Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people will argue in favor of a Clinton. Hillary is showing you her true colors, and like it or not she is a hard core gun owner hating socialist. She is an angry woman, her husband Ban em all Bill showed this nation how serious they were about banning guns.

Hillary will seek higher taxes from the people which = more government legal power, and gun
registration/bans.

Hillary and Bill don't fear the people, but the people fear them, there's somthing wrong here. Is it not obvious to some of you that the government no longer fears you, yet you now fear the government?

They take damn near all YOUR money, and BS you, they make any law they please and pass right over your head, and lie some more.
 
My thought from the beginning of this thread was that the attacks against my posts were based not on the gun registry issue, but rather the fact that I had posted an article where someone had spoken against the Democrat/leftist high priestess/bearer of the socialist holy grail, Hillary Clinton (oh, horror of horrors!!!)

As we all know, she can do no wrong...:barf: :barf: :barf:
 
My thought from the beginning of this thread was that the attacks against my posts were based not on the gun registry issue, but rather the fact that I had posted an article where someone had spoken against the Democrat/leftist high priestess/bearer of the socialist holy grail, Hillary Clinton (oh, horror of horrors!!!)
Click to expand...
what fracking thread are you reading? show me a post where someone argued your comments on clinton rather than on your opinion of the registry?
 
If this story had been about John McCain instead of Hillary Clinton, my bet is there would not have been near as much of a tizzy...
 
I couldn't stand to read all of that, so you'll pardon me if I'm repeating a point:

Tracking firearms used in crimes provides a data source for specific bans: Certain brands, certain models, certain distributors. The connection between a particular brand and crime may be happenstance, but the stats resulting will not be viewed that way. So it is a bit of a setup - if, once a year, you ban the two handguns most used in crime, how long will it take before there is only one handgun on the list?



BTW, the rest of the initial post is silly. Hillary did this publically, and will make reference to it in her campaign as a bill she sponsored. Is every piece of legislative sponsorship "sneaky" if they don't call Steelheart's house and let him know?
 
>I do believe there can be a middle ground here but fighting it with such opposition and refusing to compromise will only hurt the cause of the gun rights advocated.<

A belief that has lost us the most ground possible. "Compromise" means both sides get something, usually. In the case of gun control, "compromise" means we don't immediately get QUITE as screwed as the grabbers want to eventually do...

>If they have no idea that the gun used in a crime was stolen from your home then it will hinder their chances of tracking down a suspect.<

How, exactly? If they don't have a suspect yet, odds are they don't have the weapon either. So how does this registry help?

>Knowing... track multiple victims of the same criminal using the same gun, and aid in the prosecution of said criminal.<

Ok... and how are you going to know that the same gun has been used: the police don't return a gun to the perp after he gets out. There's a disconnect here: unless you're thinking of some ballistics fingerprinting system (which STILL isn't workable), the only guns listed in the registry would be those that have been confiscated. That means they aren't being used in furthe crimes, and therefor eliminate the 'track multiple victims" arguement...

Now, I wouldn't mind an online database of STOLEN guns, listing make/model/SN. Something that you could type in the info, and see if a weapon has been reported stolen (thinking of private sales here: I've had a few offers made that had me wanting to check SNs). ANYTHING beyond that, I just don't trust...
 
BTW, the rest of the initial post is silly. Hillary did this publically, and will make reference to it in her campaign as a bill she sponsored.
Click to expand...
Then why did she not stand up and proclaim it publicly, Handy? Why no news conference proclaiming her involvement?? Why no news coverage at all?

Why the stealth??
Her silent shuffle to the left on the lightning-rod issue
Click to expand...
 
ANYTHING beyond that, I just don't trust...
Click to expand...
My point exactly. And as I said earlier, a point which the Hillary defenders are so relentlessly ignoring is -
First it's a database used in crimes, then next year it is a database of all firearms... They will never stop.

The "crime gun" database is just a prelude to her true intentions, just like the so-called assault weapon ban was "Clearly just the first step" (their words).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What stealth? You heard about it, and her sponsorship is written right on the bill when brought to congress. Was she wearing black at the time?

I have no idea how much fanfare goes with sponsorship, but as many, many bills don't eveb make it off the floor, it doesn't necessarily make much sense to make a big deal out of a bill that may well die on the vine.


You're taking something quite innocuous and trying to make it sound ominous. Apparently "public record" isn't public enough if it serves your ends. The exact same behavior from a Rep would not have produced a post from you, would it?


I agree that the bill is bad - another million dollar waste that fails to do anything constructive. That's the important part of the thread - not the bogeyman tactics you employ.
 
It never ceases to amaze me just how naive people are, even among gun owners.

You think a national gun registration is nothing to worry about? THere is a giant pile of rusting guns in New Orleans that were the pride and joy not to mention the means to survive for a lot of law biding folks, just like yourself.

History has shown us that without registration confiscation cannot happen. Door to door search takes too much time aso why not let the people turn themselves in?
 
Thank you, CALNRA. At least you can see my point, if others can't. It's not so much that they can't, but that they won't.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...
The exact same behavior from a Rep would not have produced a post from you, would it?
Click to expand...
Dead wrong, Handy. Dead wrong. My loyalty is to the Second Amendment, not the (R) some politicians hang after their name.

