S
stickerpt
Guest
I heard someone say that no one on this forum is advocating gun control. I ask the question. If someone is for the ban of assault weapons are they for gun control?
H
huntindude
Guest
Technically yes, assult rifles would be a step in successful gun control. for myself if I thought the gun control clowns would stop after banning black rifles that would be fine with me, but we all know they wouldn't.
B
bwnco
Guest
I'll be damned,, I agree!!!! with you huntindude... holy crap!! hell gonna freeze over!!
Ya, I truly believe if you read history, that freedoms are taken a little bit at a time..
Ya, I truly believe if you read history, that freedoms are taken a little bit at a time..
S
stickerpt
Guest
>Technically yes, assult rifles would be
>a step in successful gun
>control. for myself if I
>thought the gun control clowns
>would stop after banning black
>rifles that would be fine
>with me, but we all
>know they wouldn't.
Sooo.... Dude you *do* advocate/argue gun control.
That is not what you said in another thread on this
page.
>a step in successful gun
>control. for myself if I
>thought the gun control clowns
>would stop after banning black
>rifles that would be fine
>with me, but we all
>know they wouldn't.
Sooo.... Dude you *do* advocate/argue gun control.
That is not what you said in another thread on this
page.
3
30inchbuck
Guest
Yes they would be for gun control.
Roy
Moderator
- Messages
- 7,446
Yes banning any weapons beyond the laws we are unable to properly enforce now are ludicrous attempts at gun control, so if you support any further reforms you would be supporting gun control. You may not think you are supporting gun elimination altogether, but that is what the gun reformers ultimate goal is - and if we give them an inch, they will take us several hundred miles.
UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
T
TFinalshot
Guest
is banning the ownership of a fully armed f-16 or a M1 Tank or a SAM, gun control?
D
D13er
Guest
.....do you believe that hunting and sport shooting or protection against robbers was in the minds of our founders when they recognized our birth right written as the 2nd ammendment ?????
great post/pic, thanks for sharing
JB
great post/pic, thanks for sharing
JB
H
huntindude
Guest
Stickerpt I never said I was for gun control, I said changing voters minds was the only way to prevent it.
The 2nd amendment will keep them from getting most types of weapons, but it doesn't mean they can't tax or restrict them in some cases. this isn't about Obama, Brady, Clinton or Donald Duck it's about voters, you can't deny their will by hating one of their elected officials, they are voting for what they want and in time they will get it.
The 2nd amendment will keep them from getting most types of weapons, but it doesn't mean they can't tax or restrict them in some cases. this isn't about Obama, Brady, Clinton or Donald Duck it's about voters, you can't deny their will by hating one of their elected officials, they are voting for what they want and in time they will get it.
S
stickerpt
Guest
Dude
Did you or did not say that you were for the ban of assault
weapons because you thought they served no purpose? If so
then you admit yourself that you are for gun control.
Didn't you say this
"Nobody on this site is for gun control you're wasting your effort preaching here, go convert an anti gunner to a pro gun vote and the dems will be forced to change or die politically."
Did you change your name to nobody? Which side of the fence
are you on? The pro gun folks or the gun grabbers( one gun
at a time modus operandi)?
I will give you an out. You can always say you changed your mind
However..... that would be a first because I have never seen you
admit changing your mind about anything.
Did you or did not say that you were for the ban of assault
weapons because you thought they served no purpose? If so
then you admit yourself that you are for gun control.
Didn't you say this
"Nobody on this site is for gun control you're wasting your effort preaching here, go convert an anti gunner to a pro gun vote and the dems will be forced to change or die politically."
Did you change your name to nobody? Which side of the fence
are you on? The pro gun folks or the gun grabbers( one gun
at a time modus operandi)?
I will give you an out. You can always say you changed your mind
However..... that would be a first because I have never seen you
admit changing your mind about anything.
H
huntindude
Guest
I have a pretty good gun collection, and not one assult rifle because they don't interest me in the slightest. if I really thought I could give them to the antis and they'd go away and leave me alone I'd be happy to see them go. what part of that don't you get? I'm against giving up any weapon legal today because it wouldn't end there, even though I could not care less about black rifles.
