• 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.

Having a good day, I am here to destroy it.

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
Last edited:

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
474
Location
Suffolk VA
The President also said this:

"So surely we can have a debate that’s not based on the notion that somehow your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving …"

If they were actually doing something that would prevent anything, like going after the people who get the guns to the criminal, maybe we could have a real debate, but when they are pushing for things that only affect LAC's it's hard to take them seriously.

And I know going after the ones who get criminals their guns has nothing to do with Newtown, but it could actually be a realistic step.

Problem with that is even if it's effective, it might lead to more stolen weapons.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
They like to dance around some issues as do we. They do less of it than one might think because they go straight to the point many times whereas we tend to ignore or dismiss their thrust because it intersects with what we believe to be dangerous to liberty. And this raises a simple question.

Are you willing to sacrifice, to give up some of your freedom and some of your liberty in order to "make the children safer"? (they always like to use the children idea) Would you be willing to live with less liberty if you knew it would result is fewer people being killed with firearms?

Personally, I say no. And while that may seem cold and heartless, I don't believe for a minute that our Founders had it in mind that we should do anything of the sort to buy more safety for anyone. I believe that if we were to offer up the sacrificial lamb in the form of the outlawing and confiscation of a whole class of firearms, indeed rendering us down to bolt action rifle and revolvers, we would be making The People less secure, less safe, and more easily susceptible to creeping tyranny. Is that worth their argument of "if it saves just one life"?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I have no issue with his statement. In fact, I support it. So what, President Obama has acknowledged a Constitutional restraint.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I have no issue with his statement. In fact, I support it. So what, President Obama has acknowledged a Constitutional restraint.

Acknowledgement doesn't mean he gives a **** or plans to follow it. He has proven that already, if anything this statement would reaffirm he wants to go after the 2A so that he is free to push all the gun control he wants to.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Acknowledgement doesn't mean he gives a **** or plans to follow it. He has proven that already, if anything this statement would reaffirm he wants to go after the 2A so that he is free to push all the gun control he wants to.

I agree, it doesn't mean he gives a crapola. Apparently he plans to follow it.

You're in it for the fight, and the mulling in typical firearm community propaganda.

If you were interested in a constructive approach, you would tame the rhetoric, and take a balanced approach.--you're a dime a dozen in this community.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I agree, it doesn't mean he gives a crapola. Apparently he plans to follow it.

You're in it for the fight, and the mulling in typical firearm community propaganda.

If you were interested in a constructive approach, you would tame the rhetoric, and take a balanced approach.--you're a dime a dozen in this community.

I can only go off of his actions. And his actions represent someone who doesn't care about our Constitution and will do what he wants to do regardless. Someone who respected the 2A wouldn't be pushing for AWB's, Magazine limits, Universal Background Checks, and supporting people in States like Illinois, California, New York, and Connecticut who are trying their hardest to completely remove the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm not interested in a constructive approach, he has shown where his interest lies and it's definitely not with the Constitution.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I can only go off of his actions. And his actions represent someone who doesn't care about our Constitution and will do what he wants to do regardless. Someone who respected the 2A wouldn't be pushing for AWB's, Magazine limits, Universal Background Checks, and supporting people in States like Illinois, California, New York, and Connecticut who are trying their hardest to completely remove the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm not interested in a constructive approach, he has shown where his interest lies and it's definitely not with the Constitution.

So, his statement, being the action that it is, is one that falls under not caring about the Constitution? Just making sure we are clear, here.


The Second Amendment states nothing about AWB, mag limits, UBC, so, we're playing it by ear here.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
So, his statement, being the action that it is, is one that falls under not caring about the Constitution? Just making sure we are clear, here.


The Second Amendment states nothing about AWB, mag limits, UBC, so, we're playing it by ear here.

Actions speak louder than words. What he says is not compatible with what he is doing. He says that the 2A limits what he can do, but supports legislation that isn't in agreement with the 2A. All of those things DO apply to the 2A, "shall not be infringed". Any legislation that in anyway infringes on a persons right to keep and bear arms is in direct violation. Including the unconstitutional ban on automatic weapons. Banning thousands of modern firearms is infringement. Banning magazines with the capacity of more than 10 rounds is infringement. Forcing me to submit to a background check before purchasing a weapon, including forcing my children to obtain a background check before I can give them a firearm is infringement. Period, no compromise. I don't give a rats ass about what he says, I care about what he does.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
He has always said that the Constitution is the thing. Look back as his campaigns, when he said that the federal government cannot get rid of guns.

That said, while he is taking the "lets be reasonable about everything short of a ban" approach, the problem becomes one of which restrictions make us safer but do not prevent us from being effective as a militia of individual gun owners. The disagreement spurs hinges (this time) on the idea that things like restricting who buys a military-style rifle can or should be the domain of the federal government.

92 thinks restrictions are ok. Many of us think they are an ineffective folly that will lead to us being ineffective as a militia, should the need arise. Again, some people want the government to have control, most of those here do not ever want that.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
He has always said that the Constitution is the thing. Look back as his campaigns, when he said that the federal government cannot get rid of guns.

