U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-15-2009, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
for a nra member you seem to lack any ability to reasearch. try gunscholar.com. it gives quotes by many different politicians saying that the brady bill is a start, but there needs to be a complete ban on them all. do alittle reasearch and STOP THIS CHILDISH SHOW ME BS. you want a challenge ? show me where you support the 2nd. not your interpetation, but support the supposed nra understanding. you are not a pro-gun owner are you? if you support alittle more registration, then you are the problem. you and your ilk will not stop till guns are banned, right. put up or shut up tell me that you support my rights to own any and all guns and my rights shall not be infringed.
1. If you are such a whiz at research, ,no doubt you can quickly answer the question that I am now asking for the fifth time in three days. Name the Liberal who proposes removing all guns from all civilians.

2. You are asking me to show you where I have allowed a bunch of gun nuts to oblige me to a "supposed understanding" the Constitution of the United States.

I don't have to show you, nor would I bother to show you, anything. If you wish to address what I have said, you start by answering my very simple question. "Your ilk" has made a categorical statement accusing many well-meaning and honorable people of promoting the total disarming of all American civilians. Until you justify that accusation, I don't have to show you anything at all except maybe my moon.

 
Old 05-15-2009, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Rifleman, instead of gving me another 50-line rambling mess of links and font styles, just answer my question. Click "reply", and in the box, type in the name of the liberal who advocates taking all guns away from all civilians. If possible, it would be helpful if you provided ONE link to the site where that person's statement can be found. Then hit "Send". Why does this challenge your intellect? Just gimme a name.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 09:17 AM
 
Location: NY
2,007 posts, read 3,361,529 times
Reputation: 905
Even the most anti-gun politician will not say outright that they want to ban all guns. It would be political suicide and they know it. You just have to look at how they work. First handguns, then "assault weapons" (all semi-autos), then 50 cal. weapons (some even cover black powder rifles), then sniper rifles(all bolt action rifles). They'll work one by one untill they get them all. Anyone that can't see this has their head in the sand, is totally ignorant or is just a blind fool. It's called death by a thousand cuts.

The last politician in a major election who ran on an anti-gun ticked was Al Gore. Clinton admitted that gun owners were a major reason he lost. Since then, they pretend to be pro Second Amendment and hope people don't look at their voting record and look at their past comments.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepejeep View Post
Even the most anti-gun politician will not say outright that they want to ban all guns. It would be political suicide and they know it. You just have to look at how they work. First handguns, then "assault weapons" (all semi-autos), then 50 cal. weapons (some even cover black powder rifles), then sniper rifles(all bolt action rifles). They'll work one by one untill they get them all. Anyone that can't see this has their head in the sand, is totally ignorant or is just a blind fool. It's called death by a thousand cuts.

The last politician in a major election who ran on an anti-gun ticked was Al Gore. Clinton admitted that gun owners were a major reason he lost. Since then, they pretend to be pro Second Amendment and hope people don't look at their voting record and look at their past comments.
I'm really worried about my car, now. First they banned cars without catalytic converters, then cars without airbags, then cars without central brake lights, then cars without beepers and buzzers. You must have your head in the sand if you can't see that they want to ban all cars. Nobody would come right out and say that, it would be political suicide. But everybody knows that that is what they want to do. Quick, look outside and see if there is a black unmarked towtruck winching up your Wagoneer. Imagine how easy that would be to do. You don't even have a constitutional right to have a car. All they have to do is just come and tow it away.

Come on, now. Don't you think it is a bit silly to insist that ALL liberals want to take ALL guns away from ALL civilians, even though you cannot name a single one who has ever voiced that opinion? You define a liberal as a person who wants to take all guns away from all civilians, and you can't even name one.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-15-2009 at 09:47 AM..
 
Old 05-15-2009, 09:32 AM
 
Location: NY
2,007 posts, read 3,361,529 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I'm really worried about my car, now. First they banned cars without catalytic converters, then cars without airbags, then cars without central brake lights, then cars without beepers and buzzers. You must have your head in the sand if you can't see that they want to ban all cars. Nobody would come right out and say that, it would be political suicide. But everybody knows that that is what they want to do. Quick, look outside and see if there is a black unmarked towtruck hitching up your Wagoneer.
No cars you have listed have ever been banned! Please supply a list of all the cars you claim to have been banned and just who it was that banned them. This is a distraction and you prove your ignorance and bias. You, Sir, are dismissed as the uninformed, hopolophobe you truly are.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 09:59 AM
 
11 posts, read 40,221 times
Reputation: 30
People are actually providing ya with links and quotes presented in an organized and concise manner and not lumped together in one massive paragraph (to those who took their time to do so I commend you). Have ya even bothered to take the time to read any of it or do ya just immediately dismiss it because it is too long or not the exact thing you are looking for?

Honestly, you are behaving like a child who is not getting what they want, putting their hands over their ears, and saying whatever comes to mind. Is this how ya behave in the real world when you disagree with people? Because the real world is a heck of a lot tougher than the internet. In the real world you can get physically hurt or killed. Here on the internet the only thing that is going to get hurt is your feelings if you happen to have thin skin.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowgirl15 View Post
People are actually providing ya with links and quotes presented in an organized and concise manner and not lumped together in one massive paragraph (to those who took their time to do so I commend you). Have ya even bothered to take the time to read any of it or do ya just immediately dismiss it because it is too long or not the exact thing you are looking for?