As far as I'm concerned Zumbo was spot on when he said what he did, but the reason I just stated is why he was wrong to say it.
As far as I'm concerned Zumbo was spot on when he said what he did, but the reason I just stated is why he was wrong to say it.
D
Deadred7o7
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-09 AT 00:36AM (MST)[p]This should come as a surprise to nobody.Its the Fudds that believe he'll leave their guns alone, but don't care if those evil military look alike guns go bye-bye. Little does Elmer know, though, that their hunting guns most likely decend from miltary arms and will be on the chopping block sooner or later and labeled as "sniper rifles" or "combat shotguns" or whatever term they use to demonize them.
The slope is slippery indeed, and the constitution will continue to be over-looked by the elites in power (of all political stripes, not just dem's - the reps are no better at protecting that document).
We will see the continuation of these incrementalist policies that have endured these last 150 years or so. When you SLOWLY deprive the people of their personal freedoms, while Slowly trying to convince them that these freedoms are "not needed", you end up with a citizenry that knows no difference, and can no longer respond properly to action against them. I promise you, the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban (made permanent) is action against YOU. All of you.
People given the title of gun-controller today also hate the truth, that they would have been the same ones "rooting for the crown" then.
HDude are you with us or a traitor?
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
The slope is slippery indeed, and the constitution will continue to be over-looked by the elites in power (of all political stripes, not just dem's - the reps are no better at protecting that document).
We will see the continuation of these incrementalist policies that have endured these last 150 years or so. When you SLOWLY deprive the people of their personal freedoms, while Slowly trying to convince them that these freedoms are "not needed", you end up with a citizenry that knows no difference, and can no longer respond properly to action against them. I promise you, the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban (made permanent) is action against YOU. All of you.
People given the title of gun-controller today also hate the truth, that they would have been the same ones "rooting for the crown" then.
HDude are you with us or a traitor?
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
T
TFinalshot
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-09 AT 07:50AM (MST)[p]love it when guys come out of the woodwork on protecting guns but march in lockstep with Bush to build a unitary state run by an imperial executive by clamering for phone taps, love being monitored and accept the governments stripping habeas corpus, and better yet, support the requirement that every ameracan must carry a federal ID.
I know you cant fight all the battles, but come on boys, if you need or want to worry about issues that will change your lives, focus on the what's being used against you in a real world way . . .
They are not taking your guns. . .
I know you cant fight all the battles, but come on boys, if you need or want to worry about issues that will change your lives, focus on the what's being used against you in a real world way . . .
They are not taking your guns. . .
D
D13er
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-09 AT 08:13AM (MST)[p]......yes sir comrade Tony !!!! "Bush lied, people died !!!!" we know, we know
great post/pic, thanks for sharing
JB
great post/pic, thanks for sharing
JB
H
huntindude
Guest
Kyle I'm as pro gun as anyone, but I'm also a realist. as a gun lover I go to gun shows looking for something I can't live without, like Zigga says I see a table of black rifles with punks and goons crowded around it, then a few tables down I see the guys selling bumper stickers like " shoot them all and let god sort them out " now I'm pro gun and this looks bad to me, what would you expect an anti gunner or someone on the fence about the issue to think?
The bottom line is we will see more gun control because that's what people want, it doesn't mean I want it means I understand why. hating anti gun politians is childish and wont help at all they're doing what they were elected to do, changing the opinion of the voters who elect them is the answer and I'm not sure how to do that.
The bottom line is we will see more gun control because that's what people want, it doesn't mean I want it means I understand why. hating anti gun politians is childish and wont help at all they're doing what they were elected to do, changing the opinion of the voters who elect them is the answer and I'm not sure how to do that.
S
stickerpt
Guest
Dude
Please be realistic. You are for the guns that you
like. You have no problems if they take away other peoples
gun choices. That is not pro gun. You ignore my question
where you stated that no one is arguing gun choices on
this site but clearly you are.
