Obama losing his gun control campaign

[laynpipe]

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

.

You just directly contradicted yourself in two adjacent sentences.

Nice job.


I predicted weeks ago that the Big Obama/Feinstein Gun Grab was going to end up as confetti on the floors of Congress.

[laynpipe]

No Gil......I didnt. Reasonable regulation is term used by law. That is not a contradiction.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

No Gil......I didnt. Reasonable regulation is term used by law. That is not a contradiction.

Banning certain rifles simply because of their color and the "way they look" is not reasonable - nor based on anything rational - and never has been.

Why aren't much, much higher power rifles with similar magazine capacity on that ban list?

But your response is sadly typical of the anti-gun lobby: We can ban these weapons because we have banned others already.

Superb logic ..that. Somewhat circular in nature, sure...but these are left-wingers we are talking about.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

I am curious if you simply don't know what you are talking about or are intentionally being dishonest?

Here is a SIMPLE test and I ask you to answer it honestly;

If all the 'military style' guns were confiscated today, this year, will that stop mass murder?

If not (sorry, I thought I'd help you with the previous question) and someone kills 18 kids with two revolvers and a shotgun, perhaps a 'hunting' rifle' will there then be calls to also confiscate those arms or will you, and others say "Well, OK. At least they were not murdered with 'military' style arms."

Lastly, after you then call for the confiscation of those arms (sorry, just trying to help) how will you then answer my first question?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Banning certain rifles simply because of their color and the "way they look" is not reasonable - nor based on anything rational - and never has been.

Yeah, it is. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Banning the 'low hanging' fruit is a very reasonable step in abolishing the right to keep and bear arms.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

When was the Bill of Rights ever about "needs"?

You should tell that to these folks.



Boy Uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader - YouTube



Student Uses AR-15 Semi-Automatic Rifle to Stop Home Invasion - Rochester, New York - YouTube

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Yeah, it is. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Banning the 'low hanging' fruit is a very reasonable step in abolishing the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course I was looking at it from a pro gun rights perspective. You correctly highlighted the anti-gun pro big government perspective...

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

In terms of defining the 2nd, WHO decides what I need? If someone breaks into my house with an AR15, should I not at least have equal capability to thwart that criminal? Doesn’t that define my NEED?

Banning of any firearm IS taking away my right own firearms; firearms that I deem necessary for ME; not what the government – or YOU – seem fit to bless me with. Exercise of my rights is not defined by someone else. Right a, plain and simple, just IS.

You seem to forget that when I have to ask permission to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. So, banning certain guns, demanding background checks, applying for permits… all of these things are asking permission from our government to exercise a ‘right’. You do know the difference between a right and a privilege don’t you?

[aps45819]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

WRONG

“The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time, therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.” Senator Dianne Feinstein

Feinstein: 'Purpose Is To Dry Up The Supply Of These Weapons Over Time'