Is it starting?

[mjolnir131]

The scary thing about Biden is not his gun control votes, it is his whole persona. He is a racist and he is a loose cannon. He was the worst choice for VP but who else was there, Hillary? Obama would not have put Hillary in the VP position, she would have overshadowed Obama on many issues and already have moved a bit away from the official WH position.

Not making Hillary he VP is proof that O is not totally stupid.He realized that if she was VP his chances of making it past 731 days in office alive was slim. Not so bright thinking that she would just stop at one. I know it's a horrible thing to say that she might do something like that,but you see i can't say she wouldn't either. Shoot the potus and blame it on the racist lunatic right yea thats a plan.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't know about Biden's gun votes but ANY vote to "Infringe" on guns Rights is an attack on the Bill of Rights. Hillary has called for a total outlawing of ALL privatly owned hand guns and a TOTAL Federal gun registration. You can bet your bippy that I will NEVER give up my guns. I will fight.
Layoutshooter

 

[letzrockexpress]

I don't know about Biden's gun votes but ANY vote to "Infringe" on guns Rights is an attack on the Bill of Rights. Hillary has called for a total outlawing of ALL privatly owned hand guns and a TOTAL Federal gun registration. You can bet your bippy that I will NEVER give up my guns. I will fight.
Layoutshooter

Uh, that's a bit of an embellishment. she has ABSOLUTELY NOT called for a total "outlawing of all privately owned hand guns", as you put it.
She has called for gun registration, which I support, but that is when she was a Senator. She is no longer a law maker.

 

[Turtle]

What you quoted wasn't actually a quote. I do seem to recall that she suggested that all privately owned handguns, not all guns, but the ones of the hand variety, should be outlawed, so that only The State (military and law enforcement) could have handguns. She has called for the registration of any and all firearms, like shotguns, which many people support, at least until they start to think carefully about the ramifications of total gun registration.

Imagine if all hand guns were outlawed, except for The State, of course, and if there was a complete list of where all of the other firearms were located and who owned them. It wouldn't take much for The State to know who has guns and who doesn't, meaning they'd know beforehand who would present the most problems in the event of a revolt. It wouldn't take a lot of leaping to go from having your guns registered to becoming an enemy of The State.

 

[layoutshooter]

Before she was a senator she did call for that ban. Also supported that march against guns in Washington. Why would you support gun registration? Resgister with who? The government? NO Way. They have no valid reason to know that I own guns or what I own or how many. They do not have that authority. It won't have ANY affect on crime and it assumes that gun owners are likely to commit crmes. That would be the only reason they would want that info, and to make it easy to come after me. It is an "Infringment" What would be your reasoning? Layoutshooter

 

[greg334]

But what is the purpose of gun registration anyway?

It is not to deter crime, so why?

I do agree with the idea of background checks and wait periods, that is seeing if the person is a felon or had serious mental problems, not just seeing a therapist. The amazing thing is we can build massive databases that are so interconnected in the private sector but when the government does something like this, it is a clusterf**k and never seems to be right.

 

[letzrockexpress]

The scary thing about Biden is not his gun control votes, it is his whole persona. He is a racist and he is a loose cannon. He was the worst choice for VP but who else was there, Hillary? Obama would not have put Hillary in the VP position, she would have overshadowed Obama on many issues and already have moved a bit away from the official WH position.

She's only one good plane crash or natural disaster away from getting there now...

 

[letzrockexpress]

Where in the second amendment does it state that the right to bear arms means with no qualifications??

 

[greg334]

Two words

Ron Brown

 

[layoutshooter]

I thought I said handguns, I meant too, sorry. Show me where in the Constitution that it mentions ANY qualifications. It does not. I don't like backround checks or waiting periods. They have never been shown to prevent any crime and again, requiring a backround check ASSUMES my guilt not my innocent. Why else would you check? Always error on the side of freedom, not what some may call safety. Without freedom you will have NO safety, you will then be ruled and subjected. I wonder if Osama Obama could even pass that little FBI check you are illegally forced to go through when you buy a gun? I kinda doubt it, I would love to run his prints. I would love to investigate Hillary for mishandling classified documents and maybe even espionage. None of these people have ever had the kind of backround checks that I have have. 4 Defense Intelligence Agency Counter Intelligence checks, mulitpule FBI counter intelligence checks and 6 counter intelligence polygraphs and they have the audacity to require me to have a backround check to excercise my RIGHTS under the Constitution? I don't think so.

