Gun Control Group Gives Obama an ‘F’

This is a discussion on Gun Control Group Gives Obama an ‘F’ within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This will be the first and only time I would agree with the Brady Bunch but certainly not for the same reasons. The messiah gets ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61

Thread: Gun Control Group Gives Obama an ‘F’

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array walvord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    St. Charles County Missouri
    Posts
    991
    This will be the first and only time I would agree with the Brady Bunch but certainly not for the same reasons. The messiah gets an F- here.
    The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
    - Winston Churchill
    Endowment Life Member - NRA
    Life Member - GOA
    Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
    U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Mic
    Mic is offline
    Senior Member Array Mic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    On loan from Arizona
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by JonInNY View Post
    Why not, everyone else has
    Timid people sleep peacefully at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.


    Molôn Labé!

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,007
    Give it a rest. Not every liberal wants to take your guns. The 2nd amendment is to important to be owned by a single political view.
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

  5. #34
    Member Array PSLOwner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
    Give it a rest. Not every liberal wants to take your guns. The 2nd amendment is to important to be owned by a single political view.
    Thank you.............

    Rather than making outrageous slanders on both sides of the political views, we should spend more time working to support the second amendment rather than just repeating nonsense we hear on AM radio.

    Both conservatives and liberals could take away our guns if we let them.

  6. #35
    Distinguished Member Array Guardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wichita Falls, Texas
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by PSLOwner View Post
    Thank you.............

    Rather than making outrageous slanders on both sides of the political views, we should spend more time working to support the second amendment rather than just repeating nonsense we hear on AM radio.

    Both conservatives and liberals could take away our guns if we let them.
    Amen to that. If it served their agenda to do so, the Right would go after them the same. People forget that word "Politician"
    "I dislike death, however, there are some things I dislike more than death. Therefore, there are times when I will not avoid danger" Mencius"

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array bsnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by searcher 45 View Post
    It seem you just can't please a liberal!!!!!!!!!!

    That is a for real fact! It has been proven over and over.

  8. #37
    Member Array LMmarine86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    37
    Alright, so after reading this post i decided to research the Brady Campaign. I honestly cant see anything wrong with what they want. Hear me out before you jump down my throat though.

    I understand we all have a responsibility to protect our 2A right. I love my guns just as much as the next guy/gal. But don't we also, as gun owners, have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our fellow man?

    From what I am gathering from this Brady Campaign, they are wanting stricter laws. Limit on gun purchases, tougher background checks, and better dealings at gun shows.

    To me, it seems as though the only people that should hate this Brady Campaign are the gun owners first and foremost and also the gun trafficker (the latter is the reason this campaign even exists). Gun owners get the short end of the stick no doubt.

    I don't have any reason to hate this campaign. I could pass any background check that this campaign could come up with. Do i want it to be harder for others that shouldn't have guns to get guns? Abso-freakin-lutely. I understand in those very rare cases that a person is legitimately purchasing 50 guns within a month with no harm intended.... If i were rich, i would probably own every gun out there. But considering im not, and i have really no interest (or money) to purchase that many guns in a month, why should i be bothered by this??

    I do understand that things evolve... First they make things tougher.... Then they want to make it tougher and tougher and tougher. Then the next thing we know we are completely stripped of our guns. I get that. I also know that this campaigns agenda could not and would not possibly eliminate illegal people from getting guns (Just two months ago our neighbors were robbed and 8 guns were stolen). I do, however, believe it would drastically drop the gun related deaths and shootings. Like I stated earlier, that is something we as gun owners have a responsibility to do. There seems to be no reason why we can't protect our 2A right, while also making it more difficult for those that should not have guns to get them.

    Anyways, sorry for the rant. I hope I didn't offend anyone too badly. Just know that I don't agree with any "anti-gun" campaign. I do understand that we need to stop the trafficking and keeping guns out of the wrong hands though.

