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.
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. .
Yes they do, and by any definition, I am one of the Liberals. They get what I get, and I stated my view on this in Post #3, before any of you even rang in on this thread:
Americans have proven themselves to be just as criminally-inclined, if not more so, as any people in the world. Law enforcement and national defense must be armed, and it is wildly unrealistic to think that the underworld cannot find a way to arm itself with some kinds of lethal weapons. The technology exists for an unlimited supply of firearms to be manufactured by cottage industries, as easily as meth labs.
So taking guns away would be just as pointless as taking marijuana away. Why would anybody try to do that?
But I can certainly sympathize with you on your last point. I know how it feels when people "just don't get" my mindset.
Would a gun free USA be possible for the USA or just a ideal of pacifists, and religous types or would this mark the US becoming a moral and decent society if this were to occur
That's a loaded question if I ever saw one.
As long as there are Democrats who are willing to steal from those of us who work hard to support ourselves and our families so that they can "share the wealth" with the worthless scum who would rather collect an entitlement, there is very little promise of a "moral and decent society" ever being possible in the future.
The Marxists do not want Americans to have guns because they want the complete destruction of our capitalist system to be effected as quietly as possible.
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.
An intelligent voice among all this B.S. is certainly refreshing!
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.
That jturd88 really is as you've so sagaciously described her.
Uh huh...because taking away guns would quell all crime.
Well except for the open holes in our border and the armed thugs shooting at our border patrol agents. Just gives me the goosebumps thinking how easy it will be for a terrorist to get the gun in Mexico (yeah, I know we sell them) and bring it back here. Sure makes me feel all warm and cozy safe with no guns in the USA...yeah right.
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.
Absolute lies. As long as a car can pass a state inspection ( some are very lenient) a car can be sold. I have a 1947 Willys Jeep that has NONE of your mentioned items and I can sell it legally any where I want. Educate yourself. You know nothing of which you speak and seek to only deflect from your lack on knowledge.
I'm not the one that said "registration is the first step on the way to confiscation". You're right, in most cases, an automobile cannot be confiscated for deficiencies that are grandfathered. However, a car has to have been in the US when legal, in order to be grandfathered. In fact, the police (in most cases) themselves have to right to impound a car that they deem to be unsafe to drive on the US roads.
But that does not make you right when you say that if something is subject to registration, it is certain to be confiscated later. In fact it proves you wrong. Cars are not confiscated, even if registered, and even if afoul of the regulatory criteria.
Lets do it like cars then.
You dont have to register a car unless you drive it on public roads. You dont need a license to buy a car & you can buy all the cars you want.
So that would mean we can buy without hassle any gun we want & only need to register it & get a license if we plan on shooting it on public property. Since you can transport a car unregistered we can carry guns unregistered & unlicensed. If we break the rules & use our guns on public property we just get a ticket & go our merry way right?
You truly are hopeless if you dont see a huge difference between the rational for registering motor vehicles & registering guns. Vehicle registration came about because LE needed a way to know who was in the car running away from them. Unless you are going to make gun owners wear plaques with registration numbers around their neck the only reason to register guns is to keep track of who has what. The only reason to keep track is because you care how much or how many of something someone has. The only reason to care how much or how many of something someone has is so you can control it now or in the future. Cars arent registered for remotely the same reason the control freaks want gun registry.
Anyhow, history is very clear on the fact that in the case of guns, registry does lead to confiscation. Ask the people in the UK & Australia. Heck ask the Canadians how much money they wasted & how ineffective & impossible to enforce it is.
Its a stupid idea but its the only way the Feinstein monster & her immoral cadre can hope to grab them all, even if all of them means just her most hated flavor of gun this week. Once those are gone do you think she'll find a new job? Or a new gun to ban? My money goes on the gun.
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.
Most intelligent thing youve said so far.
Good, well meaning & honorable people dont violate civil rights to push an agenda. They do speak clearly on their intent though, which again exposes your "ilk" whatever that is for the dishonorable people they are. While its very clear their intent is not to curb crime, otherwise decades of failed gun control would steer them towards methods that actually do curb crime, their words & opinions are softened because to stand up & tell the truth would see them get replaced next term. Sadly some blind sheep will believe that they are "well meaning" even though the writing on the wall is clear.
You simply cannot support the second amendment & support assault weapons bans. Assault weapons in honesty are the MOST protected firearm catagory if the militia clause has any weight at all. I should add that many of you guys think ONLY the militia need arms. Since the fact is the militia, if it were called up, would NEED assault weapons & since the fact is that every man between 18 & 45 IS in the militia, its pretty hypocritical to suggest only the militia is guarenteed RKBA and at the same time push for assault weapon bans.
Since the ONLY limitations in the amendment are limitations on the Gov't there is no reason to believe that limitations on the people, beyond those for felonious activity or mental disability, are lawful. Matter of fact since not one, not a single one of the other rights enumerated in the BOR have any semblence of a pryor restraint, its pretty obvious that arguements for pryor restraints in regard to the second amendment have no grounds for legality. The gov't knows it, your politicians know it & you know it.
All the well meaning bullsnot in the world wont make a pile of crap not stink.
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.
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.
Nice! 