Obama's speech

This is a discussion on Obama's speech within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy Don't try and lump an father's accidental shooting of his son in with an evil person who wanted to kill people. ...

Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 298
Like Tree348Likes

Thread: Obama's speech

  1. #121
    Ex Member Array Ogien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    Don't try and lump an father's accidental shooting of his son in with an evil person who wanted to kill people.

    Don't try and lump the law abiding gun owners who have never killed another human being in with an evil person who wanted to kill people.

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    The 2nd Amendment does not mention guns, it mentions Arms. Not guns, not some guns, not some magazines, not swords...ARMS...any type of Arms.

    Why should I give up all or part of my rights when I have done nothing wrong?

    Why do you want to strip me of my unalienable rights?

    Rights don't come from government or any man they come from a higher power.

    You are free to use your rights how you like and I am free to use all my rights how I like. If you don't want 30 round mags, Regulate yourself. Don't tell me that I can't do something or buy something because you don't want them or because some evil person stole something.

    If you use that logic, we should ban all cars because evil people steal cars and get into accidents and kill people. Oh, by the way, evil people also steal guns and kill people with those stolen guns.

    Relinquishing Rights is not the solution.

    The problem isn't that I have too many Rights.

    The problem is evil people doing evil things.

    Focus on stopping evil people.
    To answer your question all you need to do is read the post above but here it is again.

    The Supreme Court has made clear time and time again that your rights are to be protected in so far as they do not infringe on the rights of others so your statement is false as the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to make that decision.

    Also, the same forefathers gave the Supreme Court that ability. Just sayin...

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #122
    Member Array Denverjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Aurora,CO
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogien View Post
    I am very much in agreement with you but I would like to point out AGAIN that if we (the gun owning community) are the ones to come up with the proposed solution we are going to seem like responsible citizens who have a heart and recognize that there is a fundamental problem. Sticking our fingers in our ears and loudly proclaiming "I Can't Hear You" is just going to marginalize us even more until such a time when nobody even cares what gun owners have to say. We have to stop coming across as "Gun Nuts" and putting our desires ahead of the rites of unarmed men, women and children.

    I am NOT Anti Gun or Anti-2A but if I am honest with myself I can clearly see that there is a problem in this nation. Our fellow Citizens are getting mowed down in places that should be safe, over and over and over again. To say that we care more about an extended magazine or specific weapon above our fellow countrymen is the antithesis of patriotic. We are a great nation because of our people.

    Lets take a leadership role and as a community discuss what we CAN do instead of what we REFUSE to do.

    Our 2A rights are to be protected in so far that they do not infringe on the rights of other citizens. I'm not blaming anything on an inanimate item such as a gun and I recognize that the problem extends far into the realms of medicine and mental health but the fact remains that a part of this problem does land squarely in our laps and if we feel like Americans that we'd be discussing what we can do to help prevent future such massacres from our end instead of circling the wagons. Lets protect the 2A as well as the rights of every other man, woman and child in this country.
    Ok, so as a responsible citizen, I propose we repeal any and all laws on the books that prevent/limit law abiding citizens, like me, from carrying a concealed weapon. And I propose that the only restriction that should be placed on law abiding citizens that carry concealed weapons, is that we don't carry in state and federal buildings where they already have armed security personnel on duty. Everywhere else, I should be able to carry legally.

    Next, once we have MORE law abiding citizens legally carrying concealed weapons, and the instances of mass shootings and other crime goes down significantly, which it will, we should start concentrating on keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, people on personal jihads against America, and other INDIVIDUALS that are looking to illegally get their hands on a firearm to commit a crime or crimes.

    So, there you go, that's what we, as responsible, law abiding citizens should be demanding.

    Also, WE as a whole, don't come across as "Gun Nuts", WE are falsely and criminally misrepresented and labeled in the wacko-leftist media as "Gun Nuts", their term, not ours. Because they are trying to twist the facts to fit their wacko anti-gun narrative. And I refuse to be labeled as such.

    The problem we have, as a nation, is with the mentality that is spreading around this nation like a virus. Its engrained in our school curriculum from kindergarten all the way through college. It's mentality that life is meaningless, that life has no value. That no one person shouldn't judge anyone else as to what is right and wrong, or even speak up when they see someone doing something that's clearly wrong. That there is no God and if you believe in some higher power, you're a kook and should be ashamed you even have such ridiculous fanciful thoughts. The mentality that there is no accountability, that someone or something else is always to blame for everything. Let's start working on correcting these problems and you will be amazed at how many other problems fix themselves.

