Purposed gun ban list out

[ticm]

Well, without a stupid person on the operations end of any of those things, they are dangerous.

Do they kill?

No, the OPERATOR kills. If they don't have a gun, they'll find another way.

So . . . while we're at it let's ban fertilizer. Even though it increases food production, it has been used to kill someone else.

Do you see how silly the logic of banning guns is?

The only reason for banning guns is to weaken the citizens. Did it work for Hitler? Yes!

. . .and it works to weaken the citizens everywhere it has been tried by their rulers.

The more guns and bats we can get rid of the better off this country will be.

 

[bigscoop]

Let's see if I can try to explain this in simple terms. For the sake of debate let's say 50% of the population is pro-gun and 50% is anti-gun. Most of the pro-gunners are genuine gun enthusiast who are at least reasonably responsible. On the other hand, the anti-gunners simply believe that all guns are bad, and for a multitude of reasons. Now with this in mind, the worst thing pro-gunners can do is to openly discuss the various ballistic factors in public forums, magazines, etc. All of this only serves to fuel the anti-gunners. So here's the short of it......"Own your guns and keep your big mouths shut!" Your neighbors don't need to know how many guns you have, or how much damage they can do to an intruder, you're the only one who needs to know that. Anti-gunners don't need to keep hearing, "arm the citizens so we can defend ourselves against Uncle Sam." To anti-gunner it sounds like you're just begging the opportunity. I've said it before and I'll say it again and again, "Gun advocates and enthusiast are their own worst enemies." Too many of them speaking of guns as if they are toys or in radical context. You want to keep creating a bigger fear of guns, then just keep talking about them.

 

[davest]

but how else would you know that my gun is bigger than yours?

 

[leaker]

Lets not forget to registe up claw hammers over 20oz. They have banded most of these before with no result .s.
never underestimate stupid people in large numbers.

 

[bigscoop]

Lets not forget to registe up claw hammers over 20oz. They have banded most of these before with no result .s.
never underestimate stupid people in large numbers.

Even smart men do stupid things....

 

[TheHarleyMan2]

Why don't we just ban stupidity and let everyone else live? Nah, that would be too easy and make sense. Sorry, I got carried away.

If we did that, we wouldn't have anyone in the "OFFICE" to tell us what we can or can't do!!

 

[XLTer]

If we did that, we wouldn't have anyone in the "OFFICE" to tell us what we can or can't do!!

Ya beat me to it THM2 !!!!!

 

[bigscoop]

"If I was President; I would make EVERYONE own at least 5 guns!"

That sort of thing is what constitutes a dictatorship.

 

[ivan salis]

gun comtrol isn't about guns -its about COINTROL "the govt" being in total control of the people * unarm people are called "subjects" because their subjected to anything the govt wants to do to or with them -- andlacking arms they can not resist the govt effectively

citizens on the other hand are armed and can resist if the "govt" gets out of hand and overbaring on the peoples "rights". americans since day 1 have always been "citizens" and not subjects (like england was)

 

[bigscoop]

gun comtrol isn't about guns -its about COINTROL "the govt" being in total control of the people * unarm people are called "subjects" because their subjected to anything the govt wants to do to or with them -- andlacking arms they can not resist the govt effectively

citizens on the other hand are armed and can resist if the "govt" gets out of hand and overbaring on the peoples "rights". americans since day 1 have always been "citizens" and not subjects (like england was)

But here you are confusing better gun control measures with the complete banning of guns. Two entirely different topics/proposals.

 

[Chadeaux]

But here you are confusing better gun control measures with the complete banning of guns. Two entirely different topics/proposals.

Well, control will eventually lead to banning. It is the way things go with government.

You know, if you gradually do things it is easier to deceive the public than if you went straight out and banned guns.

Doing it on the sly (gun "control") you can get some backing from certain circles of the public, whereas doing it boldly (gun "bans") would get you a backlash of severe proportions from the majority.

"Control" sounds so innocent, and yet it has steadily increased since they were first implemented.

Back in the 1960's, when I was a kid, my dad could buy a shotgun, rifle or pistol with no questions asked. No paperwork, no hassles.

The first step was to qualify people by age. 18 to buy a shotgun, 21 to buy a handgun. Just proof of age and residency.

Then later, the weapons had to be registered.

Then you had to have a background check.

Then you had a waiting period.

Then there were weapons bans.

Now they are looking to expand those weapons bans.

. . . and later they'll expand those bans . . . and so on and so on until it is illegal to own any weapon for self defense.

And the uneducated general public won't really care, because it makes them feel safe.

It's like the frog in the pot. He's comfortable in the water so he stays. Turn the heat on low, and he just gets more comfortable . . . until it's too late and he's dead.

