Jump to content

Why Gun Owners Distrust Our Government Where The 2nd Amendment Is Concerned


Recommended Posts

From their lips to our ears over the years:

 

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

“Only the police should have handguns.“

“When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps”

 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

 

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban,

picking up every one of them; ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,’ I would have done it.”

 

“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

“We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”

 

HOWARD METZENBAUM, FORMER U.S. SENATOR

“No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”

 

PETE STARK, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.”

 

WILLIAM CLAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI

“We need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns.”

 

JOSEPH BIDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

 

JOHN CHAFEE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”

 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS

“I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun....”

 

MAJOR OWENS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

 

BOBBY RUSH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS

“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets.

Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”

 

FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY JIM BRADY

“Using handguns for target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police.”

 

 

These are but a few over the years of concerning comments. This is why I (and many Americans) don't trust our elected officials when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While I get your point isn't the fact that we have 435 in Congress and 100 in the Senate enough to overcome the very few?
The way I view it, where one side is concerned, I don't really believe it's the "very few". That's the worrisome and problematic part of it for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish we could go back in time and see what our fore fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

 

 

I do find it interesting that there is a huge voice for the preservation of the 2nd amendment but when it comes to the 14th amendment a lot of the same who want the 2nd amendment preserved are against the 14th being preserved in the exact same manner.

 

 

I plan on taking my concealed weapons course in September. :D.

 

Break yourself!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY JIM BRADY

“Using handguns for target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police.”

 

Wow. I don't understand this line of thinking at all. If someone comes into my home to cause my family or property harm you better believe I'll do what I need to protect my family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish we could go back in time and see what our fore fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

 

 

I do find it interesting that there is a huge voice for the preservation of the 2nd amendment but when it comes to the 14th amendment a lot of the same who want the 2nd amendment preserved are against the 14th being preserved in the exact same manner.

 

 

I plan on taking my concealed weapons course in September. :D.

 

Break yourself!!!!

1. Not sure what your point on our forefathers would be. Is it the militia clause, the change in weaponry? What?

 

 

2. Please explain what part of the 14th Amendment 2nd Amendment supporters don't want preserved.

 

Glad to see you getting a CC! :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I don't understand this line of thinking at all. If someone comes into my home to cause my family or property harm you better believe I'll do what I need to protect my family.
I've never understood that line of thinking either. You can't always expect the police to be able to arrive in time. In fact, as good of a job as the police do, and it's exceptional, they can rarely arrive in time to stop a crime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Not sure what your point on our forefathers would be. Is it the militia clause, the change in weaponry? What?

 

 

2. Please explain what part of the 14th Amendment 2nd Amendment supporters don't want preserved.

 

Glad to see you getting a CC! :thumb:

 

 

1. Just wondering what they meant by the right to bear arms. I wouldn't be opposed to the ban of guns such as the AK-47. I wonder if they were around now would they say had they known about guns such as this of they would have banned them. It's not like guns like the AK-47 could be bough when they wrote the constitution.

 

2. I say that about the 14th because of all of the voter ID issues going on. Some of the staunchest supporters of the 2nd amendment are satisfied with how the voter ID situations. Just seems like an oxymoron to me. People will be for what works for their ideals.

 

I'm geeked. I hope to buy a .45 one day. Probably need to go to a counselor to calm my road rage before I start carrying though. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood that line of thinking either. You can't always expect the police to be able to arrive in time. In fact, as good of a job as the police do, and it's exceptional, they can rarely arrive in time to stop a crime.

 

Would the people who say things like that quote actually follow through with it? If a person's family (and self) where in danger would they simply call the police and hope they got there in time? I don't get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Just wondering what they meant by the right to bear arms. I wouldn't be opposed to the ban of guns such as the AK-47. I wonder if they were around now would they say had they known about guns such as this of they would have banned them. It's not like guns like the AK-47 could be bough when they wrote the constitution.

 

2. I say that about the 14th because of all of the voter ID issues going on. Some of the staunchest supporters of the 2nd amendment are satisfied with how the voter ID situations. Just seems like an oxymoron to me. People will be for what works for their ideals.

 

I'm geeked. I hope to buy a .45 one day. Probably need to go to a counselor to calm my road rage before I start carrying though. :D

1. What about an AK47 bothers you? Capacity? the look? The ammunition?

A little thought of thing about weapons today vs weapons of then is medical advancement concerning gunshot wounds. In the day when the 2nd was framed, a gunshot would be extremely deadly whereas today you have a much better chance at being successfully treated with a gunshot wound. Yes, they're still very deadly, but the point is guns then were considered every bit as deadly as they are today.

 

2. I get your point, but I think what I proposed in another thread would be a good way to address the voter ID problem.

 

I'm sure you'll be fine in controlling your rage. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What about an AK47 bothers you? Capacity? the look? The ammunition?

A little thought of thing about weapons today vs weapons of then is medical advancement concerning gunshot wounds. In the day when the 2nd was framed, a gunshot would be extremely deadly whereas today you have a much better chance at being successfully treated with a gunshot wound. Yes, they're still very deadly, but the point is guns then were considered every bit as deadly as they are today.

 

2. I get your point, but I think what I proposed in another thread would be a good way to address the voter ID problem.

 

I'm sure you'll be fine in controlling your rage. :lol:

 

For me, the AK is an advanced piece of weaponry. I'm the guy who is for some gun control but I do believe some guns should only be available for use by the military. I want a gun or guns to defend my home. If I need an AK to defend my home then I should probably look into moving. It just seems like a big gun to have if you're not going to be killing anyone with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.