A
angel12
Guest
The “right” spend 8 years screaming “The sky is falling!! Obama’s going to take away your guns!”
Not true then, not true now.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status
Not true then, not true now.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
Theo520
Guest
yup, Obama completely failed on that one too.
Whether you are for or against gun control, his record at increasing restrictions was abysmal.
Since that outcome was not his goal, guess he was thwarted.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Lev:
That’s exactly right Road-Worrier.
The 1st Ten Amendments, or Bill of Rights, is to protect the citizen from Government over-reach, not to EXPAND Government POWER and enumerate more Government BLOATINGS against the free citizen.
Reply from Road-Worrier . . . .
.
That’s exactly right Road-Worrier.
The 1st Ten Amendments, or Bill of Rights, is to protect the citizen from Government over-reach, not to EXPAND Government POWER and enumerate more Government BLOATINGS against the free citizen.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Why don’t you explain that to our brave military vets who have had their Second Amendment Rights “infringed” upon by an Obama executive order angel12.
I’m sure they’d have a few questions for you.
www.gunsamerica.com
www.breitbart.com
I’m sure they’d have a few questions for you.
VA Revokes Second Amendment Rights of Over 250,000 Veterans
Veterans looking to secure their Second Amendment rights may want to think twice before getting help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to manage their finances.
www.gunsamerica.com
Catch 22: Vets Fear Loss Of Gun Rights If They Seek Treatment For PTSD
Although numerous combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan need treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) many are increasingly hesitant to pursue treatment because they fear a prognosis of PTSD will be used to deny their gun rights under the Obama administration. |
www.breitbart.com
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I’m not sure what you mean by abysmal, unless you are more left-wing than Obama and think the only “good” outcome is gun confiscation. If gun confiscation was not his goal then he succeeded in doing what he wanted and not doing what he didn’t want to do.angel12:
yup, Obama completely failed on that one too.
Whether you are for or against gun control, his record at increasing restrictions was abysmal.
Since that outcome was not his goal, guess he was thwarted.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I do not share the opinion of the writer of this blog that due process was denied. Due process means giving a process its “due” consideration. The evaluation of their mental state was their due process.
…more blogging of the same sort from a pro-gun group.
If the vets know they have mental problems they should be willing to give up their access to guns for their own safety. The most common victim of a mentally unstable vet is that same vet himself committing suicide.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
There have been many Democrat politicians quoted saying their ultimate goal is de facto ban like exists in Britain and Australia. Instead of being able to exercise a right they want you to beg for the privilege of owning a firearm.
It’s all baby steps for them. A magazine limit here, ban certain features there, but at the end of the day they want to reduce the number of firearms to as close to 0 as they possibly can.
It’s all baby steps for them. A magazine limit here, ban certain features there, but at the end of the day they want to reduce the number of firearms to as close to 0 as they possibly can.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is this kind of absolutist no-compromise position that makes meaningful dialog difficult. You cannot negotiate with someone you have already demonized. Charity requires that we assume noble motives for all.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
It’s not demonizing. It’s literally the strategy as spoken by the proponents of these policies.
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, who is leading the gun control push in the Senate said in a 1995 interview, after getting her assault weapons ban passed, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, who is leading the gun control push in the Senate said in a 1995 interview, after getting her assault weapons ban passed, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
You once again lack basic understanding of what “due process” means.
Due process is a legal process of judicial review, not a bureaucratical one. The local government can’t just come, evict you from your house, knock it down and build a highway. You HAVE to have a way to object to it (BEFORE it’s a done deal), and have those objections heard in court.
With exigency, due process be delayed. For example, you can be arrested and jailed while waiting for judicial review. You can have your kids taken away from you for a few days while waiting for judicial review. AND you can have your property taken from you for a few days while waiting judicial review.
This is where we can certainly make improvements through a Gun Violence Restraining Order which, like a Protection From Abuse Restraining Order, could be filed by law enforcement, medical providers, or close family members. Once signed by a judge this could allow PD to take a persons firearms for a few days until judicial review.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
He is describing EXACTLY what IMachine has stated is his/her goal. IMachine is not alone in having that goal, just a minority because he/she is willing to openly state it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is no context to the Obama quote so it is hard to evaluate. His more recent actions do not align with that position exactly. And the Feinstein quote is more of a wish than firm statement of a legislative position. Both these people have shown in the past a willingness to compromise on their personal desires. It is no reason to write off all compromise on guns with everybody.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
Define mental health problems? Situational depression? Post-partum depression? Borderline personality? Gender-dysphoria? ADD? Anxiety? How about obesity? Obsessive hand-washing??
Should we remove guns from everyone who is diagnosed with a DSM-V disorder? Beware, because EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US could legitimately be diagnosed with some type of psychiatric disorder in the DSM-V.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
We compromised in 1934 with the passage of the National Firearms Act.
