• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

RepubliCONS preparing to destroy rights?

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Demo-RATS and Republi-CONS, neither will EVER get it. Criminals don't follow the law! So how in the world would tracking private sales help trace the history of a firearm IF said firearm has had the SN defaced? In light of EVERY piece of evidence showing that such actions ONLY impact the law abiding, that criminals won't comply, and that those willing to stand up against such laws will inevitably become criminals at the hands of politicians, how in the world can we trust this government. Remember, the wolves of the world are watching the flock closely and they've been salivating since 2008.

So, the wolves have only been around since 2008. Hmm, I wonder, what occurred in 2008?--President Obama was elected President? It's only been since 2008 since the wolves of the world have been watching the flock, closely, huh. *shrugs*

Your collective Right is influx, always.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Don't resign yourself. Fight everything. These politicians are putting their toes in the water. They need to learn that it is acid and that they will get burned.

Don't complain. Don't resign. Fight. Contact all of your representatives now. Let them know that the solution to our children being killed in school is LESS gun control. Those kids are dead BECAUSE of gun control. Gun control left them as undefended, inviting targets. It is the gun controllers with blood on their hands.

Tell your representatives that the political massacre following the last AWB will not compare to the political carnage that will follow any effort to curtail the right one iota. Let them know that we expect them to actively pursue expanding the Right.

eye gets the old +1 today.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I don't need any silly +1s from you, especially when you take a metaphor and turn it into a threat.

Of course you were merely using a metaphor.:rolleyes: I figure, if you don't have the stones to state what you're meaning to state, then you ought not be implying.--cut--
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I don't need any silly +1s from you, especially when you take a metaphor and turn it into a threat.

I switched it to a -2 and the system changed it to a -1 that's math I guess ...

I'm not going to send you over my homemade wine this month now..
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
<snip> Nothing worse than taking twenty slaughtered school children, and using it to your political advantage; whatever you feel comfortable with leveraging, to get what you want.
Pot calling the kettle black. Liberals are not used to, and do not like, having liberty centric citizens use their own tactics against them.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I think we should use the deaths of those twenty children to bring about reform to greatly reduce the chance that this happens again. Unapologetically, as long as we get to the real reason those twenty innocents are dead and propose to fix the real problem.

That real problem is that we left them defenseless. WE made them targets of opportunity. We did so by making schools "gun free zones." Any wacko who wants to go down in a blaze of glory, inflicting maximum death before anyone can respond, and making the biggest headlines will choose a school to shoot up. No one will be able to respond properly for at least 20 to 30 minutes.

The fix is to allow people to carry in schools. We probably want to make sure, because of the presence of so many little hands, that the folks who do carry are well trained in the use of the firearm and in the proper retention of them, but other than that every adult who can lawfully possess a firearm ought to be able to carry it in a school. Period.

So, yes, by all means, use the deaths of these helpless victims to mitigate the helplessness of others that they may not die. It is only right that we do so.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
My last post had a few phrases that made me think of a certain famous speech. I took the Liberty to modify it a touch. My apologies to Mr. Lincoln.

Eleven score and seventeen years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great internal debate, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that political war. We have come to dedicate the memories of those who here gave their lives to learn from them that that others might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow their memories. The innocents, living and dead, who were left helpless here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what happened to them here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who died here have brought to our conscience. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they were ignobly sacrificed—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
My last post had a few phrases that made me think of a certain famous speech. I took the Liberty to modify it a touch. My apologies to Mr. Lincoln.

Eleven score and seventeen years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great internal debate, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that political war. We have come to dedicate the memories of those who here gave their lives to learn from them that that others might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow their memories. The innocents, living and dead, who were left helpless here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what happened to them here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who died here have brought to our conscience. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they were ignobly sacrificed—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Well done Sir.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I think we should use the deaths of those twenty children to bring about reform to greatly reduce the chance that this happens again. Unapologetically, as long as we get to the real reason those twenty innocents are dead and propose to fix the real problem.

That real problem is that we left them defenseless. WE made them targets of opportunity. We did so by making schools "gun free zones." Any wacko who wants to go down in a blaze of glory, inflicting maximum death before anyone can respond, and making the biggest headlines will choose a school to shoot up. No one will be able to respond properly for at least 20 to 30 minutes.

The fix is to allow people to carry in schools. We probably want to make sure, because of the presence of so many little hands, that the folks who do carry are well trained in the use of the firearm and in the proper retention of them, but other than that every adult who can lawfully possess a firearm ought to be able to carry it in a school. Period.

So, yes, by all means, use the deaths of these helpless victims to mitigate the helplessness of others that they may not die. It is only right that we do so.
The responsibility rests squarely on those who vote anti-liberty politicians into office, liberals, or vote to have anti-liberty politicians remain in office, liberals. Thus our children will remain vulnerable, as liberal desire them to be. Life and the preservation of life is secondary to liberals and the liberal agenda. Example: abortion.

The Op focuses on the wrong term. It is not democrat or republican, it is liberty or anti-liberty. Liberals are anti-liberty. Constitutional conservatives, such as my self, are liberty centric.