Tony I am not coming out of the woodwork. I have been here
for many years. I just dont feel the need to post to every
single topic just to see my name in print. I saw a contradiction
and chose to point it out. You saw that and chose to link
me to Bush. I would say that is a strawman.
Please be realistic. You are for the guns that you
like. You have no problems if they take away other peoples
gun choices. That is not pro gun. You ignore my question
where you stated that no one is arguing gun choices on
this site but clearly you are.
Tony I am not coming out of the woodwork. I have been here
for many years. I just dont feel the need to post to every
single topic just to see my name in print. I saw a contradiction
and chose to point it out. You saw that and chose to link
me to Bush. I would say that is a strawman.
D
Deadred7o7
Guest
>Kyle I'm as pro gun as
>anyone, but I'm also a
>realist. as a gun lover
>I go to gun shows
>looking for something I can't
>live without, like Zigga says
>I see a table of
>black rifles with punks and
>goons crowded around it, then
>a few tables down I
>see the guys selling bumper
>stickers like " shoot them
>all and let god sort
>them out " now I'm
>pro gun and this looks
>bad to me, what would
>you expect an anti gunner
>or someone on the fence
>about the issue to think?
>
>
> The bottom line is we
>will see more gun control
>because that's what people want,
>it doesn't mean I want
>it means I understand why.
>hating anti gun politians is
>childish and wont help at
>all they're doing what they
>were elected to do, changing
>the opinion of the voters
>who elect them is the
>answer and I'm not sure
>how to do that.
1st:So you judge people by how they look ???? I think there is a name for that.
2nd:What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand??
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
>anyone, but I'm also a
>realist. as a gun lover
>I go to gun shows
>looking for something I can't
>live without, like Zigga says
>I see a table of
>black rifles with punks and
>goons crowded around it, then
>a few tables down I
>see the guys selling bumper
>stickers like " shoot them
>all and let god sort
>them out " now I'm
>pro gun and this looks
>bad to me, what would
>you expect an anti gunner
>or someone on the fence
>about the issue to think?
>
>
> The bottom line is we
>will see more gun control
>because that's what people want,
>it doesn't mean I want
>it means I understand why.
>hating anti gun politians is
>childish and wont help at
>all they're doing what they
>were elected to do, changing
>the opinion of the voters
>who elect them is the
>answer and I'm not sure
>how to do that.
1st:So you judge people by how they look ???? I think there is a name for that.
2nd:What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand??
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
T
TFinalshot
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-09 AT 10:45AM (MST)[p]sorry stick, i was not specifically picking on you but since you stepped in it, which side of the fence are you on, pro freedom or pro control? I'm not linking you to Bush, but I am linking you to coming out of the woodwork on this subject. . . you dont have to post all the time, but there are a lot of guys who rest their identity on gun control but support the undoing our freedoms. . . it's ironic, please excuse me if I've mistakenly put you in the "right-winger" camp that supports wire tapping, monitoring, and federal ID. My mistake.
Tony
Tony
B
bwnco
Guest
Good grief T
is banning the ownership of a fully armed f-16 or a M1 Tank or a SAM, gun control?
Last time i looked, an f-16 is a jet, an M1 is a tank and a SAM is a surface to air MISSLE..
I dont see guns in any of those.....
is banning the ownership of a fully armed f-16 or a M1 Tank or a SAM, gun control?
Last time i looked, an f-16 is a jet, an M1 is a tank and a SAM is a surface to air MISSLE..
I dont see guns in any of those.....
T
TFinalshot
Guest
RE: Good grief T
i'm just trying to see where some of you draw the line. guns are the foundation for the need for each of the item, they all are guns they all have barrels they all shoot bullets and they all are made for killing. I was just trying to find out how far youre willing to go on gun control, so when is a weapon a gun and when does a gun become not a gun? mount a 50 cal on a jeep is it still a gun, how about an airship with barrels?
I'm serious, and i'm using your own logic, "no infrigement"
none of the things i listed were even available when the constitution was written, so i'm just trying to find out what's a gun and what your limits are on gun control. . . very simple. . .
care to draw the line for us that in the future we can have more accurate debate about gun control? I dont want make any mistakes.
