Sad day for gunowners....
With 90 million gunowners (as of the LAST potus election) we could and SHOULD, OWN the election process in America.
Last night, it became obvious, that we WANT our guns taken from us. We did not get out and OWN the process and the 2 worst of the group, the two who will condone infringements and, and if not outright, lay the path for confiscation, enjoyed enormous success!
We should all be very very ashamed.[V]
Last night, it became obvious, that we WANT our guns taken from us. We did not get out and OWN the process and the 2 worst of the group, the two who will condone infringements and, and if not outright, lay the path for confiscation, enjoyed enormous success!
We should all be very very ashamed.[V]
0
-
quote:otherwise render them incompetent.
And not voting for and putting in the effort to support the only guy who will return the favor is competence? NO! It is incompetence of the worst kind!
You supporters of incrementalism is why we are where we are, and why it will get worse, never better.
quote:just steps to ensure that the rest of us can enjoy our guns.
Verbatim the words "hunters" who do not not support the REAL RTKBA use when there is an infringement. I got into an argument at hte dinner table with my b-i-l a few months back when he uttered the words "what do you need an AK for to hunt deer". This argument started there, and was over about ten seconds later when he had no reply to "where does it say that in the 2nd amendment. He said "I guess you're right." I was still very perturbed. He crossed over the line and I sent him straight back. I think he changed his position, I hope.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
So, what is the answer? Let EVERYONE own a gun and then let the best shots weed them out? I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, but if let's say EVERBODY can get a gun, pretty soon, we've got two or three more Virginia Tech type shootings because some whacko went to the local pawn shop and buys a gun. Then, you're gonna have more pressure and momentum from the anti-gunners, media and the public. And in turn, more strict laws. Then what? I don't have the answers and don't pretend to either. But, my job as a Police Officer is the protection of life, limb, and property and if any cook-job or convicted murderer could own a gun without consequences, my job would be alot harder, and society as a whole would suffer. Just my opinion, and opinions are like buttholes, everybody's got one and most stink.
There's too many wannabie vigilantes that can't wait to go out and shoot someone on a daily basis. Proclaiming "I am making the streets safe for all"0 -
Wartiger, why do you fool yourself into thinking you can control this juggernaut? What has lead you to believe that? All the honest guys up there making the rules? Get a clue man, give them inch....[8] Quit being a fool, they are coming for them, we are letting them!
quote:But, my job as a Police Officer is the protection of life, limb, and property and if any cook-job or convicted murderer could own a gun without consequences, my job would be alot harder, and society as a whole would suffer.
Ok, if everybody was required to own a gun, how much trouble would your job be? Would there be any violent criminals? There are a couple towns in the US that do this, one in TX, and the other I believe is in GA, they have virtually no violent crime. What do you think about that?0 -
that sux 0 -
quote:There's too many wannabie vigilantes that can't wait to go out and shoot someone on a daily basis. Proclaiming "I am making the streets safe for all"
Who might that be? Can you offer one link to stories of this stereotypical group you are talking about?0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
So, what is the answer? Let EVERYONE own a gun and then let the best shots weed them out? I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, but if let's say EVERBODY can get a gun, pretty soon, we've got two or three more Virginia Tech type shootings because some whacko went to the local pawn shop and buys a gun. Then, you're gonna have more pressure and momentum from the anti-gunners, media and the public. And in turn, more strict laws. Then what? I don't have the answers and don't pretend to either. But, my job as a Police Officer is the protection of life, limb, and property and if any cook-job or convicted murderer could own a gun without consequences, my job would be alot harder, and society as a whole would suffer. Just my opinion, and opinions are like buttholes, everybody's got one and most stink.
Up till 1934, you could own ANY firearm you wanted, if your scenario had any validity, don't you think it would have happened back when there were no restrictions? Perhap you should consider that a good portion of these "mass murderers" cap themselves as soon as any armed threat arrives? perhaps they might not try to be famous if they knew, without a doubt that they would not get more than a few rounds off before a armed citizen stopped them.0 -
originally posted by wartiger:
So, what is the answer? Let EVERYONE own a gun and then let the best shots weed them out? I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, but if let's say EVERBODY can get a gun, pretty soon, we've got two or three more Virginia Tech type shootings because some whacko went to the local pawn shop and buys a gun. Then, you're gonna have more pressure and momentum from the anti-gunners, media and the public. And in turn, more strict laws. Then what? I don't have the answers and don't pretend to either. But, my job as a Police Officer is the protection of life, limb, and property and if any cook-job or convicted murderer could own a gun without consequences, my job would be alot harder, and society as a whole would suffer. Just my opinion, and opinions are like buttholes, everybody's got one and most stink.
