Divide and Conquer ...

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by dog2000tj, Jan 27, 2013.

  1. jharder0002

    jharder0002 New Member

    54
    0
    0
    Lol... Hunting isn't the issue here when concerning the second amendment.
     

  2. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    Obama will not have a problem owning a shotgun after they are banned. All holders of these high political offices and police and military will be exempted from the Swinestien gun ban. How nice.
    Biden says AR rifles are useless in close home defense conditions. The Home Land Security has just ordered 7,000 AR-15 rifles as they are needed in close range defensive combat.
    The ruling class is what needs to be controlled. Long ago in France a Queen said about the starving citizens? "Let them eat Cake", she sorta lost her head over that one.:eek:
     
  3. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,563
    178
    63
    Any good hunting rifle can be uses as a medium range sniper. A lot of our soldiers were lost to snipers in all the wars that were fought and our snipers accounted for a lot of the enemy. If the semi auto rifles are banned, the government will then attempt to restrict hunting to shotguns and then the get rid of the shotguns. If you cave on one, you cave on all.
     
  4. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    If giving up my guns meant that no one would ever die a violent death I would be the first to pile up my guns on the lawn of the white house. I can take game by other means and I would have no need for self defense. But the truth is more people will die. We will just create a black market. I don't have to tell anyone what happens when you have a thriving black market.
     
  5. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    no, hunting is not the issue. But Obama is employing this strategy because he now knows the gun industry, NRA and it's membership are way to powerful for him to take on. He is hoping to fracture off a large percentage of gun manufactures and owners ... shotgun owners ... who would take the opinion that a 7rd limit wouldn't infringe on them. Sadly, I have heard from at least half a dozen shotgun hunters since Gov Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act reiterate the very same thoughts ..."it doesn't affect me" ... :mad:

    Thankfully Senator McLaughlin posted the "rejected proposals" of the NY Safe Act ... it gives us and the fence sitters a crystal clear view of the gun control crowds agenda ... it is not about safety! it is not about reducing crime! it is not about protecting children! and it has nothing to do with the Sandy Hook shooting! :cool:


    it is a Socialist agenda and they have been pushing it for nealry 80yrs! :mad:
     
  6. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,130
    119
    63
    Anti-gun blissninnies like Obama always talk about hunting. They are trying to drive a wedge between hunters, recreational shooters and self defense advocates. They are having some success. On several boards folks have expressed a desire for the universal background check crap and reduced capacity magazines.

    The ultra-liberal, anti-gunners never talk about guns used for self defense because they are also opposed to the use of guns for self defense. You're are supposed to depend on the police for protection. Didn't you see the lettering on the police car? "To serve and protect".

    IMO: Law abiding gun owners should be making a big deal of the self defense issue: They are not doing that. Maybe i'm sensitive about self defense because of my involvement in two home invasion shooting incidents-so be it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
  7. Jpyle

    Jpyle New Member

    4,828
    0
    0
    The Balkanization of "We The People" is a clever trick the ruling class has used time and time again...it is pure Alinskyism. Separate gunowners from non-gunowners and hunters and suddenly the 2nd Amendment can appear to apply only to a fringe group of "gun nuts." The others don't see it as relevant to their lives and will not defend it...what is lost is the fact that the rights protected by the Constitution apply to everyone...even those that choose not to exercise them and once they are gone they are gone for everyone...even if they realize it to late.

    I don't own a newspaper, am not a journalist yet I support the 1st Amendment rights of those who are. Now some will say yes but the 1st Amendment isn't universal..."you cannot yell fire in a movie theater" to which I respond "Bull****"...you can yell fire if the theater is, in fact, on fire. There is no law requiring that one have their vocal cords removed before entering a movie theater to prevent them from yelling...anyone that breaks a law is prosecuted, the others are simply left to live their lives.

    Same goes for the 4th and 5th Amendments, I am not a criminal, have never been a criminal and do not plan on becoming one, yet I believe in the rights of due process and protection against self-incrimination of those that are.

    Personally I believe that the attack on the 2nd Amendment we see today is no different than the denial of rights to minorities and our battle is no different than the civil rights movement of the 60s...and yes, "We Shall Overcome!"
     
  8. Jpyle

    Jpyle New Member

    4,828
    0
    0
    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.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-police-have-no-obligation-to-protect-you-yes-really/
     
  9. SmallCaliberGuy

    SmallCaliberGuy New Member

    37
    0
    0
    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?
     
  10. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    explain that to shotgun hunters ... they seem to be the most waffling bunch of gun owners out there :(
     
  11. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,130
    119
    63
    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".
     
  12. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    73
    48
    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!!!:mad:
    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!!!:(
     
  13. jharder0002

    jharder0002 New Member

    54
    0
    0
    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.
     
  14. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,246
    305
    83
    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.
     
  15. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    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.:(
     
  16. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/27/obama-gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more/

    that would be fucking laughable if the realities weren't so sad :(
     
  17. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    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???
     
  18. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    73
    48
    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!!!:mad:
    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!!!:)
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
  19. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    And that makes it right? Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.