What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,092
Reaction score
11,527
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
i


You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.
4. Firepower superiority.
If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.
You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.
Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day
If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?
Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?
So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!
OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.
less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?
Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.
it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people
But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?
there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.
Wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled only that the prohibition of the possession of handguns violates the Second Amendment.

The Court has never addressed the issue as to whether any rifle and carbine – save that of an SBR/shotgun – is within the scope of the Second Amendment, including the AR 15.
Liar heller did so with the statement weapons in common use.
Heller got the in common use from Miller
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,092
Reaction score
11,527
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
i


You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.
4. Firepower superiority.
If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.
You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.
Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day
If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?
Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?
So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!
OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.
less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?
Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.
it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people
But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?
there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.
Wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled only that the prohibition of the possession of handguns violates the Second Amendment.

The Court has never addressed the issue as to whether any rifle and carbine – save that of an SBR/shotgun – is within the scope of the Second Amendment, including the AR 15.
stupid U.S. VS Miller addressed that issue
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,092
Reaction score
11,527
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Talk about being dishonest look in the mirror. The Miller court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not used by the military so it was not a second amendment protected weapon. Then they laid out what type of weapon was protected

The irony is that the Court really didn't do its homework. Sawed off shotguns were used by the military in WWI. By their own definition Miller was innocent.

Too bad he chickened shitted out and didn't show up for court. He could have beat the charges. The NFA could have been overturned.
this is true sad that Jack Miller never showed up to court to set the record straight
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
49,365
Reaction score
11,335
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Talk about being dishonest look in the mirror. The Miller court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not used by the military so it was not a second amendment protected weapon. Then they laid out what type of weapon was protected

The irony is that the Court really didn't do its homework. Sawed off shotguns were used by the military in WWI. By their own definition Miller was innocent.

Too bad he chickened shitted out and didn't show up for court. He could have beat the charges. The NFA could have been overturned.
this is true sad that Jack Miller never showed up to court to set the record straight
he got killed before the case came up is what I have read.
 

TheDefiantOne

Gold Member
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
557
Reaction score
220
Points
153
i


You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.
4. Firepower superiority.
If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.
You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.
Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day
If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?
Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?
So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!
OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.
less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?
Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.
it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people
But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?
there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.
Wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled only that the prohibition of the possession of handguns violates the Second Amendment.

The Court has never addressed the issue as to whether any rifle and carbine – save that of an SBR/shotgun – is within the scope of the Second Amendment, including the AR 15.
Liar heller did so with the statement weapons in common use.
Ahh, but there was this; ... Scalia left some gifts for liberals in his Heller ruling. He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
 

TheDefiantOne

Gold Member
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
557
Reaction score
220
Points
153
If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.
This is a lie.

There are no ‘gun grabbers.’

No one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns – this is nothing but rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.
How about….



An older article that discusses gun confiscation that didn’t happen but still is pertinent as it mentions gun grabbers.


Gun grabbed do indeed exist.
Well, your link shows us 5 folk had "wish lists" and such, but to date the various consensus from the Party and committees voted that type of thinking down. Beto shot his mouth off, but couldn't get support from the Party. just saying.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
949
Reaction score
843
Points
888
yes there is that's the end game plan registration then forced buyback then confiscation
Then a lot of black gun owners dead in the street.
This is a lie.

It fails as a strawman fallacy.

The courts have consistently held that the registration of firearms is perfectly Constitutional.

The notion that registration is the ‘gateway’ to the ‘forced’ buy back of firearms is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery, as is the lie about ‘confiscation.’
Ok, what's the point of registration, if not to confiscate firearms?
 

Batcat

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,475
Reaction score
1,540
Points
1,918
If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.
This is a lie.

There are no ‘gun grabbers.’

No one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns – this is nothing but rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.
How about….



An older article that discusses gun confiscation that didn’t happen but still is pertinent as it mentions gun grabbers.


Gun grabbed do indeed exist.
Well, your link shows us 5 folk had "wish lists" and such, but to date the various consensus from the Party and committees voted that type of thinking down. Beto shot his mouth off, but couldn't get support from the Party. just saying.
That does not change the fact that there are people who want to disarm American citizens and would be willing to implement a mandatory gun buyback program (which is gun confiscation) or raid known gun owner’s homes to confiscate their weapons. To call such people “gun grabbers” is appropriate and accurate as that is what they are.