The below is provided to aid the reader in understanding what a constitutional conservative proclaims himself to be.
What stands out in Taft's constitutionalist understanding of the Presidency, then, is not the Rooseveltian canard of weakness or immobility. Rather, it is fidelity to just what was being undermined by Roosevelt (and then by President Woodrow Wilson): a principled awareness that the office of President has limits, as does every other office under the Constitution. What Taft rejected was Roosevelt's anti-constitutional view that, in Taft's words, "the Executive is charged with the responsibility for the welfare of all the people in a general way, that he is to play the part of a Universal Providence and set all things right, and that anything that in his judgement will help the people he ought to do."[19]

Taft was one of the last Presidents in the 20th century to have a soundly constitutionalist conception of the office. His successors typically proceeded on the Roosevelt-Wilson model, construing their authority as emanating from public opinion and their ability to shape it rather than from the Constitution.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-william-howard-taft-and-henry-cabot-lodge-sr
Yes, I do think that the above has relevance to the OP.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I blame all Americans, myself included, for Sandy Hook. I may not have voted for the GFSZ, but I could have done more to fight it.

When I say "we," it comes from my internalization theory. When something does not happen the way I would have liked it to, I look to myself first for a course of action. I can control what I do far more than I can influence others. "We" in the movement must look to what we haven't done and what we can do to eliminate GFSZs, the real underlying reason why those 20 innocents are dead.

The most important thing we can do is to make the conversation on how to reduce the occurrence of future Sandy Hooks be about how GFSZs are the problem and their elimination, the fix.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
The responsibility rests squarely on those who vote anti-liberty politicians into office, liberals, or vote to have anti-liberty politicians remain in office, liberals. Thus our children will remain vulnerable, as liberal desire them to be. Life and the preservation of life is secondary to liberals and the liberal agenda. Example: abortion.

The Op focuses on the wrong term. It is not democrat or republican, it is liberty or anti-liberty. Liberals are anti-liberty. Constitutional conservatives, such as my self, are liberty centric.

The below is provided to aid the reader in understanding what a constitutional conservative proclaims himself to be.Yes, I do think that the above has relevance to the OP.

Ahh, so the presumption is that if the school was not a Gun Free Zone, there would not have been a shooting at the school?

Lincoln was a Progressive, thank goodness for all.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
*snippers*
The most important thing we can do is to make the conversation on how to reduce the occurrence of future Sandy Hooks be about how GFSZs are the problem and their elimination, the fix.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Poverty, Mental Health; I'm sure, you would rather talk only about firearms.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
Getting rid of Gun Free Zones isn't going to stop crazy people from doing crazy things...but at least without GFZ's there is a chance that there will be someone to stop it before 26 people are killed.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It won't stop all of them. But, considering that almost ALL mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, a lot of these loonies are lucid enough to be deliberately picking such places to shoot up. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some shootings just won't happen because the shooter decides against shooting up a place where folks can shoot back.

That, and, if the shooter does shoot the place up, folks will shoot back, saving lives.

It is logical to conclude that eliminating GFSZ will significantly reduce both the number of shooting incidents and the number of deaths of innocents.

Were it not for GFSZ, Sandy Hook would likely never have happened and, if it did, would likely have ended much sooner with many fewer deaths.

GFSZ are causing the deaths of innocents.
 

Forty-five

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
223
Location
, Virginia, USA
pp
It won't stop all of them. But, considering that almost ALL mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, a lot of these loonies are lucid enough to be deliberately picking such places to shoot up. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some shootings just won't happen because the shooter decides against shooting up a place where folks can shoot back.

That, and, if the shooter does shoot the place up, folks will shoot back, saving lives.

It is logical to conclude that eliminating GFSZ will significantly reduce both the number of shooting incidents and the number of deaths of innocents.

Were it not for GFSZ, Sandy Hook would likely never have happened and, if it did, would likely have ended much sooner with many fewer deaths.

GFSZ are causing the deaths of innocents.

Lest we forget, the Aurora shooter for some reason, selected a theatre that banned ccw. Apparently, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The Aurora shooter is probably the most obvious case of a shooter selecting a GFZ, but the overwhelming majority of mass shootings happening in GFZ leads to the inescapable conclusion that virtually ALL mass shooters are deliberately selecting GFZ.
 
Last edited:

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
It won't stop all of them. But, considering that almost ALL mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, a lot of these loonies are lucid enough to be deliberately picking such places to shoot up. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some shootings just won't happen because the shooter decides against shooting up a place where folks can shoot back.

That, and, if the shooter does shoot the place up, folks will shoot back, saving lives.

It is logical to conclude that eliminating GFSZ will significantly reduce both the number of shooting incidents and the number of deaths of innocents.

Were it not for GFSZ, Sandy Hook would likely never have happened and, if it did, would likely have ended much sooner with many fewer deaths.

GFSZ are causing the deaths of innocents.

Definitely not disagreeing. Not to mention that IMO they are unconstitutional anyway.
 

Forty-five

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
223
Location
, Virginia, USA
The Aurora shooter is probably the most obvious case of a shooter selecting a GFZ, but the overwhelming majority of mass shootings happening in GFZ leads to the inescapable conclusion that virtually ALL mass shooters are deliberately selecting GFZ.

+1
 
Top