Let's share the pain & get something back

F

FUD

Moderator
We are constantly being "asked" to give up our guns rights little by little and be subjected to more gun controls in order "to save a life" and "for the sake of the children". Well, thirty-five years ago there were a whole lot less laws & restrictions then there are today and I don't remember any school and/or office shootings taking place.

So what are we giving up our rights for? Nothing! We're trading them in and getting nothing in return and that's not fair any way you look at it.

If we give something (as background checks, 10-round limits on magazines, restrictions on carrying & owning firearms, etc.), we should get something back.

If we are being restricted in our ability to protect ourselves and our families, then it's only fair and just for the government to take over that role of protecting us from violent crime with assurances in place for failures.

If someone is injuried in a mugging and is out of work for a year, then the government should be required to pay his salary for that time period. If he can not return to his regular job and has to take a lower paying job, then the government should make up the difference in his salary until he retires. If a wife loses her husband during a home robbery, then she should continue to receive his regular salary plus combensation for when the pipes need to be fixed, the kids have to be babysat, the lawn needs to be cut, etc.

When everyone's taxes double or triple in order to fund this, then the people who are pushing all of these gun control measures will think twice because they will feel our pain and we'll all be in the same boat.

I think this is something that we should push for -- if we give something up then we should get something back because for too long we've been giving up and getting nothing in return.

TFL-flame.gif
Share what you know, learn what you don't
TFL-fud.gif
 
Keeping in theme...
If you live in a city (Chicago, Atlanta,etc) that is currently suing the gun manufacturers or won't allow CCW.....and you are injured in mugging, etc...the mayor and city council members should pay for your upkeep out of their own pockets. If you are killed, then they should be publically executed within a week of your burial....no appeals allowed.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I've been advocating lawsuits of that nature, DC, but haven't been able to get any traction. The suit ought to be based on something like:

"My (wife/child/etc.) was (raped/killed/etc.) because the city of (Chicago/New York/etc.) refused to allow them to be armed in their own defense. The city is, therefore, liable for failing to protect them since they, by law, prohibit them from protecting themself."

Thoughts?
 
Bob...

Seriously, this is a two-parter:
1) Jurisdictions have to be made subject to judiciary suit....they have excessive levels of immunity. Since we live in a suit happy culture...there shall be no immunity to no one or no body.
2) The elected officials must be subject to personal responsibility for effects of their legislated or enacted policy.

These people have to be held responsible...no more fund-raising junkets....your feet are held to the fire. If you want the office, then you pay the price and stay on top of things.

There is no accountability in gov't office other than not being elected or appointed again......people die, people are ruined because of these *******s, while they gain nobility status.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
As much as I could have my arm twisted for a (real) compromise if we could all hold hands, get it all on one page & say that "this is the way it'll be for all time" type of agreement and there will never again be any more attempts at further gun control (blah, blah) ... it'll never happen.

They don't want you to have a firearm - period. No amount of any "giving up one more thing" will ever satisfy them. And, they don't have to. They're already winning everything they want without giving up jack.

Good that we're thinking about solutions but it's a defeatist attitude. We're becoming conditioned to find ways where we can compromise with those who do not wish to.

Although getting a big, fat check might be nice, I'd rather not have my wife raped or me killed in the first place.

Call me crazy, but hey, it's me.
 
"Call me crazy, but hey, it's me."

OK, you're crazy! ;)

You know that I totally agree with you on this, and that I'd prefer to not have anything happen to my loved ones, either. My point was that if some of the people who have already been adversely affected by these un-Constitutional restraints sued the cities to make them repeal the laws, then maybe the rest of us could be spared similar incidents.
 
I would also rather have my family unharmed or my own health & well being than money, but hey, right now there isn't even a choice -- if you're injuried because you couldn't legally be armed, then it's your problem. We have to start turning this around and making it everyone's problem. Either we assume responsibility for our own protection and not restricted in our ability to defend ourselves or the government is held accountable and it comes out of everyone's pocket with increased taxes -- let the people who want to take away our rights shoulder some of the loss with the rest of us.
 
Due to the many immunity laws protecting the government, about the only thing they are succeptible to is civil rights violations. I have often wondered why people refuse to sue these cities with no CCW's for violating their right to life or self defense. It would be a pretty easy argument to show that guns are the most effective means of self defense. Just ask the mayor why the cops are armed to the teeth. The problem is that most Americans are now strangers to the concepts of self reliance and personal responsabilty. They love to be able to bi*** about the system not giving them enough, ... Until that mentality can be eliminated, we are going to be bend over the nearest barrel and charged for the KY

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
Basically what you're suggesting is a poison pill defense strategy. I like it!

The way it works is you hijack one of the anti's bills and you insert a "common sense" rider that even a soccor mom could agree with - this of course, makes slick willie veto it. Congress does this all the time with other forms of legislation.

I think that the NRA and GOA are afraid to do this because they are afraid that their members will call them appeasers. We are handicapping ourselves by not taking advantage of these legislative tactics.

It’s the end result that counts.
 
My Dear Mr Pub, You have no idea how right
about that one you are.

The poison pill approach is just exactly what the NRA did in 1999 when
they were trying to prevent the enactment
of the Juvinile In-justice Bill through Congress.
The Anti civil rights politicians, called Democrats,
had the bill chock full of anti gun rights measures that would have no effect on criminals and much affect on law abiding gun owners.

In order to prevent passage ,the NRA
had some pro-gun politicians add an
ammendment to the bill repealing the bann
on private owner ship of hand guns in Washington DC and replacing it with a CCW
permit system.

Immediately subsquent to this , His Lord Dictator, Bill Clinton, issued a
proculimation to his Clintinistas, otherwise known as anti civil rights democrats, instructing them to vote against and defeat
their now ruined gun control bill, the
Juinivile Justice Bill.

The pro-gun side did not have enough
votes to defeat the JJB because of turn coat republicans siding wih the democrats so NRA did the only thing available, they ruined the legislation in the eyes of anti civil gun rights gun grabbing democrats by including
the right of DC resisents to carry concealed into the bill.

This poison pill was more that Konrade Klintinov Could swallow so that he instructed HIS Minions to not pass the bill.

NRA took a lot of heat from members who felt betrayed by NRA because the NRA did not(rightly so) explain their stratagy to the membership.

The stratigy could not have worked if the Democrats had known about it in time.
The pro-gun ammendment was added to the bill
the evening before the House was to vote on it and the House going out of session,end of session, the very next day.

So ,timing and suprise was critical for the manouever to work, which it did.

NRA angers its membership constantly by appeasing democrap gun grabbers but NRA says that the only way that NRA can get consideration on Capital Hill is to seem reasonable and willing to compromise.

GOA is the non compromise gun lobby but GOA does not seem to have the "pull or clout"
on Capital Hill that NRA does.

I am so sick to death of watching our Second Ammendment Rights being salami sliced to death .

They must have either extreemly good body guards or balls of steel or both.

I certantly would not want any one as mad at me as many are at them.
 
Where are all the lawyers? Surely there must be some lawyers who own guns and would be willing to work with together either with the NRA or GOA on some of these issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top