    And I'll leave you with this one last gem, more innocent lives are lost each and every year as a result of abortions than every single mass shooting that occurs each year, by about a hundred times. So, as a nation, how about we step back and get a little perspective before we seriously consider giving away all our rights, mmmmkay?
    aworldexport likes this.

  4. #123
    Ex Member Array Ogien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Denverjay View Post
    Ok, so as a responsible citizen, I propose we repeal any and all laws on the books that prevent/limit law abiding citizens, like me, from carrying a concealed weapon. And I propose that the only restriction that should be placed on law abiding citizens that carry concealed weapons, is that we don't carry in state and federal buildings where they already have armed security personnel on duty. Everywhere else, I should be able to carry legally.

    Next, once we have MORE law abiding citizens legally carrying concealed weapons, and the instances of mass shootings and other crime goes down significantly, which it will, we should start concentrating on keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, people on personal jihads against America, and other INDIVIDUALS that are looking to illegally get their hands on a firearm to commit a crime or crimes.

    So, there you go, that's what we, as responsible, law abiding citizens should be demanding.

    Also, WE as a whole, don't come across as "Gun Nuts", WE are falsely and criminally misrepresented and labeled in the wacko-leftist media as "Gun Nuts", their term, not ours. Because they are trying to twist the facts to fit their wacko anti-gun narrative. And I refuse to be labeled as such.

    The problem we have, as a nation, is with the mentality that is spreading around this nation like a virus. Its engrained in our school curriculum from kindergarten all the way through college. It's mentality that life is meaningless, that life has no value. That no one person shouldn't judge anyone else as to what is right and wrong, or even speak up when they see someone doing something that's clearly wrong. That there is no God and if you believe in some higher power, you're a kook and should be ashamed you even have such ridiculous fanciful thoughts. The mentality that there is no accountability, that someone or something else is always to blame for everything. Let's start working on correcting these problems and you will be amazed at how many other problems fix themselves.

    And I'll leave you with this one last gem, more innocent lives are lost each and every year as a result of abortions than every single mass shooting that occurs each year, by about a hundred times. So, as a nation, how about we step back and get a little perspective before we seriously consider giving away all our rights, mmmmkay?
    Well, at least we've started discussing solutions so I salute you for that.

  5. #124
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogien View Post
    I am very much in agreement with you but I would like to point out AGAIN that if we (the gun owning community) are the ones to come up with the proposed solution we are going to seem like responsible citizens who have a heart and recognize that there is a fundamental problem. Sticking our fingers in our ears and loudly proclaiming "I Can't Hear You" is just going to marginalize us even more until such a time when nobody even cares what gun owners have to say. We have to stop coming across as "Gun Nuts" and putting our desires ahead of the rites of unarmed men, women and children.

    I am NOT Anti Gun or Anti-2A but if I am honest with myself I can clearly see that there is a problem in this nation. Our fellow Citizens are getting mowed down in places that should be safe, over and over and over again. To say that we care more about an extended magazine or specific weapon above our fellow countrymen is the antithesis of patriotic. We are a great nation because of our people.

    Lets take a leadership role and as a community discuss what we CAN do instead of what we REFUSE to do.

    Our 2A rights are to be protected in so far that they do not infringe on the rights of other citizens. I'm not blaming anything on an inanimate item such as a gun and I recognize that the problem extends far into the realms of medicine and mental health but the fact remains that a part of this problem does land squarely in our laps and if we feel like Americans that we'd be discussing what we can do to help prevent future such massacres from our end instead of circling the wagons. Lets protect the 2A as well as the rights of every other man, woman and child in this country.
    We are responsible, that i why we own guns and refer to ourselves as "Law Abiding Gun Owners".

    We are not "gun nuts". That is a derogatory term used by the left to vilify "Law Abiding Gun Owners" and to brainwash the ill-informed into believing that owning guns makes people turn into "nuts" or wackos or crazy people.

