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.
1) The government does not care about your guns. Your merry little band of bigoted rednecks who wants to kill everyone in power and then install a theocracy or anarchy thankfully poses no threat whatsoever to the US government. Unless you've been living under a rock, you may have noticed that the US military is pounding ISIS into dust, and they have a heck of a lot more resources, training, and motivation than any angry band of rednecks ever will - and they are on the other side of the world.
Yes, the government cares very much about our guns, and it's very clear by the amount of talking they do about the subject. Take a look at Hillary's website and you'll see that gun control is a major part of her platform.
As for the military, you should remember that they tend to be private gun owners, too, and I've yet to see any credible evidence that they'd turn on American citizens.
As for their success against ISIS, remember that all that we're doing is bombing them from the air, since the president doesn't want any body bags to tarnish his reputation. Iraqi forces are doing the actual fighting in Mosul and it's taking them 100,000 troops to liberate a city with 5,000 fighters. It could take months.
Anyone who thinks that an armed insurgency would be easy to defeat should look at our fights in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Our war in Afghanistan has been ongoing for 15 years now and we still haven't defeated 30,000 Taliban armed with little more than rifles and improvised explosives, despite having the world's finest military that's armed with the best technology that money can buy. If we had such a problem with a few thousand Taliban, imagine what a challenge tens of millions of armed Americans would pose for a few hundred thousand government soldiers.
If only decent and law-abiding people owned guns there would be no debate at all about gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment. But the fact is that there are a lot of people who own guns who are not quite decent or not quite law-abiding since we had 13,000 deaths and 50,000 injuries due to guns in 2015. And then there is the situation of people who are decent enough who one guns but apparently are not too bright and leave them around for a child to find and use.
People on the anti-gun side get sick of the fact that we cannot seem to limit guns to just the "decent, law-abiding" gun owners, so the reaction is to get rid of all guns. Unfortunately, the NRA is complicit in this situation since they actively block any attempt to have back-ground checks for gun buyers in any gun transaction. Wouldn't that help ensure that only "decent law-abiding" citizens own guns?
I've undergone an FBI background check for every gun I've ever purchased; it's nothing more than a minor inconvenience. I don't know any gun owner who is opposed to background checks, but we all know that background checks won't keep criminals from obtaining guns, since they don't buy them at gun stores. They steal them or buy them on the black market where background checks are nonexistent.
I'll add this yet again, because it sums up the situation perfectly:
When President Clinton was considering tackling gun control early in his first term, President Carter’s press secretary, Jody Powell, sent him this memo. It’s a rare example of an influential Democrat admitting the truth about gun control laws.
Quote:
“As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime or criminals. I support registration in principle, but two questions need to be asked. Are the people causing the problem going to comply voluntarily? If not, do you have a way to effectively enforce compliance?"
A primary reason I support Hillary Clinton for President is she will not "take away our guns" but will work to prevent the criminals and crazies, not to mention, terrorists, from obtaining firearms. Buying guns will become more difficult if not, in the case of scary looking assault weapons, nearly impossible.
I have no problem with this because unless you are Russian Infantryman riding a tank you really do not need an AK clone. If you are a tank rider the generous government has provided you with the weapon. For the rest of us an AK is a want and not a need.
How exactly will Hillary work to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms? It must be a miraculous plan, since nobody has managed to do so in the past.
As for those "scary looking" guns, why are they worse than any other rifle and what makes them so much more dangerous?
A primary reason I support Hillary Clinton for President is she will not "take away our guns" but will work to prevent the criminals and crazies, not to mention, terrorists, from obtaining firearms. Buying guns will become more difficult if not, in the case of scary looking assault weapons, nearly impossible.
I have no problem with this because unless you are Russian Infantryman riding a tank you really do not need an AK clone. If you are a tank rider the generous government has provided you with the weapon. For the rest of us an AK is a want and not a need.
One of my major concerns about the possibility of electing our Tyrant in Training, The Donald, WOULD CONFISCATE all the firearms owned by the improper people like Mexicans, Native Americans, Muslims, Blacks or any other identifiable poor people that are not Real True White Americans. Most of his fanatics, being RTWA's, agree with this on a cellular level. They believe they will always be able to buy, keep and carry guns. IMHO they are completely wrong. the Donald will soon put them into the same class of enemies that the rest are already in.
Hillary might restrict purchasing firearms but the Donald WILL take them.
Between this and another post above, I do believe that the Kool Aid has more in it than a touch of Mountain Dew. Every piece of proposed gun legislation, being touted as a "step in the right direction" by the leftists/proggs, is just back door steps to total government control of privately owned firearms. Meaning there won't be such a thing, when all their "common sense" measures all line up.
That little caveat is something the leftist won't discuss. They ignore the topic, hoping it will just be overlooked. They spout their insults and mindless, emotional, babble, in hopes that we will do the same, a d thus hide their true intents behind a wall of partisan, pointless, bickering. This, they lay squarely on us, the opposition, and plaster labels and stereotypes to our foreheads. Tell me, is it working? To my mind, and seeing some responses to their drivel, here, in many cases, I belive it is.
