frankj1
6 years ago
so tailgater...

have you changed your mind after reading these cogent pro/con positions?


HA!
ZRX1200
6 years ago
Alan, you tell me you’re gonna ban unicorns and I can’t own a horse we got problems. People who are firearm MORONS have no business trying to regulate them. Not even to mention they shouldn’t be regulated.

Delta, some of us voted third party and actually don’t support Cheeto to the hilt....were just sick of the crap that got him elected. Which.....people are feeding more.....which is going to re-elect him...
🤦
delta1
6 years ago

doesn't siphon off electoral votes where I live, but I'd rethink it if it did.

frankj1 wrote:



the 2000 Presidential election was decided by less than 600 votes in Florida...

Ralph Nader got 92K votes, more than twice the amount of all the other lower ballot candidates combined...most political experts considered votes for Nader as votes that could've gone to Dems...
frankj1
6 years ago

the 2000 Presidential election was decided by less than 600 votes in Florida...

Ralph Nader got 92K votes, more than twice the amount of all the other lower ballot candidates combined...most political experts considered votes for Nader as votes that could've gone to Dems...

delta1 wrote:


if I lived in Florida 20 years ago I would not have voted 3rd party...probably wouldn't have done it since then either, knowing the electoral votes were at risk in that state.

in many if not most states (I'm totally guessing) the electoral votes have little chance of being affected. Certainly not in MA.
Gene363
6 years ago

Beto wants to take away all the "assault" rifles from law abiding citizens only.

I'm not sure this would be a good thing.

Change my mind.


tailgater wrote:




First take away all the guns form criminals, kinda like a test run, then we'll discuss the Second Amendment and what it really says.
izonfire
6 years ago
frankj1
6 years ago
Victor (who is mistakenly called a lib) says you can have a nuke in your garage too.
or grenades.
or a howitzer.

Anyone have an idea where to draw the line regarding what "arms" our founding fathers intended a couple hundred years in the future?
in order to fight off a bad government, that is.

I'm not anti gun possession, just asking for a friend.
He's looking for sanity.
USNGunner
6 years ago

Victor (who is mistakenly called a lib) says you can have a nuke in your garage too.
or grenades.
or a howitzer.

Anyone have an idea where to draw the line regarding what "arms" our founding fathers intended a couple hundred years in the future?
in order to fight off a bad government, that is.

I'm not anti gun possession, just asking for a friend.
He's looking for sanity.

frankj1 wrote:



Hoss, the "arms" are no different than a tool in your shed. It's the man wielding it that makes the determination whether to do good or evil. No more than a rake determines whether vegetables or weeds will germinate and be dominate in the garden.

A nuke in my basement would be as safe as one of my grandchildren and no danger to any man. Unless one threatened me or mine. Mine including my country.

There in lies the difference. I ask no man to cut his johnson off as there are those that commit rape with them. Nor would any sane person.

So why in God's name would I give up my firearms? They'll not be used for evil, so what is the point of that? And no sane person looking at this honestly would ask either.
izonfire
6 years ago
Too many people in society who lack sanity.
USNGunner
6 years ago

Too many people in society who lack sanity.

izonfire wrote:



True dat.
SirKnight
6 years ago
As socialism spreads so will the taking of the second amendment, then as we the people become poor and destitute the government will be able to easily squash any rebellion. My firearms have not killed or maimed anyone it is the person with the gun that is the danger now how would you regulate the buyer?
tailgater
6 years ago

so tailgater...

have you changed your mind after reading these cogent pro/con positions?


HA!

frankj1 wrote:



You mean pro-con?