    Sorry to tell you the truth but you ARE "Anti-2A" because you want to infringe upon something that "Shall not be infringed." Remember the 2nd Amendment mentions ARMS and extended magazines and specific weapons (any weapon) are ARMS.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  6. #125
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by contented View Post
    What might be sensibly done? IMHO, banning production of large magazines going forward doesn't harm our sport in the slightest, perhaps limits on the number of guns one can buy in a month, perhaps penalties for those don't properly secure their weapons (if this kid's mother would have had her guns locked up or secured this tragedy may not have happened). I could go on. Now, those of you who believe if you give an inch it is the beginning of the end, won't like any of these ideas. And yes there are a ton of details and what ifs. So don't beat me up on the details. They would need to be worked out.

    But think about the opportunities that a full and open discussion brings. Perhaps some of what I mentioned could be negotiated in exchange for a uniform 50 state concealed carry law.

    To everyone fixed in their positions, don't underestimate the changing dynamics here. I think major change is on the horizon. Managing it and steering it in our direction is the key to success. The opportunities are many if we step up as a group. The NRA is the only one positioned to do so. Don't forget to contact them.
    In the first place, we have to defend 2A - not compromise on a "sport". CA limits one gun per month. That doesn't stop massacres or shootings here. And the penalty for not securing may be capital - but does not remedy the Newtown shooting because the gun owner was the shooter's first fatal casualty.
    Principle notwithstanding, the trouble with infringing and compromising on details is that it is ineffective in a changing world. I don't want an ineffective government of savior politicians scrambling for more control after each tragedy in the news or potential threat to our planet. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?
    I believe that the founders had some sense of this when they put a limit on government. When you start using government to fix social problems you invoke George Washington's quote, "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master". The last three days, long days as their events may distort them to be, are but blinks of an eye in comparison to the history and great heritage of this country.
    If it's for the children, then there should be no disgraceful compromise by those of us who understand so well political realities. We should stand firm on practical, effective measures, only - without infringing on our freedoms in the future when admittedly infringing does little if any good to prevent such tragedies but certainly taints our heritage. Are we to be the generation of another knee jerk like NFA of 1934 or GCA of 1968? Not if we honor the memory of the victims and the freedom of future generations.
    Quote Originally Posted by mnmbrewing View Post
    I am on the fence here. Banning a mag just because it holds X rounds? What's next? The fact that it is a semi auto? My hollow points? How long does a mag change really take for someone with a few minutes of practice? Mag capacity will not solve the issue. The last two shootings were by people who had stolen the guns. As was said in this thread. This guy killed his sleeping mother and stole her guns. There have been no reports that I have seen that explain how she stored her guns. For all we know her son may have been to the range with her on a regular basis and had complete access to them. Federal law says you cannot buy handguns if you are under 21. However that does not prevent you from owning one. During my last trip to my LGS there was a gentleman there purchasing a SR1911. He stated it was for his grandson's 16th birthday present. He buys all his grandkids a handgun for that birthday. I thought handgun ownership started at 18 but maybe I am wrong. Either way I can only hope those kids are trained in the use and all safety procedures associated with gun ownership or the parents keep them in a safe. The answer is not eliminating guns altogether but keeping them out of the hands of those that will do harm with them. Once I figure out how to do that I am going to solve world hunger...
    From the ATF "Frequently asked questions"

    Q: May a parent or guardian purchase firearms or ammunition as a gift for a juvenile (less than 18 years of age)?

    Yes. However, possession of handguns by juveniles (less than 18 years of age) is generally unlawful. Juveniles generally may only receive and possess handguns with the written permission of a parent or guardian for limited purposes, e.g., employment, ranching, farming, target practice or hunting.


    Quote Originally Posted by boatman View Post
    Nothing address these issues. If a crazy person wants to kill a bunch of people, they will find the way, whether with a gun, knife, or sharpened stick. No legislation addresses this.

    What I am saying is that if you think you are going to lose your rights, and my personal opinion is that things will definitely change, broker a deal that gives you something. You have to address something. Many people without guns fear that the people who have them are not trained, responsible, etc. I think there are 50M households with a gun. How amany truly know what they are doing, actively pursue what to do, and on. How many do you see at your local gun range who don't even follow a few of the absolute safety rules. I know at my range, lots don't know or follow them. The recent accidental killing of that 9 yr old boy by his father, when his father's gun 'just went off'. Dad didn't know there was round in the chamber. Didn't have it pointed in a safe directions. And I am assuming somehow the trigger got pulled, as guns don't 'just go off'.