Hilary is counting on stereotypes to put her pen into use, and thothose who would see the citizens disarmed, are fairly slavering over the prospect. The campaign of misinformation, being mounted by the anti firearms rights left, is staggering. Their ads outnumber our counters by three to one, aided by media support, and thus, those who had no position before are being swayed. Swayed to believe these Stalinist proposals actually make sense, and will curb violent criminals and terrorists.
Since terrorists have a lovely supply of all manner of weapons, provided by the very government the anti gun left claims has our best interests at heart, how will taking our, private, firearms away, or seriously restrict our rights to them, cause the terrorists any issues? The list of points goes on and on, but the anti will not discuss that list. Going forward, I foresee them getting what they want, unless the lid gets blown off their true aims, hiding in their "common sense".
A primary reason I support Hillary Clinton for President is she will not "take away our guns" but will work to prevent the criminals and crazies, not to mention, terrorists, from obtaining firearms. Buying guns will become more difficult if not, in the case of scary looking assault weapons, nearly impossible.
I have no problem with this because unless you are Russian Infantryman riding a tank you really do not need an AK clone. If you are a tank rider the generous government has provided you with the weapon. For the rest of us an AK is a want and not a need.
One of my major concerns about the possibility of electing our Tyrant in Training, The Donald, WOULD CONFISCATE all the firearms owned by the improper people like Mexicans, Native Americans, Muslims, Blacks or any other identifiable poor people that are not Real True White Americans. Most of his fanatics, being RTWA's, agree with this on a cellular level. They believe they will always be able to buy, keep and carry guns. IMHO they are completely wrong. the Donald will soon put them into the same class of enemies that the rest are already in.
Hillary might restrict purchasing firearms but the Donald WILL take them.
Strict gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining them and more laws only create gradual erosion of the Second Amendment. Look at what happened in California, laws that give people the false sense of making America safer only provide opportunities for criminals and criminal enterprises. If you don't think Hillary will take away firearms, maybe this will remind you. Remember what happened in Australia and England over 20 years ago? Maybe you weren't around or old enough back then, but anytime Clinton or any other anti-gun politician tells you "They're not going to take away your guns", think again.
How exactly will Hillary work to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms? It must be a miraculous plan, since nobody has managed to do so in the past.
As for those "scary looking" guns, why are they worse than any other rifle and what makes them so much more dangerous?
If it were up to the anti-gun crowd, we'd be using muzzle-loading rifles.
There's nothing scarier than Hillary Clinton or any other anti-gun politician telling us they're going to make us safer with more gun laws.
No its not. Trump is not the typical well mannered, pc politician. He is abrasive & focusing on issues head-on. I am willing to overlook his comments & banter because he is the only candidate who wants to focus on fixing domestic issues. I would love to help put others but only if my kids are well fed, my loans are paid off & i have extra time to spare. I am not going to ignore domestic issues & focus on international problems.
Trump knows whats wrong with this country . He has been saying it since the 80's . Theres numerous interviews of him stating this. The establishment just better be ready for the house to get cleaned up. Its about time....
If only decent and law-abiding people owned guns there would be no debate at all about gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment. But the fact is that there are a lot of people who own guns who are not quite decent or not quite law-abiding since we had 13,000 deaths and 50,000 injuries due to guns in 2015. And then there is the situation of people who are decent enough who one guns but apparently are not too bright and leave them around for a child to find and use.
People on the anti-gun side get sick of the fact that we cannot seem to limit guns to just the "decent, law-abiding" gun owners, so the reaction is to get rid of all guns. Unfortunately, the NRA is complicit in this situation since they actively block any attempt to have back-ground checks for gun buyers in any gun transaction. Wouldn't that help ensure that only "decent law-abiding" citizens own guns?
First of all, there are laws and penalties for irresponsible parents whose child or teen gets hold of a gun and injures or kills somebody else with it.
There are plenty of background checks for people who buy guns from licensed sellers, however, laws that pertain to doing background checks on private gun sales will be useless and will not have any significant effect in reducing crime. Criminals will continue selling and buying guns without going through the background check process. I can't imagine drug dealers or gang members going through this process if one of them wants to sell a gun to another.
Did Obama take your guns ? No ? Well Hillary isn't taking them either.
Talk about it all you want but guns in America are never going away. There are simply too many out there already along with our constitutional right to bear arms.
There are more important issues to worry about - like Healthcare costs.
Did Obama take your guns ? No ? Well Hillary isn't taking them either.
Talk about it all you want but guns in America are never going away. There are simply too many out there already along with our constitutional right to bear arms.
There are more important issues to worry about - like Healthcare costs.
Well then....that is settled ! Nothing to worry about , please move along...
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.