 

[worldtalker]

What has happened to Common Sense,let them regulate what they will,then,let them try and take them! God Bless Chris Gun Confiscation will Fail 15 Reasons why It WIll Fall Apart. | The Lone Star Watchdog

 

[bigscoop]

What has happened to Common Sense,let them regulate what they will,then,let them try and take them! God Bless Chris Gun Confiscation will Fail 15 Reasons why It WIll Fall Apart. | The Lone Star Watchdog

Confiscation will fail, and largely because you will never see it happen in the context the fear drivers want you to see it in. Quit discussing it, quit making it a constant issue, and it will go away.

 

[worldtalker]

Hopefully that's not all that will go away! God Bless Chris

 

[bigscoop]

Well, control will eventually lead to banning.

Examples, please? Right off the top of my head I can't think of anything this country has set regulations upon which was eventually banned? I'm sure there may be some obvious examples out there but I can't think of them. Seems to me, in reference to guns, more and more regulations are being broadened to permit their use, especially in the sporting field. This actually serves to increase your access to them because they become more desirable and thus more widely marketed to the consumer. Many of the guns that can be bought in gun shops and sporting sections of retail stores weren't even generally available to the general public twenty/thirty years ago, and the shear number of new gun models has increased considerably. All these gun loss fears are generally unfounded. Let the sleeping lion sleep.

 

[Chadeaux]

The reason the soft approach works, as stated above, is it because it is a gradual erosion of the second amendment. And, before anyone thinks this is a political post, please read the entire post first. If it is still political then by all means, delete it and tell me why so I can correct it.

I makes no difference which side is in power, as both parties have been guilty of the gradual erosion of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to possess firearms. The changes have come under administrations from both parties, and congress controlled by both parties, therefore, it is neither one political bend or the other.

The problem is that the public is easily deceived, easily lead . . . and by and large has accepted the lies that control equals increased safety. It doesn't now, nor did it ever, equal increased safety. It, in fact, erodes YOUR fourth ammendment rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The second amendment is all that stands between you and the removal of the fourth amendment. How? As stated before an armed individual is a citizen and has rights. An unarmed individual is a subject, and therefore has NO rights. You then become a ward of the empire or regime.

The second amendment, if breached, also allows violation of all of the other rights granted us under law in this country.

So, have fun watching your children's rights disappear.

Gun Control is a very dangerous thing, no matter how you look at it.

When it comes to gun violence, you only hear the bad on the news casts. You seldom hear about the thwarted robberies, murders, rapes, etc. that happen because someone has a weapon and isn't afraid to use it in defense of themselves or others. Why? The average gun owner has no agenda. They don't brag. They carry out their CIVIC DUTY without expectation of being treated as a hero . . . besides, the criminal's "rights" were probably violated when he wasn't able to carry out the "pursuit of his happiness".

 

[bigscoop]

Why? The average gun owner has no agenda. They don't brag. They carry out their CIVIC DUTY without expectation of being treated as a hero . . .

Exactly my point. Responsible gun owners don't discuss guns and the potential damage they can do to other human beings (intruders) on open family friendly sites simply because they have no idea who may be reading what's being posted. The young are so easily influenced.

 

[worldtalker]

The reason the soft approach works, as stated above, is it because it is a gradual erosion of the second amendment. And, before anyone thinks this is a political post, please read the entire post first. If it is still political then by all means, delete it and tell me why so I can correct it.

I makes no difference which side is in power, as both parties have been guilty of the gradual erosion of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to possess firearms. The changes have come under administrations from both parties, and congress controlled by both parties, therefore, it is neither one political bend or the other.

The problem is that the public is easily deceived, easily lead . . . and by and large has accepted the lies that control equals increased safety. It doesn't now, nor did it ever, equal increased safety. It, in fact, erodes YOUR fourth ammendment rights:



The second amendment is all that stands between you and the removal of the fourth amendment. How? As stated before an armed individual is a citizen and has rights. An unarmed individual is a subject, and therefore has NO rights. You then become a ward of the empire or regime.

The second amendment, if breached, also allows violation of all of the other rights granted us under law in this country.

So, have fun watching your children's rights disappear.

Gun Control is a very dangerous thing, no matter how you look at it.

When it comes to gun violence, you only hear the bad on the news casts. You seldom hear about the thwarted robberies, murders, rapes, etc. that happen because someone has a weapon and isn't afraid to use it in defense of themselves or others. Why? The average gun owner has no agenda. They don't brag. They carry out their CIVIC DUTY without expectation of being treated as a hero . . . besides, the criminal's "rights" were probably violated when he wasn't able to carry out the "pursuit of his happiness".

GOD Bless You and Yours Brother!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Thread is locked due to politics.........