As I said in a post dated 3-8-06:
I vote for candidates who have a proven history of defending our Second Amendment rights. All other considerations are secondary. I don't care how many photos of him wearing a brand new L.L. Bean duckhunting coat and carrying around someone else's duck gun are on TV and the magazines - what matters is his past voting record.

If a candidate is a defender of the Second Amendment, that tells me alot about how he/she thinks and will act on alot of other issues - like the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Party affiliation is irrelevant to me. I do end up voting Republican alot though, because Democrat politicians are unswervingly devoted to socialism, not the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I will not vote for a socialist under any circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
What does that mean? CALNRA and I agree. Don't try and make it sound like he and I had anything different to say about the BILL.
 
Well, I agree with CALNRA too - therefore we must agree.

So why do you continue to attack me? Are you that devoted to Hillary Clinton?
 
dude, you are the only one making this about hillary, not us. I really couldn't care less which politician is involved and no one here has attacked you or your argument solely because you brought her up
 
Hillary is sneaky, just wait!

Hillary will protect you though, thru SENSIBLE gun laws.

My all time favorite is: We'll ONLY raise taxes on the rich, and then we'll redistribute the wealth to the poor and middle class :rolleyes:

And the same people will fall for these two statements till they die. Hillary and Bill are VERY angry that their AWB fell apart, and their fangs are dripping with revenge.
 
I do believe there can be a middle ground here but fighting it with such opposition and refusing to compromise will only hurt the cause of the gun rights advocated.
Click to expand...

No. There can be no such middle ground. Here's why:

In 1920, the British compromised with those who wanted gun control.
In 1934, the Americans compromised with those who wanted gun control.
In 1934, the Canadians compromised with those who wanted gun control.

All of those respective 'gun lobbies' were promised it was a 'single, moderate restriction'.

In 1968,the British compromised with those who wanted gun control, allowing for shotguns to be registered.
In 1968, the Canadians, as well, compromised with those who wanted gun control.
In 1968, the Americans compromised with those who wanted gun control, passing the Gun Control Act, allowing, among other things, the tracking of every ammunition purchase (since repealed).

All of those respective 'gun lobbies' were promised it was a 'single, moderate restriction'.

And every time, the people who merely claim that the 'moderate restriction' of yesterday should be maintained without alteration are called 'extremist' and the ones who clamor for repeal are discounted entirely.

Again, they demand compromise between the 'extremists' woh want all guns banned and the ones who want no change to current law.

Does anybody see a pattern here?
 
dude, you are the only one making this about hillary
Click to expand...
Dude, Hillary Clinton and her obsession with destroying the Second Amendment are inseperable - can you not see that? She will not stop attacking our right to arms until they are pumping her full of formaldehyde.
 
yeah but you guys keep claiming that people are attacking your position on this issue solely because you brought up the wicked witch of the west....but that's not the case :P


anyways, I do see how extending this database to all firearms would cause a problem. I wouldn't be too keen on it but I do see the other side of the argument in how it could aid law enforcement. out of curiosity, are there any ideas that gun owners have that would assist in keeping guns from being stolen and used by criminals? where are the majority of them stolen from? manufacturers, retailers, or consumers?

if y'all believe this won't work than what can be done to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals? it's always easy to refute an idea you don't like but a hell of a lot harder to supply one yourself
 
Funny stuff!

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Isn't that what we're talking about here? Hasn't history shown that whenever gun registration is permitted to take place, it's ALWAYS followed by even more strict laws or outright confiscation?

Yet some people think that history is no indication of what will happen NOW. That we're oh so much more intelligent and watchful and that we can stuff that genie back into the bottle.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

We should learn to defend the Second Amendment as faithfully as we defend the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. It's a messy amendment that was put there for a reason by the Founders, as the ultimate check-and-balance against a tyranical government. As Justice Story said, it's the palladium of liberty.

And we should learn to unanimously oppose the ilk of Hillary Clinton. The AWB her bunch engineered in the 90s should prove to all concerned that she is no friend of the Second Amendment. Although I'm sure we'll see her deceitfully in hunter's orange before November 2008.
 
if y'all believe this won't work than what can be done to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals? it's always easy to refute an idea you don't like but a hell of a lot harder to supply one yourself
Click to expand...

Here ya go -

1: Use a gun in the comission of a crime with no injury: Get 25 years in prison with no parole or pardon.

2: Use a gun in the comission of a crime and injure/maim/rape or assault: Get life in prison with no parole or pardon.

3: Use a gun in the comission of a crime and kill: Get the death penalty with no parole, pardon or commutation of scentence.

If this dosen't deter them, at least it will get them off the streets.
What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Isn't that what we're talking about here? Hasn't history shown that whenever gun registration is permitted to take place, it's ALWAYS followed by even more strict laws or outright confiscation?

Yet some people think that history is no indication of what will happen NOW. That we're oh so much more intelligent and watchful and that we can stuff that genie back into the bottle.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

We should learn to defend the Second Amendment as faithfully as we defend the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. It's a messy amendment that was put there for a reason by the Founders, as the ultimate check-and-balance against a tyranical government. As Justice Story said, it's the palladium of liberty.

And we should learn to unanimously oppose the ilk of Hillary Clinton. The AWB her bunch engineered in the 90s should prove to all concerned that she is no friend of the Second Amendment. Although I'm sure we'll see her deceitfully in hunter's orange before November 2008.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top