Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
>but I do see the other side of the argument in how it could aid law enforcement.<

How? For a gun to be entered into a "crime gn" database, it would have to have been confiscated during the investigation of a crime in the first place. The ONLY crime that could be tracked through such a database would be things like the situation in Chicago, where a rouge cop was selling conviscated guns and drugs to gangs in Florida (IIRC). It wouldn't track multiple victims (as the police don't return guns to criminals), or any other such nonsence...
 
The dems won't let the system punish the criminals, because it feels bad. I would like to see harsh punishment for gun crimes and not worry so much about paying for Jobs for sex offender programs, or houses for felons, hell up here in MN we get to buy em used cars!

Face the fact that Hillary and her dems would rather ban guns and give hugs to rapists, drug dealers, murdurers and other basic trash.

WHY not track HER precious criminals and forget about the guns? History has shown us they would rather make more laws on the people and control the people, because thats how dems/liberals think they can stop crime, or so they would have you believe.

History has shown that tough consequences = less crime.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how any post accusing Democrats of trying to destroy our right to arms gets so many people's hemorroids in an uproar and sparks a holy war.

Some people just can't the truth...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You folks that seem to SEE the other sides point, would you SEE how GPS tracking chips in our guns would also be a great help too? Thats a dem/lib idea thats being worked on as we speak. The guy who is pushing that idea has several years of working with the Kennedy and the Clinton regime, all liberals who hate your freedom too arms!
 
Hey, why stop there - why not lock electronic shock collars on all gun owner's necks so that we can be shocked into unconsciousness at the push of a button?

Wouldn't that help, too?

Isn't that a commonsense precaution that gunowners should take... For The Children??:barf: :barf:

Where do you draw the line??
 
Gun Registry

I'm kinda new here but would like to put in my two cents.

Gun registration has ALWAYS preceded gun confiscation. The two terms may not be necessarily mutually inclusive but they historically have been so. Those who do not learn from history will surely be doomed to repeat it.

The 'common sense' measure put forth by Senator Clinton is not a slippery slope, it is the nose of the Camel under the tent. Hillary has made no bones about her devotion to the disarmament of America and the creation of a Socialist/Marxist society (It Takes a Village and Hillary Health Care come to mind). I do not believe that this registry nor the making public of its contents will in any way benefit law enforcement and, as with ALL such 'common sense' measures, its failure will be taken to mean that it needs to be broader.

If you think for one minute that this registry is only about firearms that have been used in comission of crimes, consider that the BATFE and the FBI have been amassing a registry of firearms owners illegally for many years. Interestingly, when news of this illegal registration was made 'public', it was quickly muted and swept under the carpet by the liberals in the media. When the current registry proposal of Senator Clinton fails to produce any tangible benefit, you can be sure that more will quickly follow.
 
How about a data base we the people can put anti-gun, pro tax politicians into, starting with Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Plus, we the people will MONITOR these goverment officials. I don't trust politicians with my money.
It shall be the sole discression of any gun dealer and we the people to decide weather it be safe to sell a firearm to a politician.

ALL tax requested increases shall be subject to we the peoples approval only.
 
Why would the governments be granting all but 2 states now the right to carry, and be proposing national reciprocity, castle doctrine laws, etc, if they're getting ready to confiscate guns?
 
The problem is mainly at the national level, not the state level

Why would the governments be granting all but 2 states now the right to carry, and be proposing national reciprocity, castle doctrine laws, etc, if they're getting ready to confiscate guns?
Click to expand...

State governments have done all the things you stated. The proposed national gun registry is at the federal level.

States are loosening the chains while the politicians at the national level (House, Senate and others) are working to forge new shackles for us all.
 
Federal Level

The problem is indeed at the federal level, and more. While individual states are exercising their rights, the federal government is under increasing pressure from special interest groups and even foreign powers to disarm Americans. The United Nations has repeatedly tried to coerce the United States into disarming its civilians. We are indeed at war with enemies both foreign and domestic for our rights.
 
Steelheart,

I continue to take issue with you because you seem unable to seperate fact from hype. Which is probably why you immediately took what I wrote and tried to demonize me as some sort of Hillary supporter.

Please cut it out. The factual part of your post is actually provacative enough without the not so clever "stealth" slant you've unsuccessfully put on it.

You'll find a lot of people are more convinced by facts rather than scare tactics and dogma. The FACT that this bill exists is important. The FACT of who supports it is useful to know. But the silly conspiracy theory light you put it all in just weakens your message.


