The criminals are not abiding by gun control laws anyway so gun control is all about lawful owners. Which is stupid on it's face, IMO. Why do we need to further limit lawful owners?!
Government givies people the ok to buy guns when the legislation they passed says they shouldn't (like mentally defective people they've given the ok to, plus Fast Furious). They're NOT the purveyors of quality work. Criminals don't adhere to gun control laws. Diversity has a higher propensity toward violence as shown by inner cities like Chicago's South side, Memphis and East St Louis. Diversity has been used as an excuse to remove gun rights from everyone. The Black Panthers in California were the reason Governor Reagan signed massive gun control against all citizens. Pres. Reagan also oversaw the 1986 gun control act halting new sales of machineguns, background checks on long guns and guess what was the reason used? Diversity, like in Miami with the cocaine wars.
My opinion: no back ground check requirements, period. You can choose to have one when selling/buying by performing a private sale through an FFL to sell/buy if you want to move it out of your name, but you should not be required to do so if you choose. Some non-violent felons can have guns. Some violent offenders can have guns if it's a misdemeanor like domestic assault and only one occurrence. Roll back full auto regulations. EDIT- I know the dom assault is inflammatory but sometimes kids do stupid drama things they see on TV, women rarely get charged especially when young and sometimes people lie.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 10-06-2020).]
Come on. It's all about the advantage/power over another man. Good, bad, whatever the current sensibilities will allow.
Which is a very nice, slow, way to learn things. If you actually learn from it, that is.
And we ALL know that ain't what ANY of this is about. We should be ashamed...that is if we were still actually capable of such a human emotion...it's all about control...and...and...look at the stars!. Oh snap.*
Recently, the ATF has overstepped their authority (again), and are getting some push-back. Even the Congress is getting involved.
The ATF is under the Executive Branch of the federal government, which means the President is their boss. I think the President needs to reign them in, lest they make him look bad.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 10-07-2020).]
Excellent vid above (Blacktree). Here are the links he mentions in the vid:
• One-Click Link to Contact DOJ: -https://www.fracaction.org/contact-officials
• You can also contact the White House and ask President Trump to fight the ATF’s agenda: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111
-
More details in these interviews about the ATF acting as political activists and risking creating millions of felons instantly out of law abiding American citizens.
It's all about the advantage/power over another man. ..
...it's all about control...
We do know this, and its why we must vote for our own independence every election. We vote for the right to bear arms. We teach our children. We do so to avoid what happened in all of history in countries where guns were banned. Basically genocide with nothing to fight back.
The First and Second Amendments are the teeth that keep any other rights available.
Those who say it is about safety, and we need to take away guns are not thinking it through. Or they are and have a dark agenda...
. .
Would you agree?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-08-2020).]
We do know this, and its why we must vote for our own independence every election. We vote for the right to bear arms. We teach our children. We do so to avoid what happened in all of history in countries where guns were banned. Basically genocide with nothing to fight back.
The First and Second Amendments are the teeth that keep any other rights available.
Those who say it is about safety, and we need to take away guns are not thinking it through. Or they are and have a dark agenda...
If anyone disagrees, or is planning to vote for someone against the 2nd amendment, Id love to hear why.
I don't recall ever seeing a coherent, rational, argument here on this forum against the 2nd Amendment.
There has been the typical use of some euphemisms, e.g.: "Common sense gun control", which when examined always boil down to major abridgement of the 2A, but no substantial, outright, statements of being against the law.
Considering the riots and other civil unrest so far this year that has prompted a huge increase in new, first time firearm purchasers, I think the impetus of the gun control crowd has been abated to a large extent.
The Left has boxed themselves into a corner with their calls to defund police that makes any call to also ban guns from the hands of law abiding citizens to protect themselves look as insane as it is.
But then Leftists and insanity are an inseparable combination.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It is a central part of our Constitutional rights in America, and it ensures the Government understands who's in charge.
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: No one can take your right to defend yourself away. Only the ability to do it effectively.
That would be a theory, wouldn't it. Men with guns who work for .gov can do anything and even get a promotion sometimes for killing women and children. Randy Weaver, Waco.
The ATF is already backpedaling on their latest shenanigans. They decided to suspend the "cease and desist" order against Q Defense for 60 days.
Just like with bump-stocks, this is not about the gun parts. It's about the government over-stepping their authority. When they do stuff like this, they must be held accountable!
The ATF is already backpedaling on their latest shenanigans. They decided to suspend the "cease and desist" order against Q Defense for 60 days.
Just like with bump-stocks, this is not about the gun parts. It's about the government over-stepping their authority. When they do stuff like this, they must be held accountable!
Speculation: They are hidin' with Biden, hoping for a dem victory so they can go back to their tyranny over legal gun owners.
[This message has been edited by Hudini (edited 10-21-2020).]
"Perhaps not surprisingly, neither of the presidential debates took on the “gun issue,” and neither did the vice presidential debate. Biden’s campaign doesn’t want their candidate anywhere near that subject because it is one area where he could be destroyed, especially with millions of new gun owners over the past eight months and a rising tide of citizens who are licensed to carry. ...
The question gun owners should be asking themselves is whether all of this negativism in the press is designed to discourage them from voting at all. By making it seem the election is already lost, will traditionally lethargic gun owners use this as yet another excuse to sit at home and let an election be decided without their participation?
It's my opinion that all freedoms in the world today only exist because of the American and European middle class. And when the American and European middle class erode a little more the US 2nd ammendment will disappear, then the 1st. Europe has no 1st and 2nd, so it's really just us preventing a new feudalism.
It's almost done. When the middle class is weakened a little more global tyranny will have full control.
It's my opinion that all freedoms in the world today only exist because of the American and European middle class. And when the American and European middle class erode a little more the US 2nd ammendment will disappear, then the 1st. Europe has no 1st and 2nd, so it's really just us preventing a new feudalism.
It's almost done. When the middle class is weakened a little more global tyranny will have full control.
I'm with you its getting closer every day. Id say many of them are in what we may see or define as the "middle class" or "working class". I would specify to say its anyone in any class whom believes in personal freedom, personal responsibility, right and wrong, and absolute truth. How many folks do you know who truly believe this , and live their lives showing evidence that they believe this.
Unfortunately, no one can agree on exactly what those things are.
... smoking weed, which encompasses all those things.
So yeah, it’s a great set of character traits to claim when you don’t actually have to support it in others...
Getting high is interesting to try to apply, how would you say it works with personal responsibility? Wouldnt that mean we would need to eliminate rehab? Wouldn't it involve opening the door to an enormous amount of privacy loss to make sure the user wasn't abusing the healthcare system, abusing welfare, neglecting their kids, etc? Upon first fail of these things what would be the punishment? When people have brought up getting high as a personal freedom (which is the one I can easily see relevance to) in the past I have said: sure personal, so if you were on an island alone, supporting yourself, harming no one, and when you OD no one comes...
Relating it to the thread, did you note in the last vid I posted he said if you use MJ you'd loose your right to own a firearm, no matter what your state thinks?
Relating it again to firearms, if its a no-no to get high, that doesn't in and of itself deprive you of your right to defend yourself, (an inalienable right) but taking away firearms does.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-05-2020).]
LMAO !
. The Constitution and Declaration just acknowledge that they came from there.
