They did exactly that in an Obama for pres commercial. They guy is on the tailgate of a pickup, wearing flannel, holding a shotgun, talking about being a hunter and part of Sportsmen for Obama or some crap. My first tip off was he had his finger on the trigger the whole time. Seems to be the first detail antis always fail. Anyways, turns out he was some unknown liberal anti-gun actor hired for the commercial.
Everybody, please post your opinion at this anti-gun article
- Thread starter Shoot45's
- Start date
They did exactly that in an Obama for pres commercial. They guy is on the tailgate of a pickup, wearing flannel, holding a shotgun, talking about being a hunter and part of Sportsmen for Obama or some crap. My first tip off was he had his finger on the trigger the whole time. Seems to be the first detail antis always fail. Anyways, turns out he was some unknown liberal anti-gun actor hired for the commercial.
By compromise the antis mean "Bend over, take it up the rear and smile that we let you keep your "hunting" firearms(for now) "
1. This rationale totally ignores the second amendment in regards to defending ones self.
2. This article totally ignores the 2A for self defense outside the home
3. This article aims to drive a wedge between the "FUDDS" and the "TactiCool" crowd.
It is really disingenuous to believe that if we let them take an inch it will be enough. History has shown us, in places like the UK and Australia among others that banning X type of firearm is just the first step to banning others, finally ending with a near ban on all types/kinds of firearms and leaving you with at best a double barrel shotgun, which by the way you can't lawfully defend yourself with.
chokeoloko
New member
after everything thats going on today here in this country it seems like more and more articles are coming out regarding harsher gun laws. The best you can do is voice your opinion and donate to the NRA (life member) and let them speak for all of us who use our weapons responsibly
It is interesting how little some people understand what is written in the Constitution, and just what those who wrote it meant. Yes, we should all just give up our weapons and make that final leap to a total police state! With a police system that is increasingly militarized, a DHS that sees fit to order enough ammunition to wage war for years, and the ability to track and monitor each and every citizen's movement and communication, as well as military forces going door to door in order to accustom citizens to the presence of soldiers on our streets, the illusion of freedom is no longer necessary. We have a government run by the greatest minds ever in the history of mankind; their benevolent leadership is to be accepted by all and their enlightened ideas are to be treasured and followed without question. The wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many. Had your soylent green today?
carguychris
New member
Mr. Symmonds' blanket statement that handguns should be banned makes me wonder if he has ANY credibility with ANY crowd that earnestly describes itself as pro-gun.Patriot86 said:
The author's understanding of the Constitution- if one can even call it that- is obviously and entirely self-serving. IMHO the article is written with about the same level of intellectual rigor as a high-school essay asserting that the author believes in God and loves to read the Bible, but can't understand why he/she has to follow all the rules in there, because he/she can't literally SEE or HEAR God.ronl said:
To anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the topic, his argument is fundamentally incoherent.
Last edited:
The Second Amendment aside, the writer unwittingly points out in his own article the most basic flaw in his opinion:
But we know that the country will never have zero gun-related murders in this country. The premise upon which he bases his proposition is a fantasy and, ergo, so is his proposition that we should give up all weapons.
I really don't think it is that they do not understand it. I think they just don't respect it. They view it as outdated and irrelevant, and they simply contort and pervert it as necessary in order to make an argument against those who do respect and revere it. Arguing your rights on the basis of the Constitution to someone who does not think we should follow it, and would let congress change it with statute or courts to change by judicial decisons, or presidents to change it by executive order while ignoring the prescriptions within it is like arguing morality based on Biblical principles to an atheist.
One who believes the Constitution should be followed and respected in its entirety, and should only be changed by amendment as is prescribed within it, is today's definition of "a right wing extremist".
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I don't care what the constitution says on the issue because I have a NATURAL right to self defense that trumps any man made law.
Has anyone taken a moment to consider all of the running related deaths and injuries that take place in the United States every year? Imagine how much suffering we could end if we passed laws that banned running. And after all, you could still walk as a means of burning calories, and it would be so much safer.
^^^Yep, 100%. Yet, I believe there are no natural rights. Neither God nor nature gave man any rights, just abilities, and arguably "free will". Laws, rights, rules, regulations, restrictions - these are all man made. There is no natural right to own a gun or even to self defense. If there were, then it wouldn't be so easy for a relatively benign country like England (and even certain US States) to strip its citizens of these "rights".
These days, it seems that whoever has the most numbers, makes the most noise and has the biggest stick to back up their noise gets what they want. Right or wrong, we live in a new era of "mob rule".