Tiger,
first, thank you for your service as a LE officer. I hope you are one of the good ones. I am a firefighter; i hope you will not hold that against me [:D][:D].
i believe that most on here would agree that the majority of wackos, thugs, and gangbangers obtain their weapons illegally to begin with. Most of them will buy them for next to nothing from the crack addict on the street instead of walking into a shop and paying full price for them.
As far as your reference to the VA Tech shootings: it was a college campus, and marked as a gun-free zone by Federal law, just like Jonesboro, Columbine, and others. No legislation will stop the criminal mind. some criminals, by nature, are violent. There is no reasoning with them. The only thing they understand is violence, and that is the only way to deal with them. When Malcom Miscreant goes out to prey on the citizens, and is unsuccessful in his endeavors because he is dying from the GSW to his belly, then the ctiminal element may start to see that, "hey, with all these armed people, this lifestyle is not conducive to living." If they do not see the light, and die at the hands of a "victim" as a result of their continued rapes, robberies, and pillaging, so be it. they had it coming.0 -
firedude, you are a most welcome addition to GB
btw this thread is officially hijacked[V] it was about lack of gunowner involvement in the election process. it is now about the results. oh well.0 -
thx JP,
i believe i am in good company.[:D][:D][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
So, what is the answer? Let EVERYONE own a gun and then let the best shots weed them out? I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, but if let's say EVERBODY can get a gun, pretty soon, we've got two or three more Virginia Tech type shootings because some whacko went to the local pawn shop and buys a gun. Then, you're gonna have more pressure and momentum from the anti-gunners, media and the public. And in turn, more strict laws. Then what? I don't have the answers and don't pretend to either. But, my job as a Police Officer is the protection of life, limb, and property and if any cook-job or convicted murderer could own a gun without consequences, my job would be alot harder, and society as a whole would suffer. Just my opinion, and opinions are like buttholes, everybody's got one and most stink.
Up till 1934, you could own ANY firearm you wanted, if your scenario had any validity, don't you think it would have happened back when there were no restrictions? Perhap you should consider that a good portion of these "mass murderers" cap themselves as soon as any armed threat arrives? perhaps they might not try to be famous if they knew, without a doubt that they would not get more than a few rounds off before a armed citizen stopped them.
Back in 1934, the mentality of people as a society was MUCH different. There was no such thing as crack or meth and the worst gang was the mob and you could usually avoid them. People have changed, our morals have eroded, our ethics have disappeared, we have changed. And what about the 70 year old grandmother who had never even held a gun? How many victims do think there would be before that one armed citizen confronted them. Guys, we don't live in a perfect world and there are no perfect solutions. I guess all we can do is what we think is best for us and our family. Personaly, my Glock and 12 ga. will do my "problem solving".0 -
Don't worry JP every thread gets hijacked...[;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
Personaly, my Glock and 12 ga. will do my "problem solving".
Of course they will.....you're a cop
You've stated you have no problem with the rest of us standing in line, asking for permission to exercise a "Right"
Unfortunately, thats not surprising......0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
Personaly, my Glock and 12 ga. will do my "problem solving".
Of course they will.....you're a cop
You've stated you have no problem with the rest of us standing in line, asking for permission to exercise a "Right"
Unfortunately, thats not surprising......
Aw give me a break with the cop bashing. The only "MIGHTIER THAN THOU" attitude I've seen on here is from folks like you. I said "I" have no problem with waiting, and just because I am a COP does not exempt me from any background checks to purchase a firearm. In Georgia, you fill out the paperwork, the gun dealer calls the "people" and they tell the gun dealer yes or no. The only exemption is for those who have concealed carry permits. My being a cop has NO bearing on me purchasing a gun or possessing a gun.0 -
You always find there is a VAST difference between a LEO....
and a Peace Officer.
I highly recommend that you get in touch with David Nunn. He may well be tired of educating the police about the difference.but pray go back and dig a bit, then.
Those that cannot help repeating the mantra of the gun grabbers.." Wants to be a vigilante' , ect., I am really sad for you. You are projecting your OWN wet dreams upon civilized, thoughtful men.
You may continue allowing the Beast to ensure your safety and that of your family..hired guns doing what you have not the courage to do.0 -
wartiger
quote:But, my job as a Police Officer is the protection of life, limb, and property
Sadly, that is not yur job because it can't be done, the only person who can do that is called "self", right?
Ok, if everybody was required to own a gun, how much trouble would your job be? Would there be any violent criminals? There are a couple towns in the US that do this, one in TX, and the other I believe is in GA, they have virtually no violent crime. What do you think about that?