Speyside
6 years ago
IZON, I didn't say how to do this as I am not sure. I am not sure if it is even possible.
Speyside
6 years ago
Frank, a gun meant for killing, plain and simple. A perv tried to snatch my nephew about 3 months ago. My bother in law concealed carries. He dropped the perv 1 shot kill. My perspective changed when it was so close to home. I realized I couldn't have done the same thing, but would have if properly armed. I would feel remorse, but no regret.
Mr. Jones
6 years ago
BETO is an A-HOLE...who will screw A.N.Y. BODY
TO GET ELECTED
frankj1
6 years ago

Hoss, the "arms" are no different than a tool in your shed. It's the man wielding it that makes the determination whether to do good or evil. No more than a rake determines whether vegetables or weeds will germinate and be dominate in the garden.

A nuke in my basement would be as safe as one of my grandchildren and no danger to any man. Unless one threatened me or mine. Mine including my country.

There in lies the difference. I ask no man to cut his johnson off as there are those that commit rape with them. Nor would any sane person.

So why in God's name would I give up my firearms? They'll not be used for evil, so what is the point of that? And no sane person looking at this honestly would ask either.

USNGunner wrote:


I'm really not looking to take your guns, but I was asking if there are any thoughts on if anything goes beyond reasonable in the world of weapons.
As we both know, many are not legal for private ownership.
izonfire
6 years ago

Frank, a gun meant for killing, plain and simple. A perv tried to snatch my nephew about 3 months ago. My bother in law concealed carries. He dropped the perv 1 shot kill. My perspective changed when it was so close to home. I realized I couldn't have done the same thing, but would have if properly armed. I would feel remorse, but no regret.

Speyside wrote:


I salute your BIL

There are certain females I would let grab my gun. I’ll fire it off for ‘em too.

Solve the problem of illegal guns first. Then we’ll talk...
Speyside
6 years ago
Hard problem to solve. Lets define the problem a little farther. Solve the problem of illegal guns owned by people who know they own them Illigally. Honest, decent people may not know they own a gun illegally. Let's go a little farther, this is where it really gets grey for me. How about a battered woman who has been denied a gun who buys one illegally to protect her and her children? In my mind she has commuted no crime.
USNGunner
6 years ago

Frank, a gun meant for killing, plain and simple. A perv tried to snatch my nephew about 3 months ago. My bother in law concealed carries. He dropped the perv 1 shot kill. My perspective changed when it was so close to home. I realized I couldn't have done the same thing, but would have if properly armed. I would feel remorse, but no regret.

Speyside wrote:



Thank God Spey, thank God. I'm glad that came out well. Good on your BIL. Give him my regards, he did good.

On that note. We were moving my daughter and her family into their new home today. I was carrying a bed frame down the hall and accidently scraped up against the wall with my holster. It's an inside the waistband, so it's under my shirt and pants, so no damage to wall or gun, but it was loud.

She immediately reacted to the noise, thinking I had scraped the bed on the wall. I told here happened, no harm, no foul, no scrapes and she calmed down. Her reaction was "Why are you carrying your gun when we're moving? Oh yeah, well, you never know."

I just smiled and kept on. I told here later, "I hope I never need it, but if I did and didn't have it to protect any of you kids or grandkids, I'd never forgive myself." She smiled and said "Yeah, I get that."

That is why I carry. And why I would never surrender my firearms. I need to protect my loved ones from both evil, and those that would do evil in the name of good.

The founders weren't protecting hunting. Hell they all depended on game for subsistence. The thought of having to state that would never occurred to them. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the populace could effectively fight an oppressive government.

So if the popo and .mil are armed with M-16's, the civilians should at least have Ar-15's. Hell, I think the GCA of 68 should have been ruled unconstitutional. If the .gov can have it, so should the people. That was the intent of the founders.


It's not about food. It's about liberty.
frankj1
6 years ago
for #59
Spey, yet she has committed a crime...


I've stated before and met some opposition, but I'd like to see some real consequences for owners of legal guns who have them stolen and don't report them, and lesser penalties for those that do report the theft, including denying permits to own again.

Talk show host (female) on local radio said she could have bought a gun instantly at a show in New Hampshire. That should be stopped.

Couple of other situations I'd be for changing, but other than that I do believe people are allowed to own per the Constitution. I'm just not sure it's a case of anything goes.
Users browsing this topic