The original no-smoking law was to not allow smoking on flights of less than a certain distance. A very reasonable request.

 

The intent of the non-smoking proponents was to ban cigarettes entirely. We're almost there.

 

I'm not saying this in support of smoking, I'm just using it as an example.

 

The anti-gun people want to ban guns entirely. The approach is always to do something that is reasonable. Then take a little more and a little more until they take all of it.

 

Over the years we have seen our rights infringed on by by small reasonable amounts over and over again. Gun advocates know this is how liberties are lost and will continue to fight every infingement with fervor.

:thumb:

I have to say that this is one of the best posts that I have seen on this issue. :thumb:

He's spot on.

I honestly believe that some people think more laws are the answer simply because they want to believe in our government administration. They still don't think our government will lie to us. I personally don't care which party is in charge at the time, they will all skew the facts to get what they want. The new administration has caused gun sales to rocket to an all-time high in the last four months. :thumb:

Agreed, and I can personally vouch for the skyrocketing sales.

With all due respect, it's not I that's portraying you that way, it's you. I can't remember one time you've taken the gun owners side on any gun issue here on BGP...

I've rarely discussed gun issues on here. And just because I don't take your positions on the issues doesn't mean I'm anti-gun.

At birth, your finger and footprints are recorded.

Your social security number is on record just about everywhere you can think.

Your cell-phone records can be subpoenaed without your knowledge.

Your credit report is available to just about anyone who wants to subscribe to the service to access it.

You have to have a license to practice medicine, drive a car, practice law, be an anesthesiologist, be a pharmacist, be a HAIR DRESSER.

 

I'm just not sure it matters if they have my fingerprints. I really don't mind if they do. They pretty much know anything and everything about me now.

Then for what reason do they need my fingerprints, my mental health records, and so on? They have enough info on me now. They need to leave us alone.

I'm not operating my gun in public, if I were, I'd need a CC license. It's none of their business what guns I have in my home.

I've rarely discussed gun issues on here. And just because I don't take your positions on the issues doesn't mean I'm anti-gun.

I didn't say, my side, I said gun owners side. I've seen you come into several gun threads and take the opposition side in the past, this isn't the first. That's fine, it's your right, I just think you need to be a little more upfront is all. If you lean more toward anti-gun, just say so.

How exactly would that work? There is a big difference between what is being proposed and confiscation. Confiscation would clearly require a Constitutional amendment. These kind of bogie man suggestions do little to advance the discussion and a lot to stir up the gun nuts...

It does not take much imagination to see a future where legal guns would be a rarity.

 

• Install two or three new liberal justices on the US Supreme Court.
  
• Tax, tax, tax - impose high tax rates on guns and ammunition to discourage gun ownership.
  
• Use taxpayer funds for gun buy-back programs. If more money is needed than is available, then borrow it from the Chinese - they will be happy to participate in the disarming of this nation.
  
• Continue to pass ridiculous gun regulations that make it increasingly burdensome for law-abiding citizens to afford to own guns. For example, require legacy firearms to be retro-fitted with security systems to confirm the identity of the owner before firing. Require all new guns to include such systems.
  

It may be a cliche but the power to tax is the power to destroy. Enterprising socialists seeking a near-government monopoly on firearms could make it happen. You are correct that banning all guns would require a constitutional amendment but never underestimate the ability of liberals to circumvent the US Constitution by finding the "right" judges to hear cases.

 

I wonder when Obama will be sending details of his national security force to Congress? (The one that he says should be as powerful and well financed as our military.)

Hitler on Gun Control

 

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.

How exactly would that work? There is a big difference between what is being proposed and confiscation. Confiscation would clearly require a Constitutional amendment. These kind of bogie man suggestions do little to advance the discussion and a lot to stir up the gun nuts...

Oh here we go, everyone that's the least bit leery of the anti-gun side are gun nuts.

It's not hard to get a Constitutional amendment if you have the right Supreme Court justices in place. Obama will likely do his best in that department.

Oh here we go, everyone that's the least bit leery of the anti-gun side are gun nuts.

It's not hard to get a Constitutional amendment if you have the right Supreme Court justices in place. Obama will likely do his best in that department.

 

 

What's different than you saying that people who support incresed gun control are anti-gun? That doesn't seem to be hard to throw around as a label.

What's different than you saying that people who support incresed gun control are anti-gun? That doesn't seem to be hard to throw around as a label.

Simple, any gun owner that wants more gun control has to have his head in the sand, it's over-regulated as it is. So, it's usually pretty easy to tell a true gun owner from one who just wants gun control, the key word being control. Bottom line, in this day and age, they're anti-gun.

I didn't say, my side, I said gun owners side. I've seen you come into several gun threads and take the opposition side in the past, this isn't the first. That's fine, it's your right, I just think you need to be a little more upfront is all. If you lean more toward anti-gun, just say so.

You may have me confused with someone else ... I've rarely, if ever, discussed gun issues in this forum.

 

Honestly, have you ever known me not to be upfront about my views on an issue? I told you what my position is ... you can choose to not believe me if you wish.

The original no-smoking law was to not allow smoking on flights of less than a certain distance. A very reasonable request.

 

The intent of the non-smoking proponents was to ban cigarettes entirely. We're almost there.

 

I'm not saying this in support of smoking, I'm just using it as an example.

 

The anti-gun people want to ban guns entirely. The approach is always to do something that is reasonable. Then take a little more and a little more until they take all of it.

 

Over the years we have seen our rights infringed on by by small reasonable amounts over and over again. Gun advocates know this is how liberties are lost and will continue to fight every infingement with fervor.

 

 

Saying that gun control laws will lead to gun confiscation is a little like saying speed limits will lead to the outlawing of automobiles.

You may have me confused with someone else ... I've rarely, if ever, discussed gun issues in this forum.

 

Honestly, have you ever known me not to be upfront about my views on an issue? I told you what my position is ... you can choose to not believe me if you wish.

It could be, but I doubt it, or it could be you just like to disagree with me. :lol: Seriously, I'd thought you had on several occasions, I could be wrong though. However, in all honesty, you really don't come across as pro-gun at all, at least to me.

Saying that gun control laws will lead to gun confiscation is a little like saying speed limits will lead to the outlawing of automobiles.

Horrible analogy. :creepy:

Guns are being regulated and taxed to death, as Hoot Gibson and I have both explained, it's not as hard to do as you try to make it sound.

It could be, but I doubt it, or it could be you just like to disagree with me. :lol: Seriously, I'd thought you had on several occasions, I could be wrong though. However, in all honesty, you really don't come across as pro-gun at all, at least to me.

 

 

Frankly, I think there are fewer pro-gun and anti-gun people out there combined than apathetic-gun people.

 

It just seems that on this issue, there's a mentality of "you're either for us, or against us". Frankly, I'm for gun control, not anti-gun...and in the largest sense of things, I'm apathetic about gun ownership. I don't care two hoots if you own one. I don't want to own one, personally. It's not really an issue that affects me, despite the best efforts of the NRA to convince me that all my constitutional rights will be rescinded if it's any harder for someone to get a gun.