You don't think shotguns would be banned if assault rifles get banned...think again! (coyote, light)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't want your shotgun, just your assault weapons.
Really?
Then you must advocate the banning of all implements capable of assaulting another human being.
_ knives and cutlery of all types
_ bludgeons
_ hammers
_ tire irons
_ crockery
_ rolls of coins
_ bad cooking
_ rocks in socks
_ staffs and canes
_ and so on.
Weapons are not "dangerous" - people are "dangerous".
Banning weapons only benefits the predators who can prey on the helpless and unarmed without fear.
Abolition of liberty to prevent crime only abolishes liberty - not crime.
There are already enough laws that punish criminal injury to person or property.
Failure to prosecute is due to an incompetent government, not a lack of "gun regulation."
I know of no liberals that want an outright ban. Mother in law is way too liberal for my tastes. Her and her partner are both gun owners.
Not saying they don't exist. However saying that liberals in general want all your weapons seems a bit of stretch from what I see.
You're kidding me, I hope.
In the state where I live, I've had numerous "liberal" politicians admit to me that they would like nothing better than a total ban on firearms, but coming out and actually admitting that, would be political suicide. So what do they do? Chip away at the Second Amendment bit by bit. In the meantime, jail doors have swung open, flooding the streets with criminals that continue their mayhem upon honest, law-abiding citizens.
One politician told me that only the military and law enforcement should have access to firearms. I told him that that concept reminded me of a movie, based on true events, that mirrored his idea. The movie was Schindler's List. Didn't work out to well for the Jews, did it? And while you're at it, ask the Armenians how well it worked out for them being disarmed by the Turks. You'll get an earful.
Luckily the best part about confiscating guns, is that someone has to come and forcibly remove them from the law abiding populace. Many military and police are strong 2nd amendment supporters and would not enforce the law. The few areas that tried would be faced with strong resistance and bloody results. Secession would be the only true peaceful solution to the great gun divide in America.
Since "they" know we aren't giving up without a fight, they try to reassure us that they don't actually want all the guns, just stricter background checks and mental health inquiries and maybe an "assualt" weapon ban. You know, "common sense" type stuff. Then they will declare the desire to own a firearm a sign/symptom of mental illness preventing anyone who wants to get one from doing so. It's already happening. "Assualt" weapons will be interpreted to mean all semi automatic weapons which will then be banned. Maybe they'll let us have an air powered single shot pellet gun? With the proper permits and fees of course.
The 2nd amendment is key in the great battle between the individual and the collective/state and it shall never be infringed any further than it already has.
I know of no liberals that want an outright ban. Mother in law is way too liberal for my tastes. Her and her partner are both gun owners.
Not saying they don't exist. However saying that liberals in general want all your weapons seems a bit of stretch from what I see.
That's not how libs operate. They start small. Income tax started at 1%. The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned "machine guns." Who could be against that? 10,000+ more gun laws have been passed since then. If you don't see the trajectory, you are not being honest with yourself.
The 2nd amendment is key in the great battle between the individual and the collective/state and it shall never be infringed any further than it already has.
Actually, the second amendment is not the key.
The Declaration of Independence is the key.
Most people misread the second amendment and conflate "people have the right to bear arms" with "militiamen."
Militiamen are under legal obligation to train, fight, and die on command - which certainly abrogates any endowed right to life and liberty.
Every state which is guaranteed a republican form, restates the Declaration's promise.
Ex:
California Constitution -
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 - SEC. 32]
( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
SECTION 1.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
- - -
If one has inalienable rights which include defending life, that certainly means one has the right to bear arms.
HOWEVER, if one has consented to be governed, one has WAIVED that endowed right in exchange for mandatory civic duties.
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, no American government instituted to SECURE ENDOWED RIGHTS can infringe upon them WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.
Better ask your public servants to explain exactly HOW and WHEN you gave consent, before it is too late.
Really?
Then you must advocate the banning of all implements capable of assaulting another human being.
_ knives and cutlery of all types
_ bludgeons
_ hammers
_ tire irons
_ crockery
_ rolls of coins
_ bad cooking
_ rocks in socks
_ staffs and canes
_ and so on.
Weapons are not "dangerous" - people are "dangerous".
Banning weapons only benefits the predators who can prey on the helpless and unarmed without fear.
For several months after I'd badly bruised a kneecap, I used a walking-stick. One night I was stopped and questioned by a cop, about what that weapon in my hand was and what my intent was to do with it. Maybe someday, there'll be a medical certificate required, to carry one.
Luckily the best part about confiscating guns, is that someone has to come and forcibly remove them from the law abiding populace. Many military and police are strong 2nd amendment supporters and would not enforce the law. The few areas that tried would be faced with strong resistance and bloody results. Secession would be the only true peaceful solution to the great gun divide in America.
Since "they" know we aren't giving up without a fight, they try to reassure us that they don't actually want all the guns, just stricter background checks and mental health inquiries and maybe an "assualt" weapon ban. You know, "common sense" type stuff. Then they will declare the desire to own a firearm a sign/symptom of mental illness preventing anyone who wants to get one from doing so. It's already happening. "Assualt" weapons will be interpreted to mean all semi automatic weapons which will then be banned. Maybe they'll let us have an air powered single shot pellet gun? With the proper permits and fees of course.
The 2nd amendment is key in the great battle between the individual and the collective/state and it shall never be infringed any further than it already has.
The Oklahoma National Guard bunch who went to NOLA to "help" the police after Katrina proved themselves to be the worst of the worst in the gun confiscation. Oklahoma is a conservative state. I almost forgot: the local cops enjoyed it as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