Honestly, you are behaving like a child who is not getting what they want, putting their hands over their ears, and saying whatever comes to mind. Is this how ya behave in the real world when you disagree with people? Because the real world is a heck of a lot tougher than the internet. In the real world you can get physically hurt or killed. Here on the internet the only thing that is going to get hurt is your feelings if you happen to have thin skin.
I already explained why I did not open all eleven of Rifleman's links and read every word of them, to see if any of them named the mysterious libersl who had advocated taking all the guns away from all civilians. If you know the answer to that question, isn't it kind of childish to not just hit "reply" and type in his or her name, and add the appropriate quote? Not getting what I want? A simple answer to a simple question, that all of you profess to know the answer to. This is the seventh time Ive asked now, what is the name of the liberal who holds this view?

The "exact thing I am looking for" is any scrap of evidence whatsoever to support your contention that all liberals want to take all guns away from all civilians. You all say there is such a thing. Just tell me who it is. What reason do you have to hide that person's name somewhere in one of eleven scattered links and tell me to go and see if I can find it?

I ask a simple question, and you're the ones putting your hands over your ears and saying lalalalalalala.

I first asked this question way back in Post #314. Who knows the answer? That was 71 hours ago, and 84 posts ago. Back up your own statements.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-15-2009 at 11:15 AM..
 
Old 05-15-2009, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepejeep View Post
No cars you have listed have ever been banned! Please supply a list of all the cars you claim to have been banned and just who it was that banned them. This is a distraction and you prove your ignorance and bias. You, Sir, are dismissed as the uninformed, hopolophobe you truly are.
It is illegal to sell or offer for sale in the USA a car that does not meet the criteria, unless manufactured prior to a certain date. In states with motor vehicle inspection laws, it is in some cases illegal to register non-compliant cars. No cars that I know of have yet been confiscated, but we all know that that is the next logical step, after registration.. The liberals have said so, but nobody will tell me whose any of those liberals are.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,062,995 times
Reputation: 3717
Red face Truth in Answering

(Gosh; it pi$$ez me off when I spend special time thinking and working on a post, and I apparently accidentally hit some magic combo of keys or whatever, and the entire thing, my masterpiece, is lost. Where, exactly , did it go? Oh well. I'll try to briefly recapture my memorable ideas, but I have less time. "Thank God" mutters jtur...)

No, ladies & gents' jtur is exactly right, more or less. No intelligent, thinking, planning lib gun grabber is going to make the mistake of muttering or openly declaring their intent or fervent hopes for a total ban on all guns. Yep; we've heard them mutter that hope, or mention it on some of their websites, but to do it in full spotlight in the national media? No way.

What has become obvious from the long list of both failed and passed legislation over, literally, decades, is that they do intend and wish to harass, to annoy, and to legally disable gun owners.

So he hides behind this technicality, intending to console us that there's no intent, no big over-riding agenda. Balderdash! (Ooohhh.... I've been wanting to use that old tymie word for such a long time, and it was so appropos here right now, don't you think?)

That is their avowed intention, jtur, and you darned well know it. They, like you, just don't "get" some types of firearms, or our sport or even our mindset. So therefore we shouldn't have them, or some of them, which you'll decide. But to that, I'll just say:

The shooting sportsmen I know are amongst the most honorable, honest, enjoyable and generous people I've ever met.


A far cry form the arrogant We Know Best lib types who inhabit late-night intellectual gab-fest "pahr-teys", making (to their minds at least) stunningly intellectual pronouncements about how it would all be so lovingly wonderful if they were in control. As in:

No guns. No wars. No military. Free health care. Unlimited unemployment benefits. Big taxes on the fat, cigar-smoking rich. Lots of social systems.

All lovingly paid for by us hard-working types. Oh, but of course without any access to our tyranny-resistant personal firearms; yah sure can't have a resistant and armed citizenry, now can yah?

What I have been quite easily capable of doing here was to show that overall intent, that mindset, that long-term desire to hamper us all the way, and with real open admissions that they do, in fact, intend to do it by nibbling away at those Constitutional rights in a peacemeal fashion.

One has but to just check out the UK, or Australia, where they did go for the big grab. It'll never happen here, especially where we now have those examples to learn from, and my post yesterday about those new Dem Congressmen who will not sign the proposed AWB just shows that they either (1) recognize they're on shaky ground politically, or (2) that they actually also personally enjoy and respect law-abiding gun owners.

Enjoy your day, folks: I've got ammo to reload for a SASS shoot tomorrow! About 200 rounds of wasted resources, apparently. Drat, huh?

____________________

BTW, thanks to Robert_J; you're quite right. Good catch! Wasn't a .50 cal., and I build custom rifles, and shoulda known better. But I hope folks got my point about these immense, unconcealable weapons.

Last edited by rifleman; 05-15-2009 at 11:23 AM.. Reason: typoz, clarity.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,202,467 times
Reputation: 8988
Default Gun Bans for Citizens

It's not common knowledge, thanks to the government sponsored curriculum, but laws (regulations) pertaining to "citizens" have no bearing on the rights of the people.

Citizens (U.S.), by definition, are subjects.
People (American), by definition, are sovereigns.
The government is servant to the people, but masters of their citizens.

Obviously, the government has the power to rule (and disarm) its own citizenry.

Write a polite letter to your "representatives" in Congress or even the Attorney General, and ask:
Does the law in question apply to ALL AMERICANS domiciled in the U.S.A. or does the law only apply to U.S. citizens / residents in the U.S.?

And if it does apply to ALL AMERICANS, please identify the constitutional clause that authorizes it?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/8462589-post119.html
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top