Tony
i'm just trying to see where some of you draw the line. guns are the foundation for the need for each of the item, they all are guns they all have barrels they all shoot bullets and they all are made for killing. I was just trying to find out how far youre willing to go on gun control, so when is a weapon a gun and when does a gun become not a gun? mount a 50 cal on a jeep is it still a gun, how about an airship with barrels?
I'm serious, and i'm using your own logic, "no infrigement"
none of the things i listed were even available when the constitution was written, so i'm just trying to find out what's a gun and what your limits are on gun control. . . very simple. . .
care to draw the line for us that in the future we can have more accurate debate about gun control? I dont want make any mistakes.
Tony
Yes it is gun control. It is a bad thing. Machine guns/fully automatic weapons are already stiffly regulated, so the assault weapons ban is not directed to these weapons. Any law ought to take decent consideration of what benefits are conferred by the law and what disadvantages accrue from the law. We ought to ban swimming pools because many accidents and injuries are associated with swimming pools -- both public and private -- probably more accidents and injuries than are associated with assault weapons. People who have a weak imagination say there is no useful purpose for a civilian owning an "assault weapon" -- a black simi-automatic rifle. Is the standard of whether we are allowed to exercise our rights linked to whether they are useful? How many of us can make a solid, rational argument that our we can make useful employment of our first amendment rights -- or are we just shootin' off our mouths, killin' time before caving in to our wives and taking out the garbage or cleaning out the garage? But there are useful functions for "assault weapons" -- black semi-automatic rifles. I would think that a black semi-automatic rifle loaded with 30 rounds of .223 might be very useful in the hands of a business owner protecting his personal property from destruction and theft during periods of civil unrest. But periods of civil unrest never happen. Right -- Hurricane Katrina, the recent riot in Oakland, the riot after the Rodney King verdict, the riot after the 1989 Oakland earthquake, riots after various professional sport championships are concluded, ya, that never happens.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the definition of "assault weapon" is very plastic. I have heard that the "assault weapons ban" that is being advocated currently mirrors the existing California assault weapons ban, and that the current California assault weapons ban extends to semi-automatic shotguns. Is this true -- about the existing CA ban extending to semi-auto shotguns? -- I don't know. There are lots of good reasons for sportsmen to have a semi-automatic weapon. I have a good friend -- the guy who got me into waterfowl hunting -- who has an inoperably injured hand that prevents him from exerting a strong grip. He can no longer ply his former trade of driving trucks because of this grip problem. When he tries to operate his pump shotgun, frequently he cannot operate the pump because he experiences a shooting pain in his wrist. The answer for him is to buy a semi-automatic shotgun. Semi-automatic shotguns may be associated with less recoil. I'm interested in getting a Remington SP-10 semi-automatic shotgun for various reasons, including that it makes the recoil of the 3 1/2" 10 gauge shells feel like a 20 gauge. But thanks to a new "assault weapons ban" the right of my children and your children to buy an excellent SP-10 goose gun may be curtailed. Sure wouldn't want any gang bangers runnin' around with a SP-10 tucked under their cloaks.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the definition of "assault weapon" is very plastic. I have heard that the "assault weapons ban" that is being advocated currently mirrors the existing California assault weapons ban, and that the current California assault weapons ban extends to semi-automatic shotguns. Is this true -- about the existing CA ban extending to semi-auto shotguns? -- I don't know. There are lots of good reasons for sportsmen to have a semi-automatic weapon. I have a good friend -- the guy who got me into waterfowl hunting -- who has an inoperably injured hand that prevents him from exerting a strong grip. He can no longer ply his former trade of driving trucks because of this grip problem. When he tries to operate his pump shotgun, frequently he cannot operate the pump because he experiences a shooting pain in his wrist. The answer for him is to buy a semi-automatic shotgun. Semi-automatic shotguns may be associated with less recoil. I'm interested in getting a Remington SP-10 semi-automatic shotgun for various reasons, including that it makes the recoil of the 3 1/2" 10 gauge shells feel like a 20 gauge. But thanks to a new "assault weapons ban" the right of my children and your children to buy an excellent SP-10 goose gun may be curtailed. Sure wouldn't want any gang bangers runnin' around with a SP-10 tucked under their cloaks.
