Is it worth it to call out all candidates lies?

Focus: One recent anti gun personal locally made an interesting comment The comment went all guns should go. Only police should have guns. You gonna reason with that?

This thinking is shared widely by many anti-gun people. Looks like the main force of the anti-gun drive ends up being aimed at visible firearms owners. You may come to the conclusion that anti-gun rhetoric has more with making war on the Base. Much of the anti-gun is a smoke screen for something else-call it what you may.
 
J.G. Terry said:
Focus: One recent anti gun personal locally made an interesting comment The comment went all guns should go. Only police should have guns. You gonna reason with that?

This thinking is shared widely by many anti-gun people. Looks like the main force of the anti-gun drive ends up being aimed at visible firearms owners. You may come to the conclusion that anti-gun rhetoric has more with making war on the Base. Much of the anti-gun is a smoke screen for something else-call it what you may.
Click to expand...
Ya know, I hear this all the time..gun grabbers'..in this country, with the second amendment, which has been upheld in various ways by the SCOTUS, how exactly does the government confiscate 393 MILLION some odd guns? And how do you find out who owns all those guns? The 'plumbing' to do this would be immense, cost $BILLION$, takes decades and would employ thousands of people.
Lots of rhetoric out there by LOTS of people who populate the airwaves but their actual power to do the above is limited or non existent.
Focus: One recent anti gun personal locally made an interesting comment The comment went all guns should go. Only police should have guns. You gonna reason with that?
Click to expand...

Why 'reason' with that? it's as far left as those who say "any gun at any time by anybody for any reason".
 
Back in the day...

Back in the day...: The was an article in slick paper magazine. The article went on to make two points. Point number one is that very large majority firearm owners are law abiding citizens with a hunting or shooting interest.

The second point confirms what has just been shared in the previous post. That to confiscate all firearms would cost as much as enforcing all the other laws in this country combined.

There was also those who have a real interest in firearms but did not hunt or shoot. This last point is my addition. I personally handload and participate in shooting matches. I do not remember being involved in a mass shooting of any sort.

From one individual anti-gunner was that neighbors would turn gun owner in. One of the other was to listen for shooting and call the authorities. Yet another wanted to go after cartridges. This is individual stuff but may reflect more widely held beliefs.

My question is what would happen after all this confiscation was over with this huge police force? :confused:

Addendum: What would happen as these firearms were being confiscated?
 
Last edited:
the state of the media has now sunk to the point that you have the liberal news and facts and the concervative news and facts and the truth is somewhere in between.

The "do whats right" part of me whispers that lies should be called out, but whos going to listen lol.
 
The difficulty in finding and confiscating firearms does not in any way preclude the government from making them illegal. Anyone who was caught in possession of a banned firearm would be prosecuted. Not any different than the ban on bump stocks or illegal drugs, where there is no large scale search and confiscation process.
 
LeverGunFan said:
The difficulty in finding and confiscating firearms does not in any way preclude the government from making them illegal. Anyone who was caught in possession of a banned firearm would be prosecuted. Not any different than the ban on bump stocks or illegal drugs, where there is no large scale search and confiscation process.
Click to expand...
What percentage of bump stocks sold were 'turned in'? Of those using 'illegal' drugs, what percentage are actually caught? What percentage of 'banned gun' owners in new Zealand actually turned their guns in? It's like making texting while driving 'illegal',. A gun confiscation scheme is largely unenforceable, largely political in it's origins and highly unlikely to actually see the light of day. I am amazed some young politician says a few things and the sky is then gonna fall. Not even all of the other Dem candidates on the stage agree with him...

PLUS the guy in the big chair saying UBC, RFL are a a-comin.....are you threatened by that? I'm not...
 
What percentage of bump stocks sold were 'turned in'? Of those using 'illegal' drugs, what percentage are actually caught? What percentage of 'banned gun' owners in new Zealand actually turned their guns in? It's like making texting while driving 'illegal',. A gun confiscation scheme is largely unenforceable, largely political in it's origins and highly unlikely to actually see the light of day. I am amazed some young politician says a few things and the sky is then gonna fall. Not even all of the other Dem candidates on the stage agree with him...

PLUS the guy in the big chair saying UBC, RFL are a a-comin.....are you threatened by that? I'm not...
Click to expand...

Never said the sky is falling. Just saying that a ban can become law despite the difficulty in enforcement.
 
What percentage of bump stocks sold were 'turned in'?
Click to expand...

They did not have to be turned in. Many folks simply destroyed in place or otherwise trashed. I am sure many didn't abide by the law, but the point is, they didn't have to be turned in.
 