    If anyone has something to say that gives me a reason why I should think differently I would love to hear it.
    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

    NRA Member.

    G17 CC of choice.

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,408
    “The president believes there are other strategies we can take to enforce the laws that are already on our books,” Gibbs said
    That sounds like an NRA quote. The words "If something looks too good to be true, then it's probably too good to be true." come to mind.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  10. #39
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,408
    Quote Originally Posted by LMmarine86 View Post
    Alright, so after reading this post i decided to research the Brady Campaign. I honestly cant see anything wrong with what they want. Hear me out before you jump down my throat though.

    I understand we all have a responsibility to protect our 2A right. I love my guns just as much as the next guy/gal. But don't we also, as gun owners, have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our fellow man?

    From what I am gathering from this Brady Campaign, they are wanting stricter laws. Limit on gun purchases, tougher background checks, and better dealings at gun shows.

    To me, it seems as though the only people that should hate this Brady Campaign are the gun owners first and foremost and also the gun trafficker (the latter is the reason this campaign even exists). Gun owners get the short end of the stick no doubt.

    I don't have any reason to hate this campaign. I could pass any background check that this campaign could come up with. Do i want it to be harder for others that shouldn't have guns to get guns? Abso-freakin-lutely. I understand in those very rare cases that a person is legitimately purchasing 50 guns within a month with no harm intended.... If i were rich, i would probably own every gun out there. But considering im not, and i have really no interest (or money) to purchase that many guns in a month, why should i be bothered by this??

    I do understand that things evolve... First they make things tougher.... Then they want to make it tougher and tougher and tougher. Then the next thing we know we are completely stripped of our guns. I get that. I also know that this campaigns agenda could not and would not possibly eliminate illegal people from getting guns (Just two months ago our neighbors were robbed and 8 guns were stolen). I do, however, believe it would drastically drop the gun related deaths and shootings. Like I stated earlier, that is something we as gun owners have a responsibility to do. There seems to be no reason why we can't protect our 2A right, while also making it more difficult for those that should not have guns to get them.

    Anyways, sorry for the rant. I hope I didn't offend anyone too badly. Just know that I don't agree with any "anti-gun" campaign. I do understand that we need to stop the trafficking and keeping guns out of the wrong hands though.

    If anyone has something to say that gives me a reason why I should think differently I would love to hear it.

    In the 50's when kids could buy ammo at a gas station and you could buy a 12 gauge at the local equivalent of a Walgreens we had less violent crime. Criminals by nature break the law. More restrictive gun laws would only restrict the law abiding. We have PLENTY of restrictions out there already. These laws just need to be enforced (read that to mean tougher sentencing of armed criminals). Look at the numbers. That “wonderful” Brady ban the libs were so proud of did NOTHING to affect violent crime rates.

    It is absurd to think that we can legislate violence out of existence.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  11. #40
    Member Array metallic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by LMmarine86
    Alright, so after reading this post i decided to research the Brady Campaign. I honestly cant see anything wrong with what they want. Hear me out before you jump down my throat though.

    I understand we all have a responsibility to protect our 2A right. I love my guns just as much as the next guy/gal. But don't we also, as gun owners, have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our fellow man?

    From what I am gathering from this Brady Campaign, they are wanting stricter laws. Limit on gun purchases, tougher background checks, and better dealings at gun shows.

    To me, it seems as though the only people that should hate this Brady Campaign are the gun owners first and foremost and also the gun trafficker (the latter is the reason this campaign even exists). Gun owners get the short end of the stick no doubt.

    I don't have any reason to hate this campaign. I could pass any background check that this campaign could come up with. Do i want it to be harder for others that shouldn't have guns to get guns? Abso-freakin-lutely. I understand in those very rare cases that a person is legitimately purchasing 50 guns within a month with no harm intended.... If i were rich, i would probably own every gun out there. But considering im not, and i have really no interest (or money) to purchase that many guns in a month, why should i be bothered by this??