S
stickerpt
Guest
RE: Good grief T
T
Here is where I am on guns. Anyone who is an adult or who
has adult supervision, who is not a criminal, and is of sound
mind should be able to own whatever kind of gun they want.
Purpose of that gun can be for hunting, target shooting or
defending your property, life and/or liberty. A gun is a
tool nothing more nothing less. We have different types of
tools and we have different types of guns. Government bans
on a certain type of gun serves no purpose except the infringement of one of our freedoms. As for control, sometimes
you need it for your own best interests. I think terrrorists
and criminals should be controlled in any way possible.
If that means listening in on my phone to make sure I am
not planning to bomb the empire state building, so what?
I have nothing to hide.
T
Here is where I am on guns. Anyone who is an adult or who
has adult supervision, who is not a criminal, and is of sound
mind should be able to own whatever kind of gun they want.
Purpose of that gun can be for hunting, target shooting or
defending your property, life and/or liberty. A gun is a
tool nothing more nothing less. We have different types of
tools and we have different types of guns. Government bans
on a certain type of gun serves no purpose except the infringement of one of our freedoms. As for control, sometimes
you need it for your own best interests. I think terrrorists
and criminals should be controlled in any way possible.
If that means listening in on my phone to make sure I am
not planning to bomb the empire state building, so what?
I have nothing to hide.
D
Deadred7o7
Guest
RE: Good grief T
There should be no "Line" to draw. You need to read the Bill of Rights and then read it again untill you fully understand that no gun control is ok.
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
There should be no "Line" to draw. You need to read the Bill of Rights and then read it again untill you fully understand that no gun control is ok.
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
T
TFinalshot
Guest
RE: Good grief T
>If that means listening in on
>my phone to make sure
>I am
>not planning to bomb the empire
>state building, so what?
>I have nothing to hide.
very well then, if youre not a crook, you dont have anything to hide, correct? Then why would you be against monitoring bullets?
I'll say it again, get the government out of monitoring, period, no bullets, no humans, period. Get them off my phone and off the internet without a warrant.
>If that means listening in on
>my phone to make sure
>I am
>not planning to bomb the empire
>state building, so what?
>I have nothing to hide.
very well then, if youre not a crook, you dont have anything to hide, correct? Then why would you be against monitoring bullets?
I'll say it again, get the government out of monitoring, period, no bullets, no humans, period. Get them off my phone and off the internet without a warrant.
T
TFinalshot
Guest
RE: Good grief T
anyone that's going to cite the bill of rights in this discussion has almost no understanding of the history of the bill of rights. before you go knocking on that door you might want to do little reading yourself. The bill of rights is very much a double edge sword and for strict constatutionalists, the BOR was a hard fought, but lost battle. . .
anyone that's going to cite the bill of rights in this discussion has almost no understanding of the history of the bill of rights. before you go knocking on that door you might want to do little reading yourself. The bill of rights is very much a double edge sword and for strict constatutionalists, the BOR was a hard fought, but lost battle. . .
H
huntindude
Guest
If you're wanting to call me anti gun because Rambo guns don't turn my crank then go ahead, I don't care. I'm not judging them on how they look I'm judging them on they don't fill a need I have, but I think you have a right to them simple as that.
Don't play the you're with us or you're agianst us game with hunters like me, I'm with you because your battle is my battle but if I got treated like Zumbo did I'd sit back and let you run interference, by the time they're done with you I'll be too old to care. that's not the way I'd like to handle it, but I'm not big on being treed by someone I'm supposed to be on the same team with.
Don't play the you're with us or you're agianst us game with hunters like me, I'm with you because your battle is my battle but if I got treated like Zumbo did I'd sit back and let you run interference, by the time they're done with you I'll be too old to care. that's not the way I'd like to handle it, but I'm not big on being treed by someone I'm supposed to be on the same team with.
