Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

a reply to: BattleStarGal

Ya right...How many nursing home residents are shooting people up??? Just a way for Obama and the Democrats to confiscate guns so they won't be passed on to relatives...

a reply to: SubTruth

Not to keen on chemically 'impaired' people having access to guns either.

"Shall not be infringed" so all 'arms' and all 'people' - Right? That's what it means literally.

The absurdity of that single statement in today's world is beyond belief. It requires more to drive a car then to own a weapon (or bear children for that matter).

a reply to: FyreByrd

Straw man
Straw man
Straw man
Deflection

Got anything pertinent to add now?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: SubTruth

Not to keen on chemically 'impaired' people having access to guns either.

"Shall not be infringed" so all 'arms' and all 'people' - Right? That's what it means literally.

The absurdity of that single statement in today's world is beyond belief. It requires more to drive a car then to own a weapon (or bear children for that matter).

The absurdity of that single statement in today's world is beyond belief. It requires more to drive a car then to own a weapon (or bear children for that matter).

You must live in a bubble.

Anyone can have a child. Easy peasy, have unprotected sex and BINGO! Baby on board!

Cars? Have money? You can buy a car no problem and drive it "illegally" to your hearts content, until a LEO pulls you over?

Try to buy a gun!

Maybe it depends on the state you live in, but in my state? People get busted every week for falsifying statements to buy a firearm!

Also? More people are killed by cars accident than fire arms!

So can we ban cars? After all guns obviously scare you so much to do away with the 2nd, perhaps you should take a gander at how many people are killed in car accidents?

a reply to: FyreByrd

I'll reiterate my earlier comment that when engaging in Constitutional debate, one is best served to know the definitions of the terms that the Framers used.

So you're literally wrong.

originally posted by: beezzer
Can anyone point out where it says in the Bill of Rights, that rights can be infringed upon if certain conditions aren't met?


Thanks in advance.

So does this mean you're in full support of violent felons having firearms too???

Does this include kids too, or do these gun rights apply only to adults???

Do you believe any type of regulation should be applied??? Background checks??? Waiting times??? Other???

Now we know there's a secret list of domestic threats to government.

They're afraid of the WW2, Korea, and Vietnam vet groups who are members of organizations like VFW and Amvets !!!

a reply to: mOjOm

Innocent until proven guilty ring any bells?
No harm, no foul.
No crime - no punishment.
Now if grandma starts waving her revolver around at people who aren't there -
Then we might want to address the issue.
If anyone deserves full enjoyment to their rights it's the elderly who spent a lifetime paying taxes.

a reply to: mOjOm

violent felons have all the access to firearms they need.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: beezzer
Can anyone point out where it says in the Bill of Rights, that rights can be infringed upon if certain conditions aren't met?


Thanks in advance.

So does this mean you're in full support of violent felons having firearms too???

Have they already paid their dues?

Does this include kids too, or do these gun rights apply only to adults???

I started teaching my son firearms when he was 6.

Do you believe any type of regulation should be applied??? Background checks??? Waiting times??? Other???

No. I do not.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: SubTruth

Not to keen on chemically 'impaired' people having access to guns either.

"Shall not be infringed" so all 'arms' and all 'people' - Right? That's what it means literally.

The absurdity of that single statement in today's world is beyond belief. It requires more to drive a car then to own a weapon (or bear children for that matter).

Shall not be infringed means just what it says.......Driving a car is not a right it is a privilege and not covered in the constitution.


Progressives have a very hard time understanding simple principles like individual rights and that you are born with these rights. TPTB want you to believe these rights are something that can come and go as needed.....This is a lie.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: mOjOm

Innocent until proven guilty ring any bells?
No harm, no foul.
No crime - no punishment.
Now if grandma starts waving her revolver around at people who aren't there -
Then we might want to address the issue.
If anyone deserves full enjoyment to their rights it's the elderly who spent a lifetime paying taxes.

I really like the way you put it.........Really Bravo poster. This is simple honest truth and the way it has been and should remain. No harm no foul.......Live and let live.......


You have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on anothers right to do the same........Founding fathers 101.

originally posted by: beezzer

Have they already paid their dues?

Yes, for this example they have served their time. But let's say they are still on probation??? How about no longer on probation???

I started teaching my son firearms when he was 6.

Good for you, but that wasn't my question. Lot's of people don't teach their kids anything, so what about them???

No. I do not

Well that pretty much answers the question then. So doesn't matter who it may be or why they might want a gun, according to you anyone at all should be able to walk in a store and by an AK or 50 cal. or full automatic rifle and walk out armed and ready to go without question??

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I have a learning disorder in MATH so THAT would make ME a target for confiscation wouldn't it?

These people are SO obtuse.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: SubTruth

Not to keen on chemically 'impaired' people having access to guns either.

"Shall not be infringed" so all 'arms' and all 'people' - Right? That's what it means literally.

The absurdity of that single statement in today's world is beyond belief. It requires more to drive a car then to own a weapon (or bear children for that matter).

You mention chemically impaired people.........Think about how slippery this slope really is. You seem like a rational thinker.......Why can't you see this simple truth? I have seen your posts before about other topics and agree with you how can your logic fly out the window on this subject.....Is it ideology......Really I am wondering why?


You are born with the rights guaranteed by law under the constitution and they shall not infringed upon. If we start deeming people unfit this will not stop and will effect many other areas like getting a job and maybe many other things.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: beezzer

Have they already paid their dues?

Yes, for this example they have served their time. But let's say they are still on probation??? How about no longer on probation???

I started teaching my son firearms when he was 6.

Good for you, but that wasn't my question. Lot's of people don't teach their kids anything, so what about them???

No. I do not

Well that pretty much answers the question then. So doesn't matter who it may be or why they might want a gun, according to you anyone at all should be able to walk in a store and by an AK or 50 cal. or full automatic rifle and walk out armed and ready to go without question??

Yes.

Owning a firearm is a right.

It is not a privilege. It is not something that requires the state to grant privilege to.

Don't like it?

Change the Constitution or try to take them.

Molon Labe.

a reply to: beezzer

Interesting.

What about a limit as to what type of firearm purchased??

Do you have a limit at a ground to air rocket launcher or maybe a rail gun or something or sky is the limit there too???

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I have a learning disorder in MATH so THAT would make ME a target for confiscation wouldn't it?

These people are SO obtuse.

Not right away......They will pick easier targets first like the elderly who are no longer mentally fit. As I have metioned before they do this for a reason.....Many people will agree with it and fail to see the implications and bigger picture being painted. Next it will be people with serious mental conditions like depression and anxiety.



I wonder how many people arguing in favor of this might fall under the category of mentally unfit in the future. They pushed these ADD and ADHD drugs like they were going out of style for the last 20 years. Many people under 30 take these drugs and could in the future be considered mentally impaired. This could effect many other things other than gun ownership........Look at the big picture guys and gals.

I have yet to see anyone explain the correlation between not being able to balance a checkbook = a threat to people.

It's a ludicrous link... Anyone that supports it need to see a professional.

Also think about the vets this could have an affect on....guys and gals that risked everything for their country come home to... Uh oh... Your depressed... Say good bye to the 2a.

Heck article I saw said this move has the nra,Ada, and apa, joining together to fight it.

That should tell you which side is right.