Divide and Conquer ... - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Divide and Conquer ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-27-2013, 10:10 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3739 Times on 1827 Posts
Likes Given: 13270

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallCaliberGuy View Post
How does one eat an elephant.......one bite at a time.

If they get past this step, what's to stop them from "eating away" at the rest of the constitution?
explain that to shotgun hunters ... they seem to be the most waffling bunch of gun owners out there
__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

dog2000tj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:10 PM   #12
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,734
Liked 2356 Times on 1289 Posts
Likes Given: 3731

Default

Quote:
The SCOTUS has already ruled that police are under no obligation to protect any individual...there role is to protect the public peace, no more. This decision was based, in part, on the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.
You and i are well aware of that fact: The general public is not. The anti-gunners still chant their old mantra: "The police will protect you" and tens of millions believe them. When a self defense issue is brought up, the anti-self defense, anti-gunners fall back on: "But it increases the violence".
__________________
alsaqr is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:20 PM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,296
Liked 2157 Times on 1280 Posts
Likes Given: 1077

Default

With the arms goes the power!! History is full of examples of this. They MUST disarm us to control us!!! And you nailed it. The progressives will work to divide us any way they can!!!
Many ask why this nation is so polarized? Really very simple. We have been pushed, in every aspect of our lives, far enough by the progressives. Our backs are against the wall. There is no more room to 'give'!!!
If we allow them anymore 'room' to disarm us we have lost the war, not the battle, the war!!!

__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is online now  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:22 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jharder0002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 54
Liked 6 Times on 6 Posts

Default

Personally I have no objection to a longer more extensive background check with firearm purchases. Thats a minor inconvenience. I just want to be informed as to what their looking for, and if I was denied I'd want that reason too. I'd also want some legal recourse for a denial if there's merit. Someone with no criminal background shouldn't be worried about a background check... Now it's when they go down that no "mental health patients get guns" road I have to say nay. Where would you draw the line... If you had ever taken an anti psychotic or been prescribed them you could be denied... If you had ever seen a therapist you could be denied... If you'd ever had a change in mental status from a pervious injury you could be denied...
That my friends is the slippery slope.
Personally I think introducing gun safety into schools at an early age would help. Also require mental health education into health classes in middle and high schools. Heck there's a million things to do. But taking guns away is not the answer.

__________________
jharder0002 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:28 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,852
Liked 1709 Times on 1017 Posts
Likes Given: 370

Default

Some folks act like the unfettered right to own weapons has always been protected by the constitution until the last four years. That is just not true. We have long accepted that we can not own machine guns without special permission from our government. If we do own machine guns, we give up rights to searches.... We cant own tanks, armed aircraft or vehicles. I don't know anyone who owns a functional howitzer. When my grandfather was a young man, he could have had a Gatling gun if he wished, to go along with his horse drawn cannon. When my father was a young man, you could buy a Thompson at the hardware store; along with a case of dynamite. When I was a kid, you could order a rifle from Sears, with no FFL middleman and no checks.

There is a trend here........There has not been a right to own weapons suitable for a insurrection to change the government for many, many years. I guess a lot of people have not figured that out.

__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:31 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4792 Times on 2680 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

When you always give in even a little and get nothing in return you just made a bad deal. They only want to do a better BG check? What if that becomes an investigation of each buyer? That could be like Europe taking a number of years!
It is difficult to protect sheep from coyotes. When this is over and you have to under go these new BG checks don't blame the NRA.

__________________
nitestalker is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:23 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3739 Times on 1827 Posts
Likes Given: 13270

Default

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/27/obama-gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more/

Quote:
The president also said much of the challenge in Washington is to make Americans feel that national politics is indeed connected to their day-to-day realities.
“And that’s not an unjustifiable view,” he said. "So everything we do combines both a legislative strategy with a broad-based communications and outreach strategy to get people engaged and involved, so that it’s not Washington over here and the rest of America over there.”
that would be fucking laughable if the realities weren't so sad
__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

dog2000tj is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 02:53 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
1911love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,488
Liked 644 Times on 389 Posts
Likes Given: 12

Default

To all who support these "new" BG checks, read your state and federal history. These BG checks already look for mental health issues, problem is not all states report to the federal NICS system properly and some use a state run system. Just make everyone report when someone is adjudicated mentally unfit. There is NO reason to make me go though more bs to exercise my 2A right. Next thing- investigations to buy a gun. You people who support these "new" BG checks are asking for it, is that what you really want...more infringement???

__________________
1911love is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 04:28 PM   #19
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,296
Liked 2157 Times on 1280 Posts
Likes Given: 1077

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jharder0002 View Post
Personally I have no objection to a longer more extensive background check with firearm purchases. Thats a minor inconvenience. I just want to be informed as to what their looking for, and if I was denied I'd want that reason too. I'd also want some legal recourse for a denial if there's merit. Someone with no criminal background shouldn't be worried about a background check... Now it's when they go down that no "mental health patients get guns" road I have to say nay. Where would you draw the line... If you had ever taken an anti psychotic or been prescribed them you could be denied... If you had ever seen a therapist you could be denied... If you'd ever had a change in mental status from a pervious injury you could be denied...
That my friends is the slippery slope.
Personally I think introducing gun safety into schools at an early age would help. Also require mental health education into health classes in middle and high schools. Heck there's a million things to do. But taking guns away is not the answer.
When they start requiring a back ground checks to vote I will go along it that. I have been a dealer for 20+ years and do not know of anyone who has been denied to buy a gun that was valid!! Everyone, to the letter, have been mistakes which caused the accused person much time, money, and stress to it straighten out. And this DV exception is pure BS too. I spent 30+ years in LEO (and am still doing it) and I can tell you 99.99% of DV's should not restrict the RIGHT of the offender to NEVER own a gun. That .01% who are truly dangerous will get what ever they need (gun or other weapon) and go after the other party!!!
I agree with you completely about education about firearms in our schools. Take away the mystique and replace it with respect and you will correct 99% of the problem with youth and guns!!!
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!


Last edited by JimRau; 01-28-2013 at 04:31 PM.
JimRau is online now  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 04:48 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6577 Times on 3639 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire View Post
Some folks act like the unfettered right to own weapons has always been protected by the constitution until the last four years. That is just not true. We have long accepted that we can not own machine guns without special permission from our government. If we do own machine guns, we give up rights to searches.... We cant own tanks, armed aircraft or vehicles. I don't know anyone who owns a functional howitzer. When my grandfather was a young man, he could have had a Gatling gun if he wished, to go along with his horse drawn cannon. When my father was a young man, you could buy a Thompson at the hardware store; along with a case of dynamite. When I was a kid, you could order a rifle from Sears, with no FFL middleman and no checks.

There is a trend here........There has not been a right to own weapons suitable for a insurrection to change the government for many, many years. I guess a lot of people have not figured that out.
And that makes it right? Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Is Obama widening the racial divide. Jo da Plumbr Politics, Religion and Controversy 36 07-26-2009 08:04 PM