D
Deadred7o7
Guest
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
Some of you reek of ?interpretative law?. That's where the 2nd Amendment suddenly became understood by most as the right to own hunting weapons? As if James Madison was interested in securing a Constitutionally backed Right to Hunt game. That is implied already. Nowhere in James Madison?s discussions with other Anti-Federalists, or even the Federalists themselves does he mention hunting. It had a purpose, now nearly forgotten, a problem stemmed by the fact that we humans don't live for 300 years at a time, and further compounded by that nifty little thing earlier referred to as ?revisionist history?.(What History text isn't revisionist though?) People aren't just ignorant of our nation?s founding aims, but instead, have been MADE ignorant by a clear and nearly opaque effort to control the ideals of subsequent generations. Sounds almost crazy, if it weren't so obvious to all of us.
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
Thomas Jefferson
Some of you reek of ?interpretative law?. That's where the 2nd Amendment suddenly became understood by most as the right to own hunting weapons? As if James Madison was interested in securing a Constitutionally backed Right to Hunt game. That is implied already. Nowhere in James Madison?s discussions with other Anti-Federalists, or even the Federalists themselves does he mention hunting. It had a purpose, now nearly forgotten, a problem stemmed by the fact that we humans don't live for 300 years at a time, and further compounded by that nifty little thing earlier referred to as ?revisionist history?.(What History text isn't revisionist though?) People aren't just ignorant of our nation?s founding aims, but instead, have been MADE ignorant by a clear and nearly opaque effort to control the ideals of subsequent generations. Sounds almost crazy, if it weren't so obvious to all of us.
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
H
huntindude
Guest
Yes and no, our founding fathers did an amazing job of setting up the guidelines of this nation. but did they think about the kinds of weapons that would evolve? a Ruger no. 1 would be considered 30th century tech to them. would they have said all Americans need full autos, street sweepers, 50 BMGs,armour peircing bullets, tracers, grenade launchers and a so on? this is where interpretation requres a little thought.
I'm all for legal gun ownership as I think most Americans are, what will be legal is ultimatly going to be up to the voter and that's where the need for a better image of gun owners is important. we can lay claim to whatever we want but in the long run the will of the people will prevail, you can believe me now or you can believe me later.
I'm all for legal gun ownership as I think most Americans are, what will be legal is ultimatly going to be up to the voter and that's where the need for a better image of gun owners is important. we can lay claim to whatever we want but in the long run the will of the people will prevail, you can believe me now or you can believe me later.
D
Deadred7o7
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-09 AT 01:40PM (MST)[p]"Do you care about freedom? Dreams may have inspired it, and wishes prompted it, but only war and weapons have made it yours." Jeff Cooper
Liberty:
No need for citizens to fill out forms with personal/demographic information or obtain a permit in order to purchase a firearm. You walk into the shop, pick out what you want, lay down the money, and walk out. That's it. No different from purchasing a Big Mac or a package of toilet paper.
No need for the dealer to phone in to a call center to obtain permission for a transfer.
No need for the citizens to pass a mandated process to carry their personal firerams as they wish and in any manner of their choosing.
No restrictions on what citizens can carry, possess, or own based upon action type, barrel length, size, aesthetics, capacities, perceived purpose of firearm.
Pseudo liberty (perverted, distorted, or twisted liberty):
Exactly what we have now. 4473 forms, CCW permits, NICS call-ins, AWBs, magazine restrictions, NFA or AOW firearms, permits to purchase, etc.
See the difference? It is clearly evident that a majority of the populace, including firearms owners, believe in the latter. If they did not, and if they espoused true liberty, we would not have NFA 34, GCA 68, FOPA 86, HR 2640, and a host of other regulations, because no politician would sign it for fear of being ousted from office.
The rebuttal of all this is the cry, "Well, we gotta have some regulations in place for our own safety." Hogwash. That cry is uttered by those who have allowed their views of liberty to be whitewashed by elected leaders and 'gun rights' organizations who put profit ahead of principle.
