Obama is NOT coming for your guns.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: atomish

Yes, I had forgotten about that! When I had first read it, I remember remarking to my Fiancé about it, "oh here we go!".

The amount of people that end up on that list that shouldn't is embarrassing. Toddlers getting pulled out of line by TSA because they ended up on a watchlist due to their parents naming them Mohammed.

This is a perfect example of the creeping nature of what we speak and why we must stay vigilant. Common sense regulations, sure. But crap like this needs to be watched carefully and with an ever-more discerning eye.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

I was alluding to the fact that the government should in fact, be able to restrict certain weapons.

Well, if you want to discuss weapons of mass destruction and whether or not I should be able to own nukes, that's a different thread. This one is about guns.

a reply to: BrianFlanders


Love the ol' bait and switch in the topic of the post, props.

lol


Anyway, you are absolutely right in what you are stating.
When you gradually heat a crab in the pot... it will never know it is boiling to death, until it's too late.

If the Liberal Agenda is to take guns, baby steps at a time, then they failed. Big time!

Gun sales have soared under Obama and Gun shows are as popular as ever and more gun stores are opening all the time. The NRA is still powerful.

They're agenda backfired. That's my take.

My actual opinion is that they aren't trying to take our guns away. Logistically they can't. Too many guns. My other opinion is that some expanded background check and "Gun controls" aren't a bad thing when thought about and implemented logically.

a reply to: ketsuko

So are you one of those who thinks the government has no right to restrict any guns for anyone (the old "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - PERIOD argument)?

a reply to: amazing


Don't look at it from the point of literally "taking the guns away".

Rather see this as "restricting use" of the guns already in the population.
(gun free zones for example, no concealed carry, etc.)

a reply to: amazing

Then why do so many public officials and their followers support bans on gun ownership?

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krakatoa

So there should be, in your opinion, NO regulations on guns because it MIGHT escalate into more regulations that limit gun usage?

Do you feel that ANY attempt to consider safety and responsibility with guns is an infringement on the "right to bear arms" and the second amendment?

This thread is not about whether or not gun control is necessary. It's about recognizing the radicals and the political opportunists and the social engineers who are absolutely deeply embedded in the gun control movement for what they are and understanding that these people are exploiting crime and violence and fear and panic for a social and political agenda that is much larger than just gun control.

Whether or not there should be regulations on anything is beside the point. Because at the end of the day, the public will ALWAYS support SOME regulations. But what this thread is about is recognizing and acknowledging what these people are really up to and not cowering away from people who try to back us into corners with these logical fallacies. Things like "Well, if you don't think there should be any gun control you don't care about anyone".

No. I think that there needs to be friction to make life difficult for the people who are using our emotions against us and deliberately using gun violence to intentionally sabotage individual rights. In this case, it's gun rights but it's always something and it's usually the same people.

I know people who are fierce gun control advocates and I've never seen one of them shed a genuine tear over anything. So when these people are wagging their crooked fingers at me and telling me I'm a pitiful excuse for a human being because I don't allow my sympathy to completely override my better judgement, all I see is a dishonest opportunist who is trying to manipulate me.

In this case, my better judgement knows exactly who these gun control advocates are and what they want and of course they can make me cry when they tell me their sad stories with the sad story music playing in the background. And not 15 minutes later, they will move on to the next part of their agenda and tell me why none of my other rights are supposed to exist either.

You see. We cannot stop regulations. But we can make sure they do not pass unnoticed. Every time someone asks a good question, the excuses they try to feed us have to be better thought out. If you want to try to be truly objective maybe you should be asking the tough questions to the people who want to make more laws. I can guarantee you those people are always lying to you about something. Most of the people who care about their rights are not being fundamentally dishonest with you about anything. They just don't trust dirtbag politicians and hardcore political activists who have repeatedly stated that their agenda is to do away with people's rights.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krakatoa

So there should be, in your opinion, NO regulations on guns because it MIGHT escalate into more regulations that limit gun usage?

Do you feel that ANY attempt to consider safety and responsibility with guns is an infringement on the "right to bear arms" and the second amendment?