We compromised again in 1938 with the Federal Firearms Act.
We compromised again in 1964 with the Gun Control Act.
We compromised again in 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection Act (read the summary of the bill, it wasn’t all about the protection of owners)
We compromised again in 1993 with the Brady Act.
We’ve been compromising our rights for decades. I’m done giving up ground.
You’ll have to click the picture to see the whole thing.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
We compromised again in 1938 with the Federal Firearms Act.
We compromised again in 1964 with the Gun Control Act.
We compromised again in 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection Act (read the summary of the bill, it wasn’t all about the protection of owners)
We compromised again in 1993 with the Brady Act.
We’ve been compromising our rights for decades. I’m done giving up ground.
You’ll have to click the picture to see the whole thing.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Why? Some motives are far from noble and can be recognized as such.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
I think Feinstein and Obama have very noble intentions. They want to “SAVE THE BABIES” by removing as many firearms as possible.
Same with the (German/Russian/Chinese/Cuban/etc ad nauseum) bureaucrats who registered, and then rounded up, the firearms in many different countries in the past. The bureaucrats in the Weimar Republic really thought their country would be better off if the government knew exactly WHO had WHAT firearms, so they pushed for and implemented gun registration. Then, later, the Nazi bureaucrats really thought their country would be better off if they removed those guns from those undesirable people, which incrementally grew from “jewish people” to “anyone who wasn’t a die-hard Nazi”.
Liberals are very noble…they are just wrong.
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
For those who say all you’d ever need is a 6 shooter for defense
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/8860049814
"The Incident
Sunday, February 24, 1984, approximately 2 PM. Gary Fadden, 26, and his lovely 22 year old fiancee are driving from a birthday party in Martinsburg, WV, into Virginia to look at some property for what they hope will be their starter home after their marriage. It’s a bitterly cold day, and with the winter coats in the back of a new '84 Ford F-250 supercab 4WD diesel pickup, the Pendleton-clad Fadden looks from a distance like a harmless Yuppie. That means he and the pretty brunette look like prey to another kind of person.
Heading east on Rt. 50, they are passed by a Harley-Davidson motorcycle with two people astride, the operator cutting in front of him so sharply that he has to brake suddenly. Gary comments to his fiancee how cold they must be riding a bike on a low 30s day, and that driving as carelessly as he is, the cyclist needs to worry about sudden patches of ice.
A few minutes later, he spots a Chevy pickup in his rearview mirrors. It contains three people. One passenger is gesturing to him to pull over. Gary doesn’t know what these scruffy guys want and he ignores them. But then he sees the passenger waving a knife, and the driver bringing up a revolver.
Gary says to his fiancee, in what will probably be the understatement of his life, “We’ve got a bit of a problem here.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...708-bbdb-cd00e1f9fded/?utm_term=.98276f7cd28c
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/8860049814
"The Incident
Sunday, February 24, 1984, approximately 2 PM. Gary Fadden, 26, and his lovely 22 year old fiancee are driving from a birthday party in Martinsburg, WV, into Virginia to look at some property for what they hope will be their starter home after their marriage. It’s a bitterly cold day, and with the winter coats in the back of a new '84 Ford F-250 supercab 4WD diesel pickup, the Pendleton-clad Fadden looks from a distance like a harmless Yuppie. That means he and the pretty brunette look like prey to another kind of person.
Heading east on Rt. 50, they are passed by a Harley-Davidson motorcycle with two people astride, the operator cutting in front of him so sharply that he has to brake suddenly. Gary comments to his fiancee how cold they must be riding a bike on a low 30s day, and that driving as carelessly as he is, the cyclist needs to worry about sudden patches of ice.
A few minutes later, he spots a Chevy pickup in his rearview mirrors. It contains three people. One passenger is gesturing to him to pull over. Gary doesn’t know what these scruffy guys want and he ignores them. But then he sees the passenger waving a knife, and the driver bringing up a revolver.
Gary says to his fiancee, in what will probably be the understatement of his life, “We’ve got a bit of a problem here.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...708-bbdb-cd00e1f9fded/?utm_term=.98276f7cd28c
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Read the Obama reg that Trump rescinded. It is spelled out there.LeafByNiggle:
Define mental health problems? Situational depression? Post-partum depression? Borderline personality? Gender-dysphoria? ADD? Anxiety? How about obesity? Obsessive hand-washing??
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And we compromised with the increase in public carry and concealed carry laws as well as in the Heller decision. There has been a history of compromise on both sides. As least listen to the other side with an open mind without demonizing them.
By the way, memes are not a substitute for a reasoned argument.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But first you have to assume what those motives are. That is the uncharitable part.LeafByNiggle:
Why? Some motives are far from noble and can be recognized as such.
Last edited:
- Status