HunterMag
quote:
There's too many wannabie vigilantes that can't wait to go out and shoot someone on a daily basis. Proclaiming "I am making the streets safe for all"
Who might that be? Can you offer one link to stories of this stereotypical group you are talking about? I have never seen this type.0 -
I, as a "Peace Officer", always try to settle things peacefully. It is never my intentions to use force or even to arrest, unless absolutely necessary. I do not rely on my guns to solve situations, but rather my head. A mind, if used correctly, can be the greatest "weapon" an officer can have. And getting back to the original intent of the thread, Yes, I voted, and for what's it worth, I voted for Ron Paul, so, I did my part, where were the rest of us "GUN OWNERS"??????? 0 -
jpwolf,
A "little" upset over last nights results, are you?
Did you see the LAST bastion of hope, fly out the window?
Did you watch people (who only a short while ago) were SCREAMING about ILLEGAL aliens, pull the lever FOR MR McAMNESTY? Or worse, MRS.....0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:
90 MILLION GUN OWNERS. and 4MILLION NRA MEMBERS, When they come to take our guns. WE CAN THANK THE NON-MEMBERS, I'M a LIFE MEMBER, ARE YOU ?
Actually, the NRA has put their stamp of approval on EVERY ANTI-Gun LAW EVER PASSED.
So I guess we can thank those who blindly throw their money at Wayne & Co. By becoming life members.
BS0 -
MVP....Not.
quote:jpwolf,
A "little" upset over last nights results, are you?
Did you see the LAST bastion of hope, fly out the window?
Did you watch people (who only a short while ago) were SCREAMING about ILLEGAL aliens, pull the lever FOR MR McAMNESTY? Or worse, MRS.....
What picken, what? Does something seem different about me today?0 -
Too many people today won't vote, then they just bitch about getting the shaft!!! Said it many times before, iffin ya don't vote, then don't complain!!! 0 -
Well, it seems that at this point, it's lose/lose booger. You can either vote for a dem with D, or a dem with an R.
Sure was smart to let the only honest man in 20 years slip away because Sean Hannity snickered at him...smart.0 -
The Republican convention will probably be a brokered convention.
The person with the most votes can get elected by the party
at the convention. No one is going to have the 51% they need
to get the nomination. It's too split a vote right now.
If everyone gets off their butts and becomes a delegate,
you can get to the conventions and vote in your guy. Simple0 -
Very simple... you complain to each other, you preach to the choir.
You do NOT demand of your elected representatives to do what is right.0 -
I wonder if a Romney/Huck coalition could form enough of a voting bloc to stop McCain?
Paul is polling in single digits, but that 7% or so could be critical in such a scenario0 -
The topic has most likely gone cold since my reading it, but, I'd like to add my two cents anyway, for posterity's sake. Wartiger, you said in a previous post:
quote:
Do you honestly think that the president can take away our guns? The president can only do what the Senate and House lets them.
wartiger, have you been paying any attention at all to the power the president has garnered to himself since 9/11?!? (Well, even further back than that, but we'll use it now as a reference point for sake of brevity)
#1 Suspension of Habeas corpus.
#2 Invasion and occupation of Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.
#3 The changing of the Posse Comitatus Act. "In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a controversial bill that grants the President the right to commandeer federal or state National Guard Troops and use them inside the United States." (Wikipedia)The states have lost control of their Nat'l Guard units to the Federal government.
#4 Warrantless wiretapping.
There's more, but these are the big ones. wartiger, with the power that the president now has, he doesn't need to check with the Senate and House at all!
You also need to read the Constitution--The president is restricted not only by the Senate and House, but by the Constitution as well!. Admittely, you are partially right--The legislative branch has been complicit in permitting the president to overstep his executive powers.
So, to sum up, the president could order marital law right now, and demand the collection of personally owned firearms if he really wanted to. The only thing that keep him from doing so, is the fact that his power is not fully ensconced yet--I'm sure there still is enough governors and Nat'l Guard units that would balk at such an order--for now. As time passes they will become more "sheeplefied" and thus more compliant in the hands of the executive branch.
Wake up and smell the pepper spray, wartiger. This is not your father's country anymore. Nor mine.0 -
You forgot a doozy. Presidential directive 51...
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency.
Effectively takes congress out of the loop in direct contradiction to the National Emergencies Act of 1976 which solidified the check of the legislative branch on the executive, in national emergencies.0 -
Thanks for the assist, JPWolf---I shoulda caught that one[;)] 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
87 comments