Layoutshooter

 

[layoutshooter]

Hey Turtle, I did say handguns on that first post on the Wicked Witch of the East (Hillary) I thought I did.
At least I got one right, eh? LOL Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

But what is the purpose of gun registration anyway?

It is not to deter crime, so why?

The ever popular catch-all, "public safety" is why. With registered guns, you can trace the guns back to the owners and solve crimes. Any idea how many murders have been solved because the gun was registered? <snort>

Even though we're already on the slope, I really don't think any law that would require total firearm registration could stand up in court, and you know it would be challenged. You really can't have lawsthat lack a substantial relation to the public purpose stated for thelaw. Canada tried it. Didn't work. A few years ago a member of Parliament asked the authorities to cite an example a crime solved by the gun registry, and they couldn't come up with one. Not one. The British have not been able to solve crimes nor prevent registered guns from being used in crimes. They went from registration of handguns to a total ban (because registration proved ineffective) and they still have handguns crimes over there.

In Mungler v Kansas, the court stated, "If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge..."

Which means of they want to register all firearms in the interest of public safety, they're gonna have to actually show how it will protect the public, and prove it.

Where in the second amendment does it state that the right to bear arms means with no qualifications??

You're kidding, right? The framers of the Constitution knew all too well that an armed citizenship cannot be threatened by a government gone bad.

 

[layoutshooter]

Man, I did not word that very well did I? I meant to say that the Constitution does NOT require any qualifications. The governement as no authority to require them of anyone. My Dad, and many others his age used to hunt thier way to school eveyday. They would put any game they took in the spring house to keep it cool and put thier shotgun or .22 in thier lockers. After school they would hunt home. NEVER a school shooting. I used to walk down the block to my buddy Pete's house, carrying an un-cased shotgun, get him and his un-cased shotgun, walk to the field at the end of the block and hunt pheasants and rabbits. NO CRIMES, NO MURDERS. Want to stop crime? Quit making excuses for crimianls. Jail them and keep them there. Restricting my Rights will not stop criminals for doing what they do. Layoutshooter

 

[greg334]

The brits if I'm not mistaken also banned long guns and shotguns after some crazy went into a school and killed a bunch of kids.

Isn't Britain also know for a very high number of stabbings and killings with other objects, like hammers? I do know that Europe is not as safe as they say it is.....

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't think so Greg but they are highly controlled and all are registared. THey are required to submit to un-announce firearms inspections to include account of all ammunition. There has been a MAJOR rise in gun crimes in England of late. Per capita it is VERY high. Layoutshooter

 

[greg334]

From the BBC;

Following the Hungerford massacre in August 1987 - when Michael Ryan killed 16 people and himself with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun - pressure was put on the government to tighten the law.




The result was the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles; weapons which fire explosive ammunition; short shotguns with magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles. Registration was also made mandatory for shotguns, which were required to be kept in secure storage.




Even stricter controls were introduced after the 1996 killings in Dunblane, when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 primary school children and their teacher with four legally-held pistols.



The Conservative government drew up legislation banning handguns above .22 calibre. But following their general election victory, Labour introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which outlawed .22s as well.

 

[layoutshooter]

And the crime rates continue to rise there. I had two shotguns when I lived there, 1976-81. I had to have a firearms permit. I was never inspected though. I did have a friend who's wife (both Americans) owned a .22 target pistol. They were inspected more than once. England is NOT a free country. layoutshooter

 

[layoutshooter]

At the onset of WW2 the English government realized that the population was NOT armed and would not be able to help repel the expected German invasion. They asked help from the U.S. and several U.S. citizens donated thier guns. Those same guns were confinscated by the Brits at the end of the war and destroyed. WHY? Civilians cannot be trusted with guns. Layoutshooter

 

[greg334]

Your right that they are not a free country, never has been.... I posted something about Where do I live and it was about Britain and based on a story from a BBC writer who was praising Bush for his move to secure our country. He has been long fired but he was clear, he lived through repression that included everything from political correctness (in a different form) to government controlled press and didn't want to go through that again. He used the example of the BBC and some radio announcer who was jailed for criticizing the king's abdication to illustrate the problems between the US and the UK in defining rights.

 

[layoutshooter]

I fear we are headed down the same road. So many in this country want us to be like England or Europe. NO country over there is free. They all have been ruled for thier entire history. I don't want to be ruled. Layoutshooter