    So the public has a perception of irresponsibility of gun owners, and irresponsible and guns usually leads to a death. Convince the public that gun owners are responsible. In fact, show them we are. My off the cuff solution was to license it, I am not saying it is the right solution, or only solution. But just saying 'guns don't kill people, ' is a tired old slogan and it isn't working to convince the public.

    If you are going to be given lemons, you can complain about it, or make lemonade. My belief is that lemons are coming.
    Guns are dangerous. But responsible gun owners acquired their guns legally and are, I daresay without a handy reference source, more law abiding than those who acquire their guns illegally. Again, I refuse to sacrifice for the main effect of appeasement. I owe my life to no one. My liberty is paid in full by the blood of patriots. But I defend both with appropriate energy and my best consideration. And the price of freedom is eternal vigilance against its enemies.
    Ayn Rand:
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube...
    When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it's picked up by scoundrels -- and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.
    - from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged

    When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
    - from the essay, "The Anatomy of Compromise" in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal
    DefConGun likes this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  7. #126
    Member Array 91wm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Why? Would your world really and truly come to an end if you couldn't have a 30 round magazine but could have
    15?

    Would your world come to an end if the gun stores didn't sell rifles decked out to look like battle rifles but
    which functioned the same way--- so at least a few of the crazies wouldn't have something visually feeding their
    psychosis?

    Our forum title is defensive carry. Over the weekend I shot 100 rounds through a 229 and another 100 through
    an LCP. The 229 had a 13 round mag. I wasn't the least bit unhappy that it didn't take 30. And as far as day to day carry
    as a non-LEO, I wouldn't feel my manhood threatened by carrying an LCP. I am fairly sure that when I first
    got my CHL the AWB was in place and the mag limit on the G17 and G 19 was 10. (Could be wrong, but that
    is my recall of it now.) Anyone then carrying a G19 for SD wasn't under gunned by any means.

    So now let's turn to the rifle used as it seems that is what Lanza used for all but his suicide.
    Honestly, what on earth do you need a 30 rounder for?

    We read lots of posts here from people complaining about others who are described as the "me" generation;
    people who think only of their own wants and needs. How about the need of all of us to never ever have to face
    someone with that sort of fire power? Enough of the me me me me me mes.

    There is going to have to be some compromise and if we *folks at the NRA or GAO or JFPO* don't propose
    it, whatever comes will be far worse on all of us.

    Those Congress critters in The House, on the Republican side, all know in their hearts that what
    happened to Giffords could just as easily have happened to them. That they are vulnerable, each and every
    member, at each and every town hall meeting. And while I don't agree with many of their positions on all manner
    of things, I want them safe. I want everyone safe.

    Yes, gun control doesn't work very well, but we have gone over the top in a few areas.

    I know a 2nd grade teacher. She is spending today learning emergency drills. [sarcasm] How wonderful
    for our kids [/sarcasm] I can't use the language I would like to at this point.
    You sir are not a 2nd amendment supporter in my book. Honestly the firearms community would be better off without you and your fellow "let's compromise by giving up 30 round mags" crowd. There is no compromising when it comes to giving up 2nd amendment rights. I keep hearing people say"the second amendment doesn't gauramtee assault weapons and 30 round mags. You're absolutely wrong. It hair antes our right to keep and bear arms period. You are willing to give up rights just to appease the liberals that absolutely will not make one bit of difference in mass shooting situations like Sandy Hook. If you really think they will be happy with our ar15's and 30 round mags without further restrictions you are sadly mistaken. People like Feinstein want our guns and won't be happy until they get ALL of them period. Sorry if this sounds like a personal attack but its time to choose sides and you need to figure out wear you stand.
    Billb1960 likes this.

  8. #127
    Member Array Wolf357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    292
    I will never compromise my convictions for any reason, especially to placate those who have presented me with an ultimatum regarding my right to bear arms. Just exactly what do these enemies of individual liberty find so difficult to comprehend about shall not be infringed?

    The reason governments no longer negotiate with terrorists who kidnap innocent people is if these terrorists are allowed to claim success, this will just encourage future terrorist abductions.

    BTW, these rabid gun-grabbing politicians are hideous inside and out. And they definitely have ulterior motives for attempting to abolish our right to bear modern firearms.
    And Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

    I am a peaceful man. But I am not a pacifist.

  9. #128
    Ex Member Array Ogien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    We are responsible, that i why we own guns and refer to ourselves as "Law Abiding Gun Owners".

