47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

I think people should pass health and mental examination before they can have weapons. It doesn't violate the Second Ammendment but I believe will decrease the number of casualties

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Whats wrong with banning assault rifles and smaller magazines. Even Reagan and Bush Sr. supported gun control.

reply to post by kiklad


You need to pass a written and driving test in order to get a drivers license. Why not do the same for guns? Both can end up in death if used in an unsafe manner...

Originally posted by vkey08
So banning high capacity magazines, and fully automatic assault rifles, as well as armor piercing bullets, is still within the confines of the Second Amendment, plain simple and to the point, no-one is saying you can't have a gun, just that you have to meet certain criteria with your purchase. You can't buy a 5000 round magazine or a fully automatic rifle, sorry folks, it's all legal, it's not infringing on that right and I'll be honest, if you're a good enough shot, ONE is all you need. (I've never needed more..)

So you're okay with the government being the authority to grant the privilege for an individual to purchase a firearm of their choosing?

Doesn't sound like a right anymore.

It sounds more like a platitude or a boon granted by a higher authority.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Whats wrong with banning assault rifles and smaller magazines. Even Reagan and Bush Sr. supported gun control.

You're giving props to Bush Sr.?
Mr. NWO himself?

reply to post by beezzer


rights you can exercise without permission, for Privileges you need to ask permission to have them....

I dont like the way privilege is handed out already in the US. I dont want to add anything else to that retarded list.

reply to post by Afterthought


He is assuming that the pro gun people are right wingers...NOT almost every American both left and right when it comes to constitutionally given rights...

The left likes liberties and our constitution too you know.....some people....

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by beezzer

 

rights you can exercise without permission, for Privileges you need to ask permission to have them....

I dont like the way privilege is handed out already in the US. I dont want to add anything else to that retarded list.

Exactly. We are ceding our right (for the false sense of safety) to a privilege.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


That's exactly why I'm registered Independent. I don't trust any of them and I refuse to take sides.
They're all corrupt liars if you ask me.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by vkey08
So banning high capacity magazines, and fully automatic assault rifles, as well as armor piercing bullets, is still within the confines of the Second Amendment, plain simple and to the point, no-one is saying you can't have a gun, just that you have to meet certain criteria with your purchase. You can't buy a 5000 round magazine or a fully automatic rifle, sorry folks, it's all legal, it's not infringing on that right and I'll be honest, if you're a good enough shot, ONE is all you need. (I've never needed more..)

So you're okay with the government being the authority to grant the privilege for an individual to purchase a firearm of their choosing?

Doesn't sound like a right anymore.

It sounds more like a platitude or a boon granted by a higher authority.

But they aren't really.. Criminals of certain classes have never been able to legally purchase a handgun, etc. If you had certain mental illnesses, you were never supposed to be able to (I forget the list but it's pretty short) Nowhere do any of these laws say the average citizen, who has not a) committed a violent offense/family offense, and b) who is not classified as severely mentally ill to the point that they would hurt themselves or others, cannot have a gun. All they really say is you can't have a gun that kills your whole town in a few shots.. there's a huge difference.

So unless Obama comes out and says:

"Everyone who is depressed is now banned from owning a gun" (He hasn't he has stated that the criteria is that you have offered up evidence or statement that you are going to harm yourself or others, which HAS ALWAYS been there, just now it will be in a database)

or

You can't have any guns at all citizens, turn in even your peashooters. (again, noone is taking away your guns, and there is NO RETRO-ACTIVITY on the laws)

then what's the big deal? Do you feel safe, knowing someone that has told their doctor that they wanna mow down a day care because mommy was men to them, can buy a weapon of mass killing?

The problem with all of this is semantics, it's the way it's all been worded, everyone is spinning it, it's simple:

If you say you're gonna go out and hurt people, you ain't gonna buy a gun.
If you have been convicted of a domestic violence OR violent crime, you ain't gonna buy a gun.
and If you want a gun that can kill thousands in seconds, no you can't have it, you really don't need it.

That's what this all boils down to, everything else is smokescreen. Now Devil's Advocate says that they can expand that mental health law now to include almost everyone (and then, and only then should this discussion even be anywhere near where it is now) and that would be a violation of the right to bear arms. But so far, they want ot have a national dialogue, what happens in that dialogue if it's found that people are sick of being drugged happy? Well.. hmm ever read One Second After? People who had suddenly gone off their happy pills all turned into flesh eating rabid cannibals (it was slightly exaggerated for the book but you get the point) maybe they should look at that.. What i'm saying is this has less to do with the gutting of the Second Amendment and moreto do with the fact that we have drugged our nation into submission and now we have to deal with the consequences of that..

reply to post by Afterthought


Props? No idea what you mean. This was aimed at the majority (GOP) that is fighting gun control. The GOP is preaching in conflict with it's own standard bearers

reply to post by vkey08


Voice of reason. THanks for the thoughtful posts.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


Where's your tank?

Where's you Sub?

Where's your Fighter Jet?

Should we be allowed to own nukes? If no, then you've drawn a line.

Originally posted by Ghost375
What's wrong with those people?

He didn't actually pass any gun "control" legislation.
He just passed orders for some studies on gun issues or strengthened laws already on the books.

edit on 17-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

It's important to stand up and send the liberals a clear message.

Stay away from our 2nd Amendment.

Obama was smart to throw 23 placebos at us. We do not need to start impeachment
proceedings in the House of Representatives.

reply to post by Afterthought


More should do this. I'm independent as well and have no regrets. We independents are the voters that they want to win. Maybe, just maybe they will start to listen to us. (doubtful, I know)

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


Props just means that you're giving someone a pat on the back or applause for something.
Bush Sr. is infamous for his speech about bringing about a New World Order, so I was simply stating that nobody should be surprised that he sided with gun control as a means to achieving his vision of a New World Order.

Originally posted by reaganero
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

Where's your tank?

Where's you Sub?

Where's your Fighter Jet?

Should we be allowed to own nukes? If no, then you've drawn a line.

Good point. Why cant I go to the gunshop and buy a howitzer? LOL

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

 

That's exactly why I'm registered Independent. I don't trust any of them and I refuse to take sides.
They're all corrupt liars if you ask me.

Thomas Jefferson was not a corrupt liar.

" When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears
the people, there is liberty."

Thank God for Thomas Jefferson!

reply to post by TauCetixeta


Well, there weren't lobbyists in Jefferson's time either.
Today, each politician seems to be in someone's back pocket.

Edit to Add: There weren't czars back then either.
This is an interesting article from April 2011:
"Meet Steven Croley, President Obama’s Gun Czar"
www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

Let's not forget that when Kennedy was elected into office, he got rid of all the czars. Immediately after his assassination, they were brought back in.

reply to post by Afterthought


So he relinquished his NRA membership in order to start the new worls order? Thats just not true and this NWO thing is a forgone conclusion. With the limited resources in this world, there is no other way for the human race to survive without full cooperation by all it's people. NWO is just giving a name to that. The use of this term has been demonized by those who are still under the "GO USA" illusion and dont understand that we are in self destruct mode right now. For goodness sake havent you noticed how we waste everything from food and natural resources while masses starve and dont have water?

Guns are ok. Assault weapons were built for mass murder.