That said, while he is taking the "lets be reasonable about everything short of a ban" approach, the problem becomes one of which restrictions make us safer but do not prevent us from being effective as a militia of individual gun owners. The disagreement spurs hinges (this time) on the idea that things like restricting who buys a military-style rifle can or should be the domain of the federal government.

92 thinks restrictions are ok. Many of us think they are an ineffective folly that will lead to us being ineffective as a militia, should the need arise. Again, some people want the government to have control, most of those here do not ever want that.

you want to know what I think, ask me, and I'll tell you.

I didn't say restrictions are OK. I said that I could care less about some restriction.

I never stated restrictions are effective, in fact, I have stated that restriction will have ZERO effect on violence by firearm.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
you want to know what I think, ask me, and I'll tell you.

I didn't say restrictions are OK. I said that I could care less about some restriction.

I never stated restrictions are effective, in fact, I have stated that restriction will have ZERO effect on violence by firearm.

Sorry, didn't mean to say that you felt they were effective, it was a poorly formed paragraph. But my reading of your posts was that you felt certain restrictions are acceptable. I stand corrected.

I do think that many people, not just liberals, feel that gun control works, most likely because they have been told that by the media and politicians and academics. And they think incremental restrictions will incrementally decrease crime and violence. (And it's amazing to me how many people don't know the differences in prevention between a criminal and some crazy person who suddenly goes ballistic.)
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Sorry, didn't mean to say that you felt they were effective, it was a poorly formed paragraph. But my reading of your posts was that you felt certain restrictions are acceptable. I stand corrected.

I do think that many people, not just liberals, feel that gun control works, most likely because they have been told that by the media and politicians and academics. And they think incremental restrictions will incrementally decrease crime and violence. (And it's amazing to me how many people don't know the differences in prevention between a criminal and some crazy person who suddenly goes ballistic.)

Restrictions aren't acceptable; some restriction will have an actual effect on my firearm, and some won't; restrictions are Constitutional.

Firearm restrictions do not work, period! It's pandering at best, not Constitutional at worse.

And the Right think incremental increase in prison sentences will decrease crime and violence...such as: Death Penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrent.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Restrictions aren't acceptable; some restriction will have an actual effect on my firearm, and some won't; restrictions are Constitutional.

Firearm restrictions do not work, period! It's pandering at best, not Constitutional at worse.

And the Right think incremental increase in prison sentences will decrease crime and violence...such as: Death Penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrent.

Except that dead men don't kill people.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
you want to know what I think, ask me, and I'll tell you.

I didn't say restrictions are OK. I said that I could care less about some restriction.

I never stated restrictions are effective, in fact, I have stated that restriction will have ZERO effect on violence by firearm.
B92FSL will only tell you what she truly thinks if it suits her anti-liberty and anti-citizen agenda.

She will not "say" that restrictions are "OK" but there is not a "restriction" she does not support because she votes liberal. When the power of the federal government comes knocking on her door then her interest in restrictions may be piqued. Until then she is very comfortable with restrictions on any other citizen that do not affect her.

Liberals routinely achknowledge that restrictions have no affect on 'X' but this does not stop them from implementing restrictions inspite of fact or logic. Remember, B92FSL is a liberal and she is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
B92FSL will only tell you what she truly thinks if it suits her anti-liberty and anti-citizen agenda.

She will not "say" that restrictions are "OK" but there is not a "restriction" she does not support because she votes liberal. When the power of the federal government comes knocking on her door then her interest in restrictions may be piqued. Until then she is very comfortable with restrictions on any other citizen that do not affect her.

Liberals routinely achknowledge that restrictions have no affect on 'X' but this does not stop them from implementing restrictions inspite of fact or logic. Remember, B92FSL is a liberal and she is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.

I will tell you what I think, if it suits my fancy.

I voted for President Obama, twice, and hope to again in 2016.

Blah, blah, anti-Liberty, blah, blah, blah, antio-Freedom, blah, blah. Obviously, like myself, you have nothing better to do with your time.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I will tell you what I think, if it suits my fancy.

I voted for President Obama, twice, and hope to again in 2016.

Blah, blah, anti-Liberty, blah, blah, blah, antio-Freedom, blah, blah. Obviously, like myself, you have nothing better to do with your time.
Exposing liberals at every opportunity is one of my hobbies. I don't have many hobbies, being a productive citizen and all, but I find that liberals permit me to engage in this hobby quite frequently.

What other hobby requires such a trifling investment of effort to receive such wholesale rewards.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Exposing liberals at every opportunity is one of my hobbies. I don't have many hobbies, being a productive citizen and all, but I find that liberals permit me to engage in this hobby quite frequently.

What other hobby requires such a trifling investment of effort to receive such wholesale rewards.

I make it a daily quest to expose myself, every day, by all accessible means.
 
Top