Washington state had a buy-back, but from what I could tell, most were cheap knock-offs purchased just to profit from the buy-back... buy-back is an odd term because Washington didn’t sell them to start with.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
They did not have to be turned in. Many folks simply destroyed in place or otherwise trashed. I am sure many didn't abide by the law, but the point is, they didn't have to be turned in.
Click to expand...
Many? A big maybe..almost every time I go to that uncontrolled range up above Lyons, there is somebody there with a bump stock(or perhaps a full auto gun)...but pretty obvious when somebody is using it. BUT, thanks, thought it was 'turn in'...
Back to the thing I mentioned..a federal law making any gun illegal, as in, own it and it's afelony, would have to be something more than an executive action..it would have to be a law created by congress and signed by the guy in the big chair. Even with a Dem trifecta, that would be unlikely. UBC and RFL? that sure could come to pass.

Last night 'mandatory' buy backs of AR-15/AK-47 came up more than once..even Anderson Cooper asked the ?..How do you do that with so many, particularly when nobody knows who owns them(no federal registry)..a few liked 'mandatory', most favored 'voluntary'...
 
They will still be bump—firing because a bump-stock is not required to simulate full auto. I’ve bumpfired myself a long time ago and witnessed people bump-firing long before the dreaded bump-stock came on market.

A FAL and a cheap bouncy bipod caused an accidental bump-fire for me once.

Bump stocks are pretty useless, and banning them was even more useless. On the surface, I’m glad that the useless junk was banned. But I feel it’s still wrong in principle, and I strongly disagree with creating new bans by redefining a word.
 
TXAZ said:
If it’s a misdemeanor to lie to the cops,
and a felony to lie to the FBI,
then why isn’t it a capital offense for the elected or appointed to lie to the American people?
Click to expand...
That is a great statement/question.

I bet all the dems would vote No if it came up for a vote. lol
 
They all lie.
Lying politicians are part of our national identity. Political figures lie so much, that a fair amount of our pop-culture centers around lying politicians. It’s ingrained and entrenched in our society deeply.

It doesn’t bother me that they lie... it’s expected and a job requirement. It bothers me more when we waste years trying to oust a politician for lying when THEY ALL LIE.
 
It doesn’t bother me that they lie... it’s expected and a job requirement. It bothers me more when we waste years trying to oust a politician for lying when THEY ALL LIE.
Click to expand...

This^^^

Calling attention to a politicians lies is a waste of time. Arguing politics is akin to arguing the respective virtues of two truck stop prostitutes.
 
American Man said:
That is a great statement/question.

I bet all the dems would vote No if it came up for a vote. lol
Click to expand...
More than a few GOP also, including the guy in the big chair..I apologize to make this a political discussion but 'lying and lies' is NOT the sole property of any one political party.

Double Naught Spy-
If you are going to call out O'Rourke on the statements you consider to be lies, will you also call out Trump on the incorrect things he says? I am just curious to know if your goal is to ensure truth in politics (a truly noble cause) or if your goals are more politically motivated simply for your preferred party to win, signing off on its lies while calling foul on the lies of the opposition?
Click to expand...

lol
 
It doesn’t bother me that they lie... it’s expected and a job requirement. It bothers me more when we waste years trying to oust a politician for lying when THEY ALL LIE.
Click to expand...

I actually love it when that happens. It means they're not monkeying around with anything that impacts me. They investigated Bill Clinton's background and tried to impeach him for conduct in office, they're doing the same to Trump now. Look at the economy then and now, not too shabby.

Congress has a finite set of time and resources. Inquiries into Presidential corruption come at the expense of things like gun control. Sometimes it's best just to let them fight.
 
Politicians say what they think voters want to hear. It has nothing to do with their intent or ability to carry out what they say.
Obama made promises that people wanted to hear and got elected.
He failed miserably but so what....they voted him in for a second term.....of course with the help of the main stream media who portrayed him as being capable of walking on water.
Trump also said what the voters wanted to hear.
But the difference is that Trump is actually delivering on his promises.
The main stream media refuses to report those achievement.
O' Roark? I doubt he knows who his base is, if he has one. He's clutching at straws and he knows he has an ice cubes chance in hell of getting the nomination. He's a simpleton media whore who's only identifying quality is his big mouth. Coupled with the ability to lie through his teeth makes him a politician.
 
He's a simpleton media whore who's only identifying quality is his big mouth. Coupled with the ability to lie through his teeth makes him a politician.
Click to expand...

Sounds like every politician now occupying all parts of the federal government, as was the case in every era from the late 1700s to today..:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top