Of course this is nothing new.


Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. He served as Chair until 1976. Charlie Orasin was a key player in the founding and growth of Handgun Control (HCI). He worked at HCI from 1975 until 1992.[8]

Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989.[9] In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."[10] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[11]

 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
89,652
Reaction score
29,354
Points
2,250
Talk about being dishonest look in the mirror. The Miller court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not used by the military so it was not a second amendment protected weapon. Then they laid out what type of weapon was protected

The irony is that the Court really didn't do its homework. Sawed off shotguns were used by the military in WWI. By their own definition Miller was innocent.

Too bad he chickened shitted out and didn't show up for court. He could have beat the charges. The NFA could have been overturned.


The other side did not appear at the Supreme Court......so no argument was made, the Court simply ruled on the one side of the question.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,092
Reaction score
11,527
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Talk about being dishonest look in the mirror. The Miller court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not used by the military so it was not a second amendment protected weapon. Then they laid out what type of weapon was protected

The irony is that the Court really didn't do its homework. Sawed off shotguns were used by the military in WWI. By their own definition Miller was innocent.

Too bad he chickened shitted out and didn't show up for court. He could have beat the charges. The NFA could have been overturned.
this is true sad that Jack Miller never showed up to court to set the record straight
he got killed before the case came up is what I have read.
see my post notice dr love shows he's clueless on the subject
 

TheDefiantOne

Gold Member
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
557
Reaction score
220
Points
153
If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.
This is a lie.

There are no ‘gun grabbers.’

No one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns – this is nothing but rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.
How about….



An older article that discusses gun confiscation that didn’t happen but still is pertinent as it mentions gun grabbers.


Gun grabbed do indeed exist.
Well, your link shows us 5 folk had "wish lists" and such, but to date the various consensus from the Party and committees voted that type of thinking down. Beto shot his mouth off, but couldn't get support from the Party. just saying.
That does not change the fact that there are people who want to disarm American citizens and would be willing to implement a mandatory gun buyback program (which is gun confiscation) or raid known gun owner’s homes to confiscate their weapons. To call such people “gun grabbers” is appropriate and accurate as that is what they are.

Of course this is nothing new.


Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. He served as Chair until 1976. Charlie Orasin was a key player in the founding and growth of Handgun Control (HCI). He worked at HCI from 1975 until 1992.[8]

Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989.[9] In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."[10] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[11]

Uhh, yeah it DOES CHANGE THE FACT that folk like you consistently claim that "gun grabbing" is the end game for any gun control legislation. As I pointed out, NONE of your examples are nothing more than A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD NOT GAIN CONSENSUS FOR THEIR VIEWS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THE FINAL LEGISLATIONS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SECURE PRE- LAW PURCHASES AND OWNERSHIP. Period. And I already did the dance concerning Mr. Shields, Borinksy and subsequent like examples with another poster on this thread. If you guys can't come up with something original, then please stop wasting time and space.
 

Batcat

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,475
Reaction score
1,540
Points
1,918
If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.
This is a lie.

There are no ‘gun grabbers.’

No one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns – this is nothing but rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.
How about….



An older article that discusses gun confiscation that didn’t happen but still is pertinent as it mentions gun grabbers.


Gun grabbed do indeed exist.
Well, your link shows us 5 folk had "wish lists" and such, but to date the various consensus from the Party and committees voted that type of thinking down. Beto shot his mouth off, but couldn't get support from the Party. just saying.
That does not change the fact that there are people who want to disarm American citizens and would be willing to implement a mandatory gun buyback program (which is gun confiscation) or raid known gun owner’s homes to confiscate their weapons. To call such people “gun grabbers” is appropriate and accurate as that is what they are.

Of course this is nothing new.


Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. He served as Chair until 1976. Charlie Orasin was a key player in the founding and growth of Handgun Control (HCI). He worked at HCI from 1975 until 1992.[8]

Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989.[9] In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."[10] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[11]

Uhh, yeah it DOES CHANGE THE FACT that folk like you consistently claim that "gun grabbing" is the end game for any gun control legislation. As I pointed out, NONE of your examples are nothing more than A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD NOT GAIN CONSENSUS FOR THEIR VIEWS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THE FINAL LEGISLATIONS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SECURE PRE- LAW PURCHASES AND OWNERSHIP. Period. And I already did the dance concerning Mr. Shields, Borinksy and subsequent like examples with another poster on this thread. If you guys can't come up with something original, then please stop wasting time and space.
Of course you will deny that the end run objective of many of your fellow liberals is to implement draconian gun control in our nation and to ban and confiscate most if not all civilian owned firearms. Perhaps you are deceived by their propaganda.

