Guns
- Thread starter LeilaniMP
- Start date
D
Doc
Guest
No wonder the Libbies HATE Charleton so much:
First, he played MOSES...(And they didn't even make him GAY, or have multiple sex scenes...)
THEN, he went and became a leader of the NRA.
Hell, he was even mean to some Chimps!
First, he played MOSES...(And they didn't even make him GAY, or have multiple sex scenes...)
THEN, he went and became a leader of the NRA.
Hell, he was even mean to some Chimps!
We are in agreement....Heston was right. Guns in the hands of a bad person is a bad thing. Why does the NRA prevent any attempt to control that? Why are they against reasonable attempts to insure that background checks must be performed to transfer a gun from one person to another?
oicu812
"Trust, but Verify"
We are in agreement....Heston was right. Guns in the hands of a bad person is a bad thing. Why does the NRA prevent any attempt to control that?
they dont..they agree with some laws enacted to reduce the ownership of wepons by convicted felons, etc.
Why are they against reasonable attempts to insure that background checks must be performed to transfer a gun from one person to another?
reasonable to who?
because this is wholesale registration of all guns, including the vast majority of legal, law abiding citizens weapons, and the first step towards confiscation..
they dont..they agree with some laws enacted to reduce the ownership of wepons by convicted felons, etc.
Why are they against reasonable attempts to insure that background checks must be performed to transfer a gun from one person to another?
reasonable to who?
because this is wholesale registration of all guns, including the vast majority of legal, law abiding citizens weapons, and the first step towards confiscation..
Confiscation is of no concern whatsoever. If confiscation of personal guns begins, one can use them for their actual purpose, to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. The solution is elementary. When the G-Man comes to confiscate your guns, shoot them.
Who said anything about registration? Is the NRA in favor of enforcing background checks on all transfers of ownership? No. Gun shows and private sales are always the places where one can go to get a gun and the NRA sees no problem with resisting enforcement of checks there. Why are they against reasonable limits on the number of guns purchased in a month? Now some bozo can go to a state where it is easy to buy a boatload of guns and they end up being sold on the streets of cities with stricter rules. You guys argue about being allowed to buy "matched sets" or the need to suddenly buy an armory as the reason. How about if your purpose is to be a collector then you agree to a collector's license and those collector's pieces get registered....and that is the only way you can buy an unlimited number per month....Oh, no...then those poor collectors would have their guns seized....right? Bullshit. If they are truly just collector's editions then they'd be registered with your insurance company anyway.
oicu812
"Trust, but Verify"
oh, i agree,,,confiscation will never happen,,,not in our life time,,it may be something future free people will have to contend with, thus, registration.
oicu812
"Trust, but Verify"
you do realize when a background check is done, the weapon is listed and registered...the rest of your post is your uninformed ranting...
Registration makes sense on many levels. The primary concern is, as Mr Heston alludes, keeping guns away from bad guys; the convicted felons etc that we pretty much all agree shouldn't be armed. The secondary consideration is tracking guns used in the commission of crimes.
We register cars...no one is talking about confiscating them.
The right has brought themselves a quandary. Their insistence on a law and order state with a huge military has us...well...a law and order state with a huge military...and now, they are finding some reasons to dislike these things. Your guns, should the Feds decide to come and get them, would be a slight distraction...as in the Koresh folly.
Our governments have grown too powerful in some ways...of that there is no doubt; but long rifles and handguns aren't going to protect future people of freedom against these military powers. The citizenry is outgunned, and the citizenry demanded it and paid for it.
oicu812
"Trust, but Verify"
you assume our standing military, made up from the ranks of civilians, would be complicent in such an act...far more plausible that a military coup would result, negating the threat from within...
No...you assume I assume that.
We saw such government action in Waco. I refer to it as a circumstance that is indicative of the pov I discussed. I didn't see folks refusing to fight because other citizens were involved. And by definition, the military are not civilians...
Civilians...by definition....means non military. People not in the military are civilians, therefore it is impossible to have a military comprised of people not in the military.
You assume the law will be enforced....or won't be changed. Law is rather susceptible to the whim of the politicians in charge at any given moment. I assume it will be changed...or won't be enforced under the guise of security. That has been the clarion call for the past decade...
Waco is an example of the power of the government versus the power of the individual...or a small group. A group with arms...and a compound. They lost. That's the point. Unless one can withstand a siege and a tank assault...one's guns aren't going to save them from these confiscatory folks, whoever they may be, locals, feds, UN...or whatever supposed agency is going to do this confiscating you're concerned about.
oicu812
"Trust, but Verify"
i understand your point,,understand mine,,they were civilans before they joined, and the vast majority will return to be civilans again.
as i have alread told you, i am not concerned with confiscation..our discussion is hypothetical..
martial law has been declared before and can be in the future...
wholesale assault on the citizens if ordered by a political party, sitting pres., is more likely to result in a military coup to displace the offending pres. party, than to attack the mothers, fathers, brothers sisters, friends, of the soldiers sent to attack.
as i have alread told you, i am not concerned with confiscation..our discussion is hypothetical..
martial law has been declared before and can be in the future...
wholesale assault on the citizens if ordered by a political party, sitting pres., is more likely to result in a military coup to displace the offending pres. party, than to attack the mothers, fathers, brothers sisters, friends, of the soldiers sent to attack.
Queen Titania
Senator
Guns are c'ock extentions ....... There are quite enough working c'ocks doing a perfectly good job on their own with out the need for enhancement .and for the Ladies ? mmmmm ;-)
It's quite simple really. Words have meanings. People in the military ARE NOT civilians. It isn't a point of view to understand...it's a truth. This is one of the difficult aspects of debate and/or conversation today. If we don't agree on the meanings of words, potato chips glass table binoculars. That's the level of nonsensical communication we get.
So...you're not worried about confiscation, but you are certain that registration is the first step...to something that will not happen. Got it. Carry on.
Old Ridge Runner
Mayor
Because reasonable attempt, to a leftist is taking guns away from everyone.
oicu812
"Trust, but Verify"
ok craig,,,the military is made up from civilians who volunteered to become soldiers to protect from enemys both outside and within our country..you knew what i meant the first time, yet you chose to argue a point that was of no consequence to the discussion...guns used in the commission of crimes are already tracked. and wheather or not confiscation is a threat, registration is the first step towards that action...any historical study will show, registration is the first step towards disarming the public. ask adolf.
So you still believe registration is the first step to something you don't believe will happen. OK...got it, carry on.
And no...I did not know what you meant...because the words you used didn't make sense.
So...got anything besides Hitler?