    I do understand that things evolve... First they make things tougher.... Then they want to make it tougher and tougher and tougher. Then the next thing we know we are completely stripped of our guns. I get that. I also know that this campaigns agenda could not and would not possibly eliminate illegal people from getting guns (Just two months ago our neighbors were robbed and 8 guns were stolen). I do, however, believe it would drastically drop the gun related deaths and shootings. Like I stated earlier, that is something we as gun owners have a responsibility to do. There seems to be no reason why we can't protect our 2A right, while also making it more difficult for those that should not have guns to get them.

    Anyways, sorry for the rant. I hope I didn't offend anyone too badly. Just know that I don't agree with any "anti-gun" campaign. I do understand that we need to stop the trafficking and keeping guns out of the wrong hands though.

    If anyone has something to say that gives me a reason why I should think differently I would love to hear it.
    Read something less biased than their website: Brady Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    They are actually an abolitionist movement.
    Last edited by metallic; January 27th, 2010 at 07:17 PM. Reason: Quoted the wrong person

  12. #41
    Member Array LMmarine86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    In the 50's when kids could buy ammo at a gas station and you could buy a 12 gauge at the local equivalent of a Walgreens we had less violent crime. Criminals by nature break the law. More restrictive gun laws would only restrict the law abiding. We have PLENTY of restrictions out there already. These laws just need to be enforced (read that to mean tougher sentencing of armed criminals). Look at the numbers. That “wonderful” Brady ban the libs were so proud of did NOTHING to affect violent crime rates.

    It is absurd to think that we can legislate violence out of existence.
    There use to be a time when women couldn't serve in the military.... Things change.

    So you don't think limiting people to one gun per month could cut down on gun trafficking which would in turn help combat gun related crimes?
    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

    NRA Member.

    G17 CC of choice.

  13. #42
    Member Array metallic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by LMmarine86 View Post
    There use to be a time when women couldn't serve in the military.... Things change.

    So you don't think limiting people to one gun per month could cut down on gun trafficking which would in turn help combat gun related crimes?
    The same way that making drugs illegal has curbed drug violence and stopped the illicit drug trade?

  14. #43
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,408
    Quote Originally Posted by LMmarine86 View Post
    So you don't think limiting people to one gun per month could cut down on gun trafficking which would in turn help combat gun related crimes?
    I don't think it would help one iota.

    I also think that...

    It is absurd to think that we can legislate violence out of existence.
    The point of my 50's gun reference was that gun crime has increased while gun laws have increased and become more restrictive. Ponder that a little before you reply.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  15. #44
    Member Array LMmarine86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    I don't think it would help one iota.

    I also think that...



    The point of my 50's gun reference was that gun crime has increased while gun laws have increased and become more restrictive. Ponder that a little before you reply.
    I agree that it is ridiculous to think that we can get rid of violence by legislation. In my earlier post I acknowledged that it would not get rid of it. We always think something is bad when it could be worse. If there were not any gun laws then how do you think it would be? The wild west??
    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

    NRA Member.

    G17 CC of choice.

  16. #45
    Member Array LMmarine86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    37
    This is interesting.... Thought the Brady Bill was pointless.

    The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%

    Check out this site... pretty cool

    Gun Control
    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

    NRA Member.

    G17 CC of choice.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. President of Obama's fake gun group admits partisan origins at poorly-attended rally
    By Scorpio007 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 12th, 2008, 08:40 AM
  2. Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: June 16th, 2008, 11:17 AM
  3. Virginia Tech blocks plans of gun-control group
    By inman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 8th, 2008, 11:12 PM
  4. Obama and gun control
    By mr.stuart in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: February 25th, 2007, 08:28 PM
  5. Bloomberg leads group urging gun control
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 24th, 2007, 11:53 AM

Search tags for this page

gun control january 20th
,

top gun control groups give obama an f

Click on a term to search for related topics.