Way to take it to the extreme. Please, show me where I stated I do not want ANY regulations. You won't because I didn't. If you thought about it more deeply, and not emotionally as you did, you would see that if any classification is put in place to infringe upon a constitutionally protected right, then the change OF that classification should be just as difficult to change. Link it to being convicted of a felony, fine, Then make expanding that definition of felony to be just as difficult as making that classification link. Simply put, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I am advocating we make every link in that chain the same strength.

Isn't that "common sense"?

Well and good.

My point was to draw out where YOUR line is. You have done that. You are okay with some regulations. Some people don't want any, so I was seeing if you were one of them. The issue really is, between right and left, WHERE to draw the line. Isn't that really it? No FEMA Camp gun grabs - just people wrestling over that line - where does one person's rights begin and end in the context of gun ownership. What is rational and Constitutional when dealing with gun safety, personal security, and limiting accidental or purposeful gun violence.

You are making an interesting argument - that "death of the 2nd Amendment" could be by 1000 tiny cuts and not one big "gun grab." I haven't said that is a bad argument in any way, I'm merely trying to understand where you draw that line.

(I'm not really "emotional" about this - seriously, don't project onto me that kind of issue. I'm making an argument, not getting hysterical or weepy or anything "emotional." )

My point is that it is easy to overreact in the other direction - wanting to remove all restrictions as "unconstitutional" - in reaction to the occasional overreach of restrictions. Vigilance is always needed in a democracy / democratic republic, to insure that those who would infringe on basic rights are not allowed free reign over the rights of others. Agreed?

If the definition of "felony" becomes ludicrous in regards to who should and shouldn't have a gun, then it is lucky that we have the Supreme Court and Federal Court system that allows laws that do not meet Constitutional standards to be argued and modified. That isn't a simple process, but it is part of our system.

I think most people DON'T want to see the second amendment totally trashed on one hand, or complete irresponsibility on the other side. "Common sense" laws will be a matter of negotiating "common ground" between differing opinions regarding gun safety, and not everyone will be happy with how it ends up.

So I say, defend the second amendment with legal, rational processes. Defend the first amendment the same way.





AB

Argh. Double post.
Sry,

a reply to: AboveBoard

a reply to: kaylaluv
Here is an example of a weapons system I think should be under extra regulation, but not restricted or banned.

ATS

A new rifle goes on sale on Wednesday, and it's not like any other. It uses lasers and computers to make shooters very accurate. A startup gun company in Texas developed the rifle, which is so effective that some in the shooting community say it should not be sold to the public.

It's called the TrackingPoint rifle. On a firing range just outside Austin in the city of Liberty Hill, a novice shooter holds one and takes aim at a target 500 yards away. Normally it takes years of practice to hit something at that distance. But this shooter nails it on the first try.

Schauble says because the company sells directly — instead of going through gun dealers — it knows who its customers are and will vet them. And he says there's a key feature that prevents anyone other than the registered owner from utilizing the gun's capabilities.

"It has a password protection on the scope. When a user stores it, he can password protect the scope that takes the advanced functionality out. So the gun will still operate as a firearm itself, but you cannot do the tag/track/exact, the long range, the technology-driven precision-guided firearm piece without entering that pass code," he says.

a reply to: AboveBoard

So, you were being intentionally misleading in order to trigger some reaction from me? And you think that is ok somehow? And please, do not deny it, you admitted as much in that post. Why can't we have an honest debate over these issues without all the backhanded manipulation tactics? Is that asking too much of adults in this day and age?

Frankly, that approach has reduced your integrity in my eyes now. And needlessly so IMO. From her forward, I will now be questioning your every motive in every post. Why do people do that? Sad really.

Obama and the evil linerals did such a great job taking away guns from muricans that 100 milliong guns where sold since obama is president, keep drinking that kool aid.

Its ok for the right to make stuff up to try to ban abortions, but if someone talks about gun rights its un american.

Enjoy your daily killings and blaming obama.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Why should it be regulated further?.

It isn't the weapon that make it distinctive in itself, or scary, it's the scope.