    We are not "gun nuts". That is a derogatory term used by the left to vilify "Law Abiding Gun Owners" and to brainwash the ill-informed into believing that owning guns makes people turn into "nuts" or wackos or crazy people.

    Sorry to tell you the truth but you ARE "Anti-2A" because you want to infringe upon something that "Shall not be infringed." Remember the 2nd Amendment mentions ARMS and extended magazines and specific weapons (any weapon) are ARMS.
    I am certainly not Anti-2A I simply see that just as in government, all rights have to have checks and balances. Our rights can not infringe on the rights of others and at the moment they are. Many of us are sick and tired of burying our dead friends, family, neighbors and things are only getting worse.

    I believe you when you say you are a responsible and law abiding gun owner, so am I. The problem is that not all of us are and that many should not be allowed to own a gun due to mental instability or a criminal record. I hate to tell you this but if all we ever offer are talking points about the Second Amendment and "you can pry this gun from my cold dead hand" does make us look like gun nuts. I know it's derogatory and I don't like that label one bit, it hurts me. Thing is that we have terrible leadership and we are the ones making ourselves look like the proverbial "gun nuts."

    If someone refuses to even discuss the possibility that there is problem, doesn't matter even in what aspect of life, then that person starts to be perceived as a "nut." It's all the grandstanding and pig-headedness that is causing that label to stick and I'm personally sick of it.

    We have a problem, we need to face up to that fact and we need to be part of the solution. In order to be a part of the solution we (this community) needs to be able to discuss the issues like adults without all the grandstanding that accomplishes nothing.
    Eldon Hickey likes this.

  10. #129
    Ex Member Array Ogien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    We are responsible, that i why we own guns and refer to ourselves as "Law Abiding Gun Owners".

    We are not "gun nuts". That is a derogatory term used by the left to vilify "Law Abiding Gun Owners" and to brainwash the ill-informed into believing that owning guns makes people turn into "nuts" or wackos or crazy people.

    Sorry to tell you the truth but you ARE "Anti-2A" because you want to infringe upon something that "Shall not be infringed." Remember the 2nd Amendment mentions ARMS and extended magazines and specific weapons (any weapon) are ARMS.
    I am certainly not Anti-2A I simply see that just as in government, all rights have to have checks and balances. Our rights can not infringe on the rights of others and at the moment they are. Many of us are sick and tired of burying our dead friends, family, neighbors and things are only getting worse.

    I believe you when you say you are a responsible and law abiding gun owner, so am I. The problem is that not all of us are and that many should not be allowed to own a gun due to mental instability or a criminal record. I hate to tell you this but if all we ever offer are talking points about the Second Amendment and "you can pry this gun from my cold dead hand" does make us look like gun nuts. I know it's derogatory and I don't like that label one bit, it hurts me. Thing is that we have terrible leadership and we are the ones making ourselves look like the proverbial "gun nuts."

    If someone refuses to even discuss the possibility that there is problem, doesn't matter even in what aspect of life, then that person starts to be perceived as a "nut." It's all the grandstanding and pig-headedness that is causing that label to stick and I'm personally sick of it.

    We have a problem, we need to face up to that fact and we need to be part of the solution. In order to be a part of the solution we (this community) needs to be able to discuss the issues like adults without all the grandstanding that accomplishes nothing.
    Eldon Hickey likes this.

  11. #130
    Member Array nizachon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    51

  12. #131
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,520
    Herein, the contents of my letter to the local paper today...

    Both sides wade in the blood of the Sandy Hook shooting. One side claims we must ban all the evil weapons in the world. The other suggests arming school teachers and administrators. Few on either side mention the elephant in the room, mental health care.

    In China, people have few firearms (because of poverty, not restrictions). Attacks similar to Sandy Hook occur with frequency, using knives. On December 14th, one madman in China stabbed 23 children before being stopped by law enforcement there. Fewer died, but all had “their innocence torn away” as well.

    Nearly all mass murders in this country have happened in “gun free zones.” No matter the size of the signs, or the laws in place, they still occur. They are perpetrated by madmen and women. With weapons illegally obtained and used.

    We “handle” our mentally ill by ignoring them or incarcerating them. We do not treat them, nor hold them so that they cannot harm society.

    Our Constitution provides for “…the security of a free State…” in its Second Amendment, by guaranteeing the right of the law abiding to bear arms.