True liberty has eroded, and is systematically being replaced by pseudo liberty. The majority become acclamated to the pseudo liberty, then a little more restrictions are passed, however, they are palatable to the majority, because they no longer know what true liberty is. The vicious cycle continues, and before you know it, there is NO liberty.
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
Liberty:
No need for citizens to fill out forms with personal/demographic information or obtain a permit in order to purchase a firearm. You walk into the shop, pick out what you want, lay down the money, and walk out. That's it. No different from purchasing a Big Mac or a package of toilet paper.
No need for the dealer to phone in to a call center to obtain permission for a transfer.
No need for the citizens to pass a mandated process to carry their personal firerams as they wish and in any manner of their choosing.
No restrictions on what citizens can carry, possess, or own based upon action type, barrel length, size, aesthetics, capacities, perceived purpose of firearm.
Pseudo liberty (perverted, distorted, or twisted liberty):
Exactly what we have now. 4473 forms, CCW permits, NICS call-ins, AWBs, magazine restrictions, NFA or AOW firearms, permits to purchase, etc.
See the difference? It is clearly evident that a majority of the populace, including firearms owners, believe in the latter. If they did not, and if they espoused true liberty, we would not have NFA 34, GCA 68, FOPA 86, HR 2640, and a host of other regulations, because no politician would sign it for fear of being ousted from office.
The rebuttal of all this is the cry, "Well, we gotta have some regulations in place for our own safety." Hogwash. That cry is uttered by those who have allowed their views of liberty to be whitewashed by elected leaders and 'gun rights' organizations who put profit ahead of principle.
True liberty has eroded, and is systematically being replaced by pseudo liberty. The majority become acclamated to the pseudo liberty, then a little more restrictions are passed, however, they are palatable to the majority, because they no longer know what true liberty is. The vicious cycle continues, and before you know it, there is NO liberty.
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
D
D13er
Guest
....our founding fathers, in the second ammendment, meant "whatever" was nescasary to repel and defeat a tyranical government.
great post/pic, thanks for sharing
JB
great post/pic, thanks for sharing
JB
H
huntindude
Guest
That's your interpretation, probably not the anti gunners interpretation. once again the opinion that matters in the long run is the opinion of the majority, I'm not confident that majority will favor any and all weapons and while I may not like some of it I understand the fight that lays ahead and why.
Kyle a little something to think about if you think unregulated weapon availibility is the definition of freedom. Saddam's Iraq was heavily armed, some civilians had full auto's and RPG's and were allowed to, before we invaded gun shops did a bang up business as civilians were encouraged to buy more guns and ammo. what I'm saying is a well armed population is essential to freedom, but it doesn't gaurantee it, and it doesn't require RPG's and 50 BMG's in every house to achieve it.
Kyle a little something to think about if you think unregulated weapon availibility is the definition of freedom. Saddam's Iraq was heavily armed, some civilians had full auto's and RPG's and were allowed to, before we invaded gun shops did a bang up business as civilians were encouraged to buy more guns and ammo. what I'm saying is a well armed population is essential to freedom, but it doesn't gaurantee it, and it doesn't require RPG's and 50 BMG's in every house to achieve it.
D
Deadred7o7
Guest
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of those who feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
D13er
I will stand with my brothers anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
My brothers understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They FULLY understand that the Second BARS government from interfering with weapons in the hands of Citizens.
I stand with them in spirit, today...I will stand with them when it is time to go to the wall.
Meanwhile, MANY of us will be hurt...ALL across this Nation. Those men MUST be hurt by the Beast...so that ALL may know the caliber of the Evil we face.
There WILL be a day......
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
D13er
I will stand with my brothers anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
My brothers understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They FULLY understand that the Second BARS government from interfering with weapons in the hands of Citizens.
I stand with them in spirit, today...I will stand with them when it is time to go to the wall.
Meanwhile, MANY of us will be hurt...ALL across this Nation. Those men MUST be hurt by the Beast...so that ALL may know the caliber of the Evil we face.
There WILL be a day......
