the man in the Oval Office, focus on the Senator from New York! She is BAD, BAD, EVIL!!!"
There is NO QUESTION she is an enemy of the 2nd Amendment. The point is that George W. Bush is NO FRIEND of the 2nd Amendment. Of course, I voted for the man twice, but those votes did NOTHING to regain ANY gun rights. They only delayed the liberal onslaught for a few more years.
The Patriot Act? I thought we were talking about gun rights. Another Bushbot diversionary tactic, when all else fails throw the Patriot Act out there.
Speaking of post-9/11 reactive legislation, remember the legislation to arm pilots in the cockpit?
"I don't think we want to equip our pilots with firearms...That doesn't make a lot of sense to me...Where do you stop? If pilots carry guns, railroad engineers and bus drivers could ask to do the same."
- Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, March 5, 2002
Ridge and another Bush cabinet appointee, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, made it abundantly clear that they opposed arming pilots. Where are the RTKBA defenders in Bush's cabinet?
A challenge: Tell us what PRO-GUN legislation Bush has introduced, supported, signed into law, glanced at, or vaguely even endorsed via proxy?
quote:I see a lot of this from the less educated forum members...I confer the Double-Duh Award for Appalling Stupidity to Highball for that one. DUH! DUH!
Wow, I think the above quote speaks for itself, tallcharlie. Are you bi-polar?
How soon we forget...
"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society."
- George W. Bush, 1999
"The President supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban... We'll continue to work with the Congress, and they know the President's position."
- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, May 14, 2003
quote:I didn't see George W. Bush at the UN discussing our 2nd amendment rights on July 4, 2006.
Exactly right. I have never seen George W. Bush DEFEND the 2nd Amendment in front of the UN either.
But I'm not sure how criticism of G. W. Bush can automatically be assumed as support for Hilary. That is indeed a classic Bushbot diversionary tactic. "Pay no attention to the man in the Oval Office, focus on the Senator from New York! She is BAD, BAD, EVIL!!!"
There is NO QUESTION she is an enemy of the 2nd Amendment. The point is that George W. Bush is NO FRIEND of the 2nd Amendment. Of course, I voted for the man twice, but those votes did NOTHING to regain ANY gun rights. They only delayed the liberal onslaught for a few more years.
The Patriot Act? I thought we were talking about gun rights. Another Bushbot diversionary tactic, when all else fails throw the Patriot Act out there.
Speaking of post-9/11 reactive legislation, remember the legislation to arm pilots in the cockpit?
"I don't think we want to equip our pilots with firearms...That doesn't make a lot of sense to me...Where do you stop? If pilots carry guns, railroad engineers and bus drivers could ask to do the same."
- Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, March 5, 2002
Ridge and another Bush cabinet appointee, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, made it abundantly clear that they opposed arming pilots. Where are the RTKBA defenders in Bush's cabinet?
A challenge: Tell us what PRO-GUN legislation Bush has introduced, supported, signed into law, glanced at, or vaguely even endorsed via proxy?
quote:I see a lot of this from the less educated forum members...I confer the Double-Duh Award for Appalling Stupidity to Highball for that one. DUH! DUH!
Wow, I think the above quote speaks for itself, tallcharlie. Are you bi-polar?
If Bush really cared about the assault weapons ban being put back on it would have already happened. Its been over 2 years since it expired and all you have is quotes. I've never heard about it going through the house or the senate since it expired. What ANTI-GUN legislation has he signed into law? None. I'm not saying that Bush is perfect and by no means is he even close to a avid supporter of assault weapons, buts its better to have Bush in there any day than Hilary or any demo that ran against him. As for the airplane pilots having guns, the Federal Air Marshall do board planes as civilians carrying guns. Pilots are pilots and not trained to deal with carrying guns or fighting terrorists, it shouldn't be their job. I believe actions speak louder than words and even thought he didn't defend the 2nd amendment rights he hasn't tried to take them away. In my opinion the UN is a joke, they didn't help us in Iraq, they aren't doing anything about Iran and Korea's nuclear programs, The US can't and shouldn't have to take care all of the world's problems. But they sure want to take away every assault weapon, high capacity mag, and every other military or tactical accessory. This you can look forward to when Hilary gets in.
________________________________________________________________
WoundedWolf
There is NO QUESTION she is an enemy of the 2nd Amendment. The point is that George W. Bush is NO FRIEND of the 2nd Amendment. Of course, I voted for the man twice, but those votes did NOTHING to regain ANY gun rights. They only delayed the liberal onslaught for a few more years.
_______________________________________________________________
But Bush did nothing to take them away. A delay is better than an absolute ban that will be put on by the demo's.
Why are you guys so faithful to a woman that wants to take away your 2nd amendment rights? I cannot understand that. Now you will probably respond the same but with Bush because you can't come up with a better question so I will answer in advance. Bush may have not stood up at the UN July 4th, 2006,But its been 2 years and 2 to go and he hasn't extended the ban yet. But Hillary will and I still can't see how you gun owning liberals can't understand that SHE IS AFTER YOUR GUNS. Why else would you consult with the UN who has taken guns already from some many countries?
Highball brought up security and privacy and that Bush is currently wiping it out. Talk to your liberal friend about that.
I agree with you that neither the democratic party or republican is progun. The politicians would rather have us fight back with sticks and stones. I just got here and don't know anybody and am going off the statements made in the topic and of one's position on the facts. After all....its just a friendly debate.[:D]