Take a look at posts by Alan and some of the others who regularly post news-worthy 2A items WITHOUT any sort of sensationalism or pure fiction. They more effectively communicate their points because no one has to pick through it and guess what is real or not.


No one on this forum is a Hillary fan - get it through your head.


I imagine in response you're about to label me as a liberal, Hillary supporter, socialist or just plain Commie. Try to control yourself and use your brain instead.
 
I did not see anyone else shoot this down so I want to knock over, yet again, an argument I hear repeatedly:

We have a national database of cars because they can be stolen, they are dangerous, and they can be used in crimes.
Click to expand...

No we do not. You can go buy a car and fill out nothing but the bill of sale. You take it home. You keep it. No registrations, license, nada. Nobody has to know you have it, there's nothing special required to get it. ONLY if you take it out in public under its own power does it need to be licensed and insured and THAT is still little more than a state record(though they are working diligently to change that fact, true).

I'd love it if we did guns like we do cars. I'd have one or two that had paperwork and the rest would have been bought and kept on a stack of cash and a handshake.

And I've never understood what this whole thing is against "slippery slope" examples. An intelectual conceit? People feel like they "get" debate by denying the efficacy of such? Slippery slope arguments are generally based on historical examples and certainly prove likely future events, as well as anything can forcast the future. Toss in the words of people like the anti-gun loons and such arguments become damn near irrefutable.

One registration leads to another. Registrations lead to bans. Bans lead to confiscation. If you can sho an example of this pattern NOT happening fine. until then it seems the Slippery Slope argument is pretty damn representation of reality.
 
No one on this forum is a Hillary fan - get it through your head.
Click to expand...

That's a king-sized case of denial you've got going there, Handy. I seriously doubt that those who get so livid whenever I make a post showing the true intentions of the Democrat/leftist politicians - to destroy our right to arms by any means - are NRA life members.

I continue to take issue with you because you seem unable to seperate fact from hype.
Click to expand...
I did nothing more than post an article and make statements of fact taken from it. Your problem is that either you don't like the message I presented, or you just enjoy the nonstop perpetrating of verbal attacks.

Either way, I am getting really bored with defending myself against your pointless attacks. If you have anything intelligent or relevant to say (unlike your last post/attack) I'm willing to listen. Otherwise, wer'e finished here.
 
Statement of fact? Are you speaking of "sneak attacks" or your implication that I'm a Clinton supporter?


You'll find that there are a couple of people here that post in opposition to you not out of allegiance to what you think you oppose: Liberals.

They are actually posting in allegiance to the other thing you oppose: Rationality.



So don't be so shocked when you post lurid inuendo that someone might oppose you on that. I know you find it confusing that there is more to the world than the Conservative/Liberal polar war, but the fight between prejudicial rumor-mongering and open eyes is alive as well.
 
Once again, I'm with Handy. I am willing to pledge right here and now that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna let partisan nonsense slide without comment.
 
Handy, why are you making such a huge deal over the original post? It is all fact! Go read the article.
Gawd man, The Clintons want the AWB back and alot more including higher taxes. Is it a secret to you that Bill and Hill are sneaky and lie to achive these things.
 
Is it a secret to you that Bill and Hill are sneaky and lie to achive these things.
Click to expand...
It's not a secret to anyone! But neither was her sponsorship. Hillary couldn't piss in the street secretly anymore than sponsor a bill secretly. Where is the "sneak attack" from the thread title?
 
Sneak attack is a great way to phrase it, and she knows it.

Im suprised that bothers you so, after what her husband pulled on you and every other gun owning American. Plus the largest federal tax increase in our history, slick willy said I'll only hit the rich, HA! he SNUK a fast one in on us. SNEAK ATTACK is being nice.

If the AWB would have continued by the way, the Clinton/liberals already had SNEAKED a provision to add many other guns the ban. Hillary is an angry liberal and planning more sneak attacks on gun owners/tax payers!
 
Carbiner,

Am I to understand that you were surprised by the AWB? It 'snuck up' on you? I suggest reading a newspaper as a remedy for this state of surprise you live in. All of this is done out in the open and is part of the declared platform of these politicians.

What bothers me is when we color the facts purely to suit a political bias. The facts are damning enough and require no help.
 
The AWB was a sad suprise to everyone, but I meant the fact that Bill and his roving band of liberal thugs and thugetts combined with the liberal media kept the extensions of the original bill quite.

The same way they ordered a dirty sneak attack on Waco and Ruby Ridge. Face it, the dems are threating to take power again, and they want our guns and money, you can't deny that.

As far as news papers go, how can you read that trash? I find them better for cleaning semi auto's on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top