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
cmiddleton
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,214
D13 IS spot on.
i'm with you and 7x7 100%
the time comes i'll be with you
i'm with you and 7x7 100%
the time comes i'll be with you
H
huntindude
Guest
Don't put your face paint and night vision goggles on just yet, we have an economy crisis that will need to be delt with prior to your civil war.
Just out of curiosity, who do you think you're going to fight with? do you have so little faith in our military you think they would take action against us to get our guns? sure it could happen someday in the distance but if you think it could happen in our lifetime you have less confidence in this country and our military than I do. give me a break.
There are plenty of better things to fret about than this right now if your get your kicks off worrying.
Just out of curiosity, who do you think you're going to fight with? do you have so little faith in our military you think they would take action against us to get our guns? sure it could happen someday in the distance but if you think it could happen in our lifetime you have less confidence in this country and our military than I do. give me a break.
There are plenty of better things to fret about than this right now if your get your kicks off worrying.
D
Deadred7o7
Guest
I would rather it happen on my watch than my childs.
If everyone has a "right" to keep and bear arms, how then do YOU, or the gov't deign to decide that some of us "shouldn't be allowed" to even own a water-gun, given that you see it as a "right" after all (sure you do).
The anti-liberty thought process and anti-liberty mentality just can't help but bleed through, nor can such a one even contemplate advocating, or even recognizing Amendment II for what is was designed.
Sad thing is, such people usually believe that they are pro-gun. In that self analysis they may be correct, but they are only "pro-gun" in the "NRA sense" of the words, ala they want themselves and other "select" people to be "allowed" to have guns for select purposes and with selected and limited methods of use and carry. All with the gov't making sure that certain "bad" people, do not access firearms. It's for the "public safety, don't you know.....
Collectivism at work, in all its stark reality. Collectivism = the enemy of liberty.
Know thine enemy, because your future and the shaky future of the Republic depends upon that knowledge
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
If everyone has a "right" to keep and bear arms, how then do YOU, or the gov't deign to decide that some of us "shouldn't be allowed" to even own a water-gun, given that you see it as a "right" after all (sure you do).
The anti-liberty thought process and anti-liberty mentality just can't help but bleed through, nor can such a one even contemplate advocating, or even recognizing Amendment II for what is was designed.
Sad thing is, such people usually believe that they are pro-gun. In that self analysis they may be correct, but they are only "pro-gun" in the "NRA sense" of the words, ala they want themselves and other "select" people to be "allowed" to have guns for select purposes and with selected and limited methods of use and carry. All with the gov't making sure that certain "bad" people, do not access firearms. It's for the "public safety, don't you know.....
Collectivism at work, in all its stark reality. Collectivism = the enemy of liberty.
Know thine enemy, because your future and the shaky future of the Republic depends upon that knowledge
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
D
D13er
Guest
You're shooting way over their heads Kyle, but I hear you loud and clear.
great post/pic, thanks for sharing
JB
great post/pic, thanks for sharing
JB
D
Deadred7o7
Guest
Its just hard to not shake my head and walk away when someone says "I'm pro-the IIA....BUT...". I think they should have to turn in their Man Card. You just cant half @ss the 2A.
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"
H
huntindude
Guest
Thanks, guys like you make it easy not to care much since I know my guns are safe for the rest of my life anyway.
D
driftersifter
Guest
I read a lot of me, me ,me in your way of thinking, just a bit selfish eh?
Driftersifter
Thomas Jefferson wouldn't cross the street to meet you.
Driftersifter
Thomas Jefferson wouldn't cross the street to meet you.
H
huntindude
Guest
Like I care.
Like I said I'll support someones right to own a black rifle even though I ( yes that's a me ) have no use for them. I'm ( there's a me again ) not going to go buy one just to prove my ( another reference to myself ) loyalty though. if that's not good enough bite me ( there's an actual me ).
Like I said I'll support someones right to own a black rifle even though I ( yes that's a me ) have no use for them. I'm ( there's a me again ) not going to go buy one just to prove my ( another reference to myself ) loyalty though. if that's not good enough bite me ( there's an actual me ).
