Gun control debate (merged)

#1,276
#1,276
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
With regards to Obama's agenda, the only thing it got him was the distinction of gun seller of the decade. Lol
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what exactly what you're saying here, but he's been pretty successful at getting what he wants.

If I'm Obama and I want to get something through Congress, it's clear to me that all I need to do is tie it something that will result in a shutdown of the government. It's really that simple. The GOP will pack up their tents and go home telling their constituents they put up the good fight, but they had to negotiate.

According to them, the Dems get their way until the people have given them all of Congress and the presidency. What a joke they are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,277
#1,277
If he really thinks he can generate a law, legally or illegally, and everyone is going to run down to the police station and turn in their guns he is delusional, and he is. If people don't want to give them up there is no force big enough to take them. This goes back to why the 2nd amendment was instituted in the first place.
 
#1,278
#1,278
DC_Vol said:
I'm not sure what exactly what you're saying here, but he's been pretty successful at getting what he wants.

If I'm Obama and I want to get something through Congress, it's clear to me that all I need to do is tie it something that will result in a shutdown of the government. It's really that simple. The GOP will pack up their tents and go home telling their constituents they put up the good fight, but they had to negotiate.

According to them, the Dems get their way until the people have given them all of Congress and the presidency. What a joke they are.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how many guns have been sold just since sandy hook? Millions.
You can't worry about what a politician will do, they will do as they wish anyway.

My next statement may come as a shock to some here.

The only person that matters is your local sheriff. Find out what his stance is, will he enforce a ban? That's the person who holds the cards. Passed that, don't worry about it, like me, you lost all your guns in a tragic boating accident.
 
Last edited:
#1,279
#1,279
IPleadInsanity said:
If he really thinks he can generate a law, legally or illegally, and everyone is going to run down to the police station and turn in their guns he is delusional, and he is. If people don't want to give them up there is no force big enough to take them. This goes back to why the 2nd amendment was instituted in the first place.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.
 
#1,281
#1,281
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
After the Heller decision, it would be really hard to do anything from a ban perspective. Then again, I'm not one to put much stock in what the Supreme Court says about anything. Megalomaniacs dressed in robes.
Click to expand...

This^^^^ Why are they appointed for life anyway?
 
#1,284
#1,284
IPleadInsanity said:
If he really thinks he can generate a law, legally or illegally, and everyone is going to run down to the police station and turn in their guns he is delusional, and he is. If people don't want to give them up there is no force big enough to take them. This goes back to why the 2nd amendment was instituted in the first place.
Click to expand...

More importantly, how many police departments would cooperate and follow protocol? Not too many around here.
 
#1,285
#1,285
Sandvol said:
The only purpose of the 2nd amendment is so we would have a chance to over throw our government. Nothing else.
Click to expand...


Just says we have the right to bear arms nothing in there about why, which is the basis of the liberal argument. It was designed to allow armed dissention by the people. The people decide why?
 
#1,286
#1,286
IPleadInsanity said:
Just says we have the right to bear arms nothing in there about why, which is the basis of the liberal argument. It was designed to allow armed dissention by the people. The people decide why?
Click to expand...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Pretty well explained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,287
#1,287
TNsnyper20 said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Pretty well explained.
Click to expand...

Please keep in mind, that's just words on paper. No magic amendment grants you rights. It simply enumerate's your rights.You have a right to defend yourself from aggression of any kind because you are a human being.
People get confused when thinking of what I like to call magic parchment. No constitution nor bill of rights grants you anything. When your ass is on the line and you need to take down a threat, you won't be too concerned with what a piece of parchment says.

Politicians will play their games with words and amendments, just keep in mind, the old saying is true, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I'll also add that ANY state or group of politicians that will disarm the public are willing accomplices to murder. Plain and simple, if they take away someone's ability to obtain the desired tools needed to defend oneself, they're just as guilty of murder as the criminal.

Harsh? You betcha. Free men don't ask permission to defend themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,288
#1,288
TNsnyper20 said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Pretty well explained.
Click to expand...

That looks like 2 separate rights to me, have a regulated militia and the right to bear arms. Lets don't get into that here because what that line really means has been debated for 100 years. Just saying everyone does not interpret it the same way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,289
#1,289
IPleadInsanity said:
That looks like 2 separate rights to me, have a regulated militia and the right to bear arms. Lets don't get into that here because what that line really means has been debated for 100 years. Just saying everyone does not interpret it the same way.
Click to expand...

People want to say they need their guns for hunting, protection or whatever. All those apply. However the reason for the second amendment is clearly written. And I gladly support it, and would defend this country of an uprising would occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,290
#1,290
TNsnyper20 said:
People want to say they need their guns for hunting, protection or whatever. All those apply. However the reason for the second amendment is clearly written. And I gladly support it, and would defend this country of an uprising would occur.
Click to expand...

Defend who? The government or the ones uprising?
 
#1,298
#1,298
DC_Vol said:
after ACA, I learned that a Republican Congress just has to campaign on fighting it. When it comes time to do the dirty work they will tap out. I don't really think this would be much different. Perhaps I'm jaded. I hope I'm incorrect, but I'm highly pessimistic about that group doing anything but enabling Obama's agenda.
Click to expand...

Very well stated.
 
#1,300
#1,300
TNsnyper20 said:
Defending my country against whomever it may be, including an oppressive government. I truly hope it would never come to that though.
Click to expand...

That's where it gets vague, help defend against a foreign invader of course. Defend an overbearing government against a citizen uprising? That would be doubtful.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top