    Until we can assure every law abiding citizen complete protection from the criminal and the criminally insane, we must not infringe upon their right to keep and bear whatever arms necessary to do so themselves.

    Sandy hook’s innocents would be no less dead had the madman used 3-9 shots instead of 3-11 per victim, as per the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
    I cannot abide a compromise that has the potential to leave me (or anyone else) less armed than my (their) attacker(s).

    If we allow a ban similar to the 1994 AWB, restricting magazine incapacitates, certain "black guns," etc., that leaves me and my fellow law abiding citizens at risk. That does not secure a free State, it makes it nearly impossible to achieve.

    It has already been suggested that it (the proposed, new, AWB) would not include existing items in the category... Making those items prime candidates for the criminal to seek and to obtain. That puts anyone who does not have them now in deeper peril, and those who do have them at greater risk of having them stolen.

    "Security of a free State" seems not to be mentioned in the SCOTUS opinions regarding the 2nd. That phrase too, can have a double meaning... Security of a free State (the country's) assured by the militia AND the Security of a free State (as it applies to the individual).

    There is no room here to lose ground. We become victims of the law... and are destined to become victims of the lawless if we give concession.
    3wggl and Wolf357 like this.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  13. #132
    Member Array rmxer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania's Backwoods
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, a matter of seconds--- a jogger doing 6 minute miles covers 8.8 feet in a second. In a matter of seconds a defender
    in an adrenalin rush could have covered enough ground to plow him over. Grapple with him for 3 more seconds and another
    adult could have jumped in.
    Exactly, while I am trying to reload my neutered magazine, I get rushed/shot/stabbed/ect. by the people im defending against.
    Nobody wants less ammo in a fight.



    Why does average joe need less than military and police?
    They have backup, fire support, REAL assault weapons and REAL machine guns, armor, dogs, and backup....lots of backup, did I mention backup?

    Average Joe is alone and cornered.
    3wggl, DefConGun and aceakarick like this.
    I thoroughly disapprove of duels.
    If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand
    and lead him to a quiet place and kill him.
    -Mark Twain

  14. #133
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogien View Post
    To answer your question all you need to do is read the post above but here it is again.

    The Supreme Court has made clear time and time again that your rights are to be protected in so far as they do not infringe on the rights of others so your statement is false as the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to make that decision.

    Also, the same forefathers gave the Supreme Court that ability. Just sayin...
    My Right and any law abiding citizen's Right to keep and bear Arms does not infringe on anyone else's Rights in any way shape or form. If it did, then the 2nd amendment and the entire Constitution would be paradoxical.

    The evil person who kills someone is the ONE who is infringing on someone else's Rights. Me and my Arms have nothing to do with that infringement.
    3wggl and Wolf357 like this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  15. #134
    Ex Member Array Ogien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by rmxer85 View Post
    Exactly, while I am trying to reload my neutered magazine, I get rushed/shot/stabbed/ect. by the people im defending against.
    Nobody wants less ammo in a fight.
    When was the last time this was a real life issue for you?
    Eldon Hickey likes this.

  16. #135
    Member Array Simonsay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    185
    Again. Bill B. on MTP brought up the possibility of having a firearm for "defense" in schools and I thought some heads were going to explode. Solutions have been offered. I'll prowl the halls as a volunteer, a couple times a month, maybe more. We can put signs on the school saying I'm there and I'm armed, but I won't do it defensless. Let a teacher have a gun, maybe even the principal. Stopping it at the source... make sense? Not if you don't have any.

    How far do you think the left will bend my way? Like the lady said Sunday, (paraphrasing) a firearm at a school would ulitmately cause more damage than it could prevent, most likely. In other words, I don't know sh()t but that solution is not like mine, and that makes you a *******, so it's not really a real solution. That's how they play the game. It doesn't change. Numbers and facts don't matter.

Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

feinstein 900 exempt guns
,

feinstein 900 exempted weapons list

,

finstines 120 guns list

,
finstines 156 ban guns
,

list of 900 exempted weapons

,
obama lied about 900 dead from guns in last month
,

obama speech

,
obama speech against concealed carry proof
,
obama's speech on gun control jan. 16th 2012
,
obama's speech page 9
,

obamas speech over ccw

,
president obamas speech on gun control januuary 16th, 2013
Click on a term to search for related topics.