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.
Well it sure beats the heck out of either "Hillary" or "Obama" considering it was once proven to be your most dangerous of enemies. Wouldn't you agree?
Once, yes...but if you remember the debate between Romney and Obama, where romney said Russia is the greatest threat (paraphrased) and Obama laughed....
"Gun control" advocates push for "just a little more restriction"... and then just a little more after that. Really?
The so-called "gun control" advocates have spent the last several decades proving (inadvertently) that their half measures do not work. "Assault weapons" bans, waiting periods, "gun free" zones, background checks, and all the rest rarely reduce the crime rate, and often result in an increase instead. And yet they keep coming back and saying we need "just a little more" of their "reasonable restrictions".
When they point to countries whose results they like, they invariably point to places like England, Japan, Australia, etc. - countries that have almost completely banned guns from their subjects.
Take the hint.
In fact, complete bans of all guns are the only things that have ever reduced "gun crimes". And they must be accompanied by ruthless confiscation. Advocates who say they want "just some reasonable regulations", know by now they won't work. The only thing they could now be intending, is an eventual complete ban on all guns. While pretending they will do only just a little, to fool you into going along with "just a little". And then next year, just a little more.
Their total gun bans must be accompanied by SWAT teams going door to door to every house and apartment in America, taking people's guns whether they want to give them up or not. They know that many people will object to giving up their guns voluntarily... but a gun ban won't work unless everybody turns in their guns.
Advocates who say they want a few "reasonable regulations", are either astonishingly ignorant of the results of their own policies, or are lying to you.
I did read
And guess my point in I don't agree with the other side of the coin - arm them all. OK, that's extreme, but you get my point. Yet what's your solution, if any. Status quo? Yeah, that's working. So something needs to give to effect change is all I'm saying. But I totally admit I do not have the answers.
Why do so many continue to harp on the words "banning guns"? Forget the extreme view of banning all guns, because that is not the mainstream view of those who want change. The majority who want change are not saying to strip all guns from those who already own them, unless you fall prey to the media spin. Some guns should be banned IMHO because they were meant for purposes of the military or law enforcement, but not all. So a handgun, or a shotgun, or anything gun that has no rapid-fire ability is needed? And their needs to be an adjustment in the vetting process for those buying guns.
Because gun owners know that you don't NEED "combat ready" features for a gun to be deadly... the only truly non "rapid-fire" gun is a muzzleloader. We also know the roots of virtually ALL firearms technology can be traced back to the military. You know, WWI and WWII were mostly fought with bolt-action rifles pretty much just like today's hunting rifles but with worse... well, everything! (except nostalgic cool factor )
Once nothing changes and the anti-gun people realize it, they will undoubtedly be after the rest of the guns too.
That BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) has the potential to be far more devastating than an AR-15 mostly due to the larger calibers it fires. They are also excellent hunting rifles.
Sorry my point wasn't clear the .270 caliber for the BAR (a non-scary gun) is pretty much the same as the largest caliber for the AR .308 they have about the same performance. I'm just saying most people couldn't tell the difference between the two if they have no formal firearm education.
That is a Rush Limbaugh style argument. Rush was (is) the master at taking something that has a grain of truth, and spinning it up into a grandiose exaggerated position; that's how, using paranoia and fear he laid the groundwork for the Base that eventually grew into the Trump and Alt-Right movements.
The grain of truth here? Of course government has a tendency to get bigger and more restrictive. That part may be true in some cases - obvious. What is NOT true is that someone in the government will be "coming for your guns" or putting together squads to go house to house confiscating weapons, should we decide as a people to pass some common sense gun laws. That is a highly paranoid viewpoint. In my opinion. Reality is that we only have one credible way forward, and that is to trust our representative government to function as intended. It's a wild concept to some, but as far as I can tell, the alternative is anarchy.
And when your "common sense" gun laws don't have the desired effect.....
Because gun owners know that you don't NEED "combat ready" features for a gun to be deadly... the only truly non "rapid-fire" gun is a muzzleloader. We also know the roots of virtually ALL firearms technology can be traced back to the military. You know, WWI and WWII were mostly fought with bolt-action rifles pretty much just like today's hunting rifles but with worse... well, everything! (except nostalgic cool factor )
Once nothing changes and the anti-gun people realize it, they will undoubtedly be after the rest of the guns too.
And with a few "black" accessories, a muzzle loader would have been banned under the 1994 assault weapons bill. It was based on looks alone.
That BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) has the potential to be far more devastating than an AR-15 mostly due to the larger calibers it fires. They are also excellent hunting rifles.
Oh for cry'n out loud! Anyone who would lug one of those things around in the bush would have to be retarded.
Once, yes...but if you remember the debate between Romney and Obama, where romney said Russia is the greatest threat (paraphrased) and Obama laughed....
Oh, I completely agree. At the time Obama had the luxury of years of Russia in stagnation. Putin's giving his folks renewed pride and stimulating them to think of themselves as a valid threat to the U.S..
He's of a slightly newer generation of Russian KGB trained folks who have no hesitance in utilizing modern tech to do his dirty work. Look what he's already accomplished.
and therein lies the problem, they cant come up with a law that prevent those that shouldnt own firearms from getting them, but will also not infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizens.
but it goes further than that, they also dont want due process either, they just want to stop everyone from getting firearms, period.
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.
) 