But they can’t accomplish their goal if the average citizen realizes what they are up to. The gun grabbers learned after years of attempts by the anti-gun organization Handgun Control Inc. that banning handguns (the firearm most used in crimes) is impossible as a first goal. Therefore they decided to adopt an incremental approach. First ban a basically unpopular type of firearm — rifles that resembled fully automatic rifles used by the military such as the AR-15.

The gun banners pushed through a Federal Assault Weapons ban to stop the manufacture and sale of such weapons but it had loopholes in the law big enough to drive a semi through. The bottomline was it really didn’t ban anything. Even high capacity magazines were available as long as they were manufactured before a certain date.

Gun owners decided to buy modified versions of the AR-15 which were legal to manufacture under the Assault Weapons Ban and they discovered it was a very accurate rifle that was easy to modify without taking it to a gunsmith. It could be used for hunting and also for home defense. It’s lack of recoil made it more poplar with women than a shotgun for self defense. Soon the AR-15 became the most popular rifle in the nation and millions and millions ended up in civilian hands.

The first Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to “sunset” after ten years. Everybody agreed it had accomplished nothing.

Now we are once again witnessing the gun grabbers trying to ban and confiscate firearms. It almost seems the plan this time to ban the police (defund or handicap police departments) causing gun crime to skyrocket and therefore leading to a demand to disarm civilians.

Well the big democrat cities have shafted their police departments and cops are quitting in mass or becoming reactive rather than proactive. Crime including gun crime is SKYROCKETING. Unfortunately for the gun grabbers liberals are becoming first time gun owners because they realize dialing 911 means the cops will show up just in time to put out crime scene tape.

Today we witnessed our President addressing the rising crime rate. Being a gun grabber, he of course blamed firearms and once again called for another Federal Assaualt Weapons Ban. He wanted to see weapons like the AR-15 banned again and mentioned that deer don’t wear Kevlar so you don’t need a weapon that can use a 100 round magazine to hunt deer. In many states where it is legal to hunt deer with a semi-automatic rifle the hunter is limited to a five round magazine. Joe Biden may not realize that but to be fair he is in the early stages of dementia and may not know what end of the rifle the bullet comes out of.

He did mention patriots using weapons such as an AR-15 to overthrow a tyrannical government but said they would need F15 fighters or nuclear weapons to win the fight. I get the feeling he would nuke American cities that are under the control of patriots but he has the balls to criticize Assad for using chemical weapons on his people in Syria.

I really don’t expect the gun grabbers to get far with gun bans this time. However assume they do blow up the filibuster and force legislation through requiring all gun owners to turn their “assault weapons” into a mandatory federal buy back program (which is gun confiscation). I doubt if gun owners will just line up and turn their weapons in like a bunch of British wimps.

But even though I don’t expect the gun grabbers will have much success I still will oppose any and all efforts to ban or federally register firearms.

Gun grabbers are like the camel who pokes its nose under the tent. If you let the camel get away with this then before you know it the entire camel will be in the tent.

1624517880894.gif
 

TheDefiantOne

Gold Member
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
557
Reaction score
220
Points
153
If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.
This is a lie.

There are no ‘gun grabbers.’

No one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns – this is nothing but rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.
How about….



An older article that discusses gun confiscation that didn’t happen but still is pertinent as it mentions gun grabbers.


Gun grabbed do indeed exist.
Well, your link shows us 5 folk had "wish lists" and such, but to date the various consensus from the Party and committees voted that type of thinking down. Beto shot his mouth off, but couldn't get support from the Party. just saying.
That does not change the fact that there are people who want to disarm American citizens and would be willing to implement a mandatory gun buyback program (which is gun confiscation) or raid known gun owner’s homes to confiscate their weapons. To call such people “gun grabbers” is appropriate and accurate as that is what they are.

Of course this is nothing new.


Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. He served as Chair until 1976. Charlie Orasin was a key player in the founding and growth of Handgun Control (HCI). He worked at HCI from 1975 until 1992.[8]

Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989.[9] In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."[10] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[11]

Uhh, yeah it DOES CHANGE THE FACT that folk like you consistently claim that "gun grabbing" is the end game for any gun control legislation. As I pointed out, NONE of your examples are nothing more than A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD NOT GAIN CONSENSUS FOR THEIR VIEWS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THE FINAL LEGISLATIONS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SECURE PRE- LAW PURCHASES AND OWNERSHIP. Period. And I already did the dance concerning Mr. Shields, Borinksy and subsequent like examples with another poster on this thread. If you guys can't come up with something original, then please stop wasting time and space.
Of course you will deny that the end run objective of many of your fellow liberals is to implement draconian gun control in our nation and to ban and confiscate most if not all civilian owned firearms. Perhaps you are deceived by their propaganda.

But they can’t accomplish their goal if the average citizen realizes what they are up to. The gun grabbers learned after years of attempts by the anti-gun organization Handgun Control Inc. that banning handguns (the firearm most used in crimes) is impossible as a first goal. Therefore they decided to adopt an incremental approach. First ban a basically unpopular type of firearm — rifles that resembled fully automatic rifles used by the military such as the AR-15.

The gun banners pushed through a Federal Assault Weapons ban to stop the manufacture and sale of such weapons but it had loopholes in the law big enough to drive a semi through. The bottomline was it really didn’t ban anything. Even high capacity magazines were available as long as they were manufactured before a certain date.

Gun owners decided to buy modified versions of the AR-15 which were legal to manufacture under the Assault Weapons Ban and they discovered it was a very accurate rifle that was easy to modify without taking it to a gunsmith. It could be used for hunting and also for home defense. It’s lack of recoil made it more poplar with women than a shotgun for self defense. Soon the AR-15 became the most popular rifle in the nation and millions and millions ended up in civilian hands.

The first Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to “sunset” after ten years. Everybody agreed it had accomplished nothing.

Now we are once again witnessing the gun grabbers trying to ban and confiscate firearms. It almost seems the plan this time to ban the police (defund or handicap police departments) causing gun crime to skyrocket and therefore leading to a demand to disarm civilians.

Well the big democrat cities have shafted their police departments and cops are quitting in mass or becoming reactive rather than proactive. Crime including gun crime is SKYROCKETING. Unfortunately for the gun grabbers liberals are becoming first time gun owners because they realize dialing 911 means the cops will show up just in time to put out crime scene tape.

Today we witnessed our President addressing the rising crime rate. Being a gun grabber, he of course blamed firearms and once again called for another Federal Assaualt Weapons Ban. He wanted to see weapons like the AR-15 banned again and mentioned that deer don’t wear Kevlar so you don’t need a weapon that can use a 100 round magazine to hunt deer. In many states where it is legal to hunt deer with a semi-automatic rifle the hunter is limited to a five round magazine. Joe Biden may not realize that but to be fair he is in the early stages of dementia and may not know what end of the rifle the bullet comes out of.

He did mention patriots using weapons such as an AR-15 to overthrow a tyrannical government but said they would need F15 fighters or nuclear weapons to win the fight. I get the feeling he would nuke American cities that are under the control of patriots but he has the balls to criticize Assad for using chemical weapons on his people in Syria.

I really don’t expect the gun grabbers to get far with gun bans this time. However assume they do blow up the filibuster and force legislation through requiring all gun owners to turn their “assault weapons” into a mandatory federal buy back program (which is gun confiscation). I doubt if gun owners will just line up and turn their weapons in like a bunch of British wimps.

But even though I don’t expect the gun grabbers will have much success I still will oppose any and all efforts to ban or federally register firearms.

Gun grabbers are like the camel who pokes its nose under the tent. If you let the camel get away with this then before you know it the entire camel will be in the tent.

View attachment 504903
My, but you are quite the gasbag of supposition, conjecture and plain old revisionism when you can't factually disprove what some says.

the corner stone of your screed is your 1st paragraph.....that is a LIE. For the objective reader, here it is again, ".... As I pointed out, NONE of your examples are nothing more than A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD NOT GAIN CONSENSUS FOR THEIR VIEWS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THE FINAL LEGISLATIONS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SECURE PRE- LAW PURCHASES AND OWNERSHIP. Period.

That's it. A matter of fact, a matter of history. You can't logically or factually prove otherwise, and just waste time and space with a lot of childish blather. Pathetic. Carry on.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top