Myself, I am more afraid of readily concealable weapons which can be brought to bear in close quarters without warning as a criminal would do, like a Derringer or a knife.

Exposed weaponry is preferable for deterrence over concealed which is just....concealed.

I know plenty of concealed carry permit holders who would like nothing more than to be a "hero" and have an excuse to shoot and kill somebody for good reason, when there really is almost never a good reason to shoot and kill someone.

Lots of vindictive little turds out there who would be more than happy to deny someone their day in court for the thrill of killing someone "legally".

Nobody needs to come for anyone's guns with a bunch of chicken # little dumbasses out there to make up stories about their crazy neighbor with a gun they saw through the window they had no business peaking through to begin with.



.....

a reply to: Krakatoa

Nope. Not being intentionally misleading. You assumed I was being emotional for some reason. I am not.

I asked you if you wanted NO regulation because I couldn't tell if you felt that way or not.

I didn't want to assume that was your position, and I also wanted to make a point if you agreed with some regulations - that regulations are not inherently bad as long as they do not take things to the point that they are consciously eliminating the 2nd amendment. If you didn't want regulations, that would be a whole different thing, no?

My apologies for misunderstanding. As to my integrity - sorry you feel that way. I believe you've misunderstood me.

??

Whatever. I'm really not arguing with you here, so much as making the point that 1) some regulations are needed just as we regulate driving and drinking, 2) balance is needed to not infringe on rights on either side of the issue.

I'm done.

- AB

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

well technically, it is the people who kill unborn children who are "enjoying their daily killings" , but you know whatever. Also, thousands of people are murdered/killed with non-firearm weapons or even bare hands. What is your solution to those killings? Because banning guns does not stop death as has been clear everyday in Europe and Australia. It only stops firearm deaths. Well deaths by other means go up when there are no guns.

Do you have some kind of magic pill or aerosol that can stop all humans from making irrational decisions??

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

well technically, it is the people who kill unborn children who are "enjoying their daily killings" , but you know whatever. Also, thousands of people are murdered/killed with non-firearm weapons or even bare hands. What is your solution to those killings? Because banning guns does not stop death as has been clear everyday in Europe and Australia. It only stops firearm deaths. Well deaths by other means go up when there are no guns.

Do you have some kind of magic pill or aerosol that can stop all humans from making irrational decisions??

There is no solution, but to lie and pout like children and play the victim makes alot of people not want to associate with gun lovers.

No need to lie or use propaganda to keep
Your rights.

Im not saying your lying, just the whole machine behing gun rights.

Oh and plz dont use europe or australia as examples, the death count even with less guns is not even on par with the us on daily killings.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

I said platform which encompass this scope. And I feel it should have Class III designation because it enables nearly any human on Earth, including very possibly the blind to acquire and destroy any target without any or very limited training.

It is any anti-trumpers and SJW wet dream come true.

I also believe they will take guns a little at a time.

Just look at the gun laws in calif over the last 20 years.

First they put in laws on assault weapons then it was the very dangerous 50 cal weapons even though no one had ever been used in a calif crime.
Then it was the rule that only new state tested and approved handguns could be sold in calif then making it expensive for the manufactures to get two identical guns one blued and one stainless that are otherwise identical guns each having to be tested at a cost of over $8000 each.

Forget buying a one of a kind custom gunsmith built match 1911 in Calif unless you want to spend $10000 to get it approved in calif.

I have seen how the democrats did the same thing in the west during there theft of land and turning it into parks and wilderness areas and closing the land to the public in the calif desert.
I lost a couple mines i owned due to the environmentalist treehuggers and there democrat cronies.

Between lost of property loss of the right to work in my trade (electrician)in Calif and loss of jobs because of direct actions of the democrats i will NEVER vote of any of them EVER.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

I said platform which encompass this scope. And I feel it should have Class III designation because it enables nearly any human on Earth, including very possibly the blind to acquire and destroy any target without any or very limited training.

It is any anti-trumpers and SJW wet dream come true.

You do know that liberals own guns also right, you faill when you try to be emotional or attack a whole group of people.