[9mm Hi-Power]

Or maybe part IV, V or VI, there's been so many I've lost tract. Yes, the war is heating up. If you're a gun owner in Hawaii you are now on "...THