Gun control

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo
[/youtube]

I'm sure our dear leaders know this full well - won't make a bit of difference to them. They don't have to follow any of the laws they enact. They'll still have the Secret Service, or other armed security. Then, they'll be free to pass laws they've been wanting to pass since the dawn of progressivism, without us pesky people being able to fight them. We've come full circle. We're becoming the country so many fought and died to be free of.

plumb-r wrote:I read yesterday that the NRA had over 4 million members and since the Sandy Hook shooting they have been getting approx. 8,000 new members per day. Hopefully the number help sway votes. Not worried about the house, just the senate.

Just because many of us are indeed active members of the NRA does NOT automatically mean we don't want some degree of new distinctions for assault weapons or some degree of control for weapons of war. Mr Heston was a man among men in his day and its hard not to get excited and be an advocate for zero change ever period... but that fact is their is always changes needed and in fact one of those changes way back when was to deny the sales of guns to folks who are mentally ill (example: schizophrenia)... maybe some would argue that the 2nd amendment does not rule out people with mental illnesses and its their "rights as a human" to bear arms! But the fact is we need to control it to some degree and we cant allow all the Schizophrenic people in the country to walk around with guns in their belt. In the future who knows what may be developed bullets that can shoot around corners or track things (will those bullets be included as a right for us to use?), Armour piercing bullets? is it our right to have and use them as we so choose? The fact is change has to happen at some point between 1787 and 2012. But having said all that... here is some inspiration for those new members to enjoy....

dcrane wrote: The fact is change has to happen at some point between 1787 and 2012.

Do we have "kinder, gentler" dictators in 2013?

If you think people should submit to psychiatric testing to own a gun, you need your head examined.

How about a psychiatric test to hold public office?

The fact is, the REASON for the 2A is just as valid today as it was 250 years ago and will be 250 years from now.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Gee, that sounds more like the right to vote as you please than a right to armed rebellion. Then again everybody can read what they want into anything, it's the ones that can't read so they take the word of some talking head the bother me. I have still heard nothing about getting a ban on all guns except from cons, maybe it's just to scare people into buying guns & driving prices up. Nah that would never work, people are way too smart to fall for that one my guess is the cost of producing guns & ammo suddenly skyrocketed & nobody is taking advantage of fear.

I'm just going by what these left wing morons that got fraudulently elected are saying, past and present:



http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/11/joe-b ... -on-gun-ba

http://www.politisite.com/2013/01/11/se ... -ones-home

jpete wrote:

dcrane wrote: The fact is change has to happen at some point between 1787 and 2012.

Do we have "kinder, gentler" dictators in 2013?

If you think people should submit to psychiatric testing to own a gun, you need your head examined.

How about a psychiatric test to hold public office?

The fact is, the REASON for the 2A is just as valid today as it was 250 years ago and will be 250 years from now.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

SO... then you believe if a background check reveals someone is a sych. patient under the influence of heavy sych medications that are controlled substances they should still be allowed to walk out with loaded weapon?

samhill wrote:Gee, that sounds more like the right to vote as you please than a right to armed rebellion. Then again everybody can read what they want into anything, it's the ones that can't read so they take the word of some talking head the bother me. I have still heard nothing about getting a ban on all guns except from cons, maybe it's just to scare people into buying guns & driving prices up. Nah that would never work, people are way too smart to fall for that one my guess is the cost of producing guns & ammo suddenly skyrocketed & nobody is taking advantage of fear.

Clean out your ears. The talk of banning guns is all over the place.

And if you think the right to "alter of ABOLISH" the government applies only to voting, then why didn't the colonists just VOTE tro break from King George?

Oh that's right, tyrants have a history of not listening to the will of the people.

How would you suggest we ABOLISH a tyrannical government should the need arise?

I honestly don't know how you managed to stay alive this long Sam.

dcrane wrote:
SO... then you believe if a background check reveals someone is a sych. patient under the influence of heavy sych medications that are controlled substances they should still allowed to walk out with loaded weapon?

I believe that your RIGHTS can only be deprived after due process of law.

If you are going to disallow guns from people under psychiatric care and/or using psychotropic drugs, then the police and military forces in this country are going to get a LOT smaller real quick.

dcrane wrote:
SO... then you believe if a background check reveals someone is a sych. patient under the influence of heavy sych medications that are controlled substances they should still be allowed to walk out with loaded weapon?

Define psych. please. Should a person who drinks alcohol be allowed because alcohol is legal?

jpete wrote:

samhill wrote:Gee, that sounds more like the right to vote as you please than a right to armed rebellion. Then again everybody can read what they want into anything, it's the ones that can't read so they take the word of some talking head the bother me. I have still heard nothing about getting a ban on all guns except from cons, maybe it's just to scare people into buying guns & driving prices up. Nah that would never work, people are way too smart to fall for that one my guess is the cost of producing guns & ammo suddenly skyrocketed & nobody is taking advantage of fear.

Clean out your ears. The talk of banning guns is all over the place.

And if you think the right to "alter of ABOLISH" the government applies only to voting, then why didn't the colonists just VOTE tro break from King George?

Oh that's right, tyrants have a history of not listening to the will of the people.

How would you suggest we ABOLISH a tyrannical government should the need arise?

I honestly don't know how you managed to stay alive this long Sam.

do you seriously believe that your stockpiles of "assault weapons" are going to protect you from the Gov. we are way beyond that my friend... times are not in the colonial era where everyone simply had a pea shooter or a bowling ball shooter! If the time ever comes when you or "we the people" need to rise up against our Gov. we ARE *censored*!!! "we aint gonna win that war no matter how many "assault" rifles we have.... common man get *censored* real!

dcrane wrote:
do you seriously believe that your stockpiles of "assault weapons" are going to protect you from the Gov. we are way beyond that my friend... times are not in the colonial era where everyone simply had a pea shooter or a bowling ball shooter! If the time ever comes when you or "we the people" need to rise up against our Gov. we ARE *censored*!!! "we aint gonna win that war no matter how many "assault" rifles we have.... common man get *censored* real!

I'm sure Stalin would have loved you.

Resistance is futile is it?

SuperBeetle wrote:

dcrane wrote:
SO... then you believe if a background check reveals someone is a sych. patient under the influence of heavy sych medications that are controlled substances they should still be allowed to walk out with loaded weapon?

Define psych. please. Should a person who drinks alcohol be allowed because alcohol is legal?

I dont have the answers... Im only making the arguments. I do believe some definitions and some changes are due at this point. What changes and what definitions exactly are "best" I dont know (If i did, I would be smarter and wealthier) LOL

jpete wrote:

dcrane wrote:
do you seriously believe that your stockpiles of "assault weapons" are going to protect you from the Gov. we are way beyond that my friend... times are not in the colonial era where everyone simply had a pea shooter or a bowling ball shooter! If the time ever comes when you or "we the people" need to rise up against our Gov. we ARE *censored*!!! "we aint gonna win that war no matter how many "assault" rifles we have.... common man get *censored* real!

I'm sure Stalin would have loved you.

Resistance is futile is it?

Ya....You go try to resist a black hawk that clearly see's you, hears you and can instantly shut down everything within 10 miles of you that takes elec. or a battery and can then take you out from 10 miles away without you even knowing what hit you. There is no resistance we could possibly give. There is little resistance entire foreign Countries and Governments could even give with full compliments of Tanks, Missiles, helicopters, jets and bombers.... and MIND YOU our Gov. has never even pulled out its big boy toys yet!!! as i said.... lets get real here, we are not living in colonial times.

Then why are we still fighting in Afghanistan?

Kevin