Yes, they really do want your guns.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Jefferton
We have this thread shortly after every shooting event. Still have guns?

Awesome. See you next shooting.

Yea, we should just sit back and smile. Perhaps wave at folks every now and then. I'm sure nobody will ever try to take our guns. None of the current democratic presidential candidates are interested in taking guns away are they? Well, I'm just to lazy to check, but I'm sure if something important happens, Jefferton will make a thread about it to let us all know what's really going on.

Feel better?

Nope. They're not coming for your guns. At least not yet. They don't just want your guns. They want all your rights. Notice how it's branching out. It's not just about guns anymore. And that's the devil in the details.

Did you wonder why there haven't really been any overt attempts to ban guns? That's why. It's not about guns. It's about something much bigger. You might say a big brotherly sort of thing.

It turns out that when they have everyone begging them to "do something" they know they have a golden opportunity to do just about anything. Why settle for just banning guns when they can go for the gold?

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Have they returned from vacation yet?
I don't think they have.

originally posted by: carewemust
There is no good reason for any gun that holds more than 25 rounds to be available to the public.

If someone puts in the work they can shoot faster and throw more lead down range with a revolver and speed loaders than some incel with an extended mag on an ar 15.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

Sadly the body count for you to change your mind is significantly less than the body count to secure your rights.
One was just marketed better.


How many have to die on the highway before you stop driving?

They're not taking my rights away; they're not going to repeal the 2nd amendment.
It's just looking like another Brady bill is inevitable.

I don't think comparing highway fatalities to mass shootings is accurate.
If enough people start driving around with the express intention of killing large numbers of innocent people on the highways, I may start to think otherwise. But since I already have to contend with all the mindless dipsticks texting in their cages when I'm out on the Harley, I'm OK taking my chances for now.

It's too bad it has to come to this. I won't suggest otherwise.

a reply to: carewemust

The only good reason I need: Because I can. You don't like it? That really is too bad.

a reply to: subfab

Anyone should know that. If a politician, of any stripe, sees an advantage in being against the Second Amendment, or any facet of it, they will be.

That's the reasoning, at least in part, why it's enshrined, and protected, in the Constitution.

a reply to: NoClue

What should our main worry be then, hmm?

Mass shootings always create this conversation. Death of innocents is disturbing and that is why this conversation will continue on and on just like the conversation about abortion.

Our Constitution contains 10 rights that are not given nor taken away by government. #2 is one of them. It is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We all know the right to Keep and Bear Arms is not about hunting and sport.

Figure out why young men are shooting up crowds of people. That's where we start. Look closely at each of these men, who their associations are, groups they belong to, therapists they may have been seeing, medications and other drugs they are and have been on, family dynamic, religious influences, environment, possible handlers (yep...I went there), etc. etc.

Tens of millions of Americans own guns of all kinds and they never even think about killing an innocent. Heck! Someday we may be grateful that these millions have weapons should we find ourselves in some weird kind of invasion (use your own imagination here).

No. Globalist politicians may not have Americans' guns. Figure out what's wrong with these young and vulnerable men.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: subfab

Anyone should know that. If a politician, of any stripe, sees an advantage in being against the Second Amendment, or any facet of it, they will be.

That's the reasoning, at least in part, why it's enshrined, and protected, in the Constitution.

And yet, they make strides in eroding the constitutional rights on a regular basis.

It doesn't stop until they go too far- who will be left to fight back when the time comes?

a reply to: TerryMcGuireu

We're talking individuals, or should be. You know, as well as I do, that many Hollywood types are very "gun grabby".

Irregardless of what shows on the big screen, or direct to video.

a reply to: Gandalf77

They're not taking my rights away

If you say so.
You were the one to place the qualifier.

I don't think comparing highway fatalities to mass shootings is accurate.

Because drunk driver caused death is less tragic?

I respect your opinion
I just dont agree with it

I share ZERO common ground with these gun-grabbing, Constitution hating leftists.

a reply to: lordcomac

Who will be left to fight?

The same people who always are. You. Me. Our neighbors. Urbanites. Suburbanite's. Ruralite's.

Anyone and everyone who has, finally, been pushed too far. As it always is.

a reply to: queenofswords

Our Constitution contains 10 rights that are not given nor taken away by government. #2 is one of them. It is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

well posted!

The quote below was posted on FB a few days ago by a family friend. I thought I'd drop it here to give an example of how efficient these background checks are in CA. As far as I know this guy is on the up and up and a good citizen. Personally it makes me feel safer knowing men like him are armed, lol, I'm too chicken to own or shoot a gun, but think they should be legal without having to jump through hoops for law abiding citizens. It seems like in almost all of these mass shootings the guns are obtained illegally or mental health issues of the shooters were identified that should have prevented those individuals from having guns to begin with. The solutions being put forth don't seem to target the real problem or criminals, but just infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

"California is amazing. I Went to Big 5 to purchase some ammo for my upcoming camping trip. It took a while to find a store that even sells ammo.
I was aware that a new law regarding the purchase of ammunition has taken effect since my last purchase so I was ready for a little annoyance. The new law requires a background check.
No problem I just passed one less than 30 days ago for work.
The kid handling this top secret operation inputs my info and informs me that I do not pass the background check. He tells me this one is $1.00 and that I can try the $ 19.00 one. I do not pass that one either. They cannot tell me why or give me any information as to where to appeal or contact someone regarding the procedure.
I have lived in California my entire life. I have never been arrested, investigated, charged or convicted of anything. I have been a responsible, registered gun owner in this state for 40 years.
This is pure leftist bull#. You have a constitutional right to own a firearm. But the loophole is going to be that the constitution does not mention the ammo.
This is on the same par as when I went to vote but the state has no record of the 40 years I have been a registered Republican in this state.
The left plays the game so much better than the right. What a utopia."

a reply to: queenofswords

I can defend my home just fine with a good old fashioned scatter gun or wheel gun.
As fun as they are to shoot, I don't need an SA rifle to do that. In fact, many would say a 12 gauge works way better for that particular purpose.

Judging by the data, they are learning a lot about what's motivating these sick individuals.
And they're failing to address it. In fact, the Twitler administration is doing just the opposite. They defunded efforts to combat the rise of right-wing white nationalism--despite what the FBI and others are saying about the statistics.

Gulp! Looks like it's not radical Islam that we need to be so worried about. It's the Yeehadis in our own back yard.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

They're not taking my rights away

If you say so.
You were the one to place the qualifier.

I don't think comparing highway fatalities to mass shootings is accurate.

Because drunk driver caused death is less tragic?

I respect your opinion
I just dont agree with it

Put it this way, when I see a bill in the works to repeal 2A, then yes, that's clearly an effort to take away my rights.
But I don't see that happening. I'm from Idaho. If they tried to "take our guns," they're going to need all the U-Haul trucks in America and then some just to get started.

I never wanted to say it, but another Brady bill seems inevitable at this point. From every angle, the data suggests that the overwhelming issue in these incidents is the easy access to SA weapons.

My respect for innocent life and the need to preserve it far outweighs my desire to enjoy an afternoon of ATF.

And we have laws on the books to address drunk driving. Some states are still behind the times, but the data clearly shows that in states where tough DD laws have been enacted, the number of DD-related fatalities has been coming down.

a reply to: shooterbrody

a reply to: seagull

Yes, there are many ''stars'' that are anti gun. However these is as you also know this tendency to paint the whole of Hollywood with one big brush. Myself, have fallen prey to that big brush kind of categorizing but have come over the years to understand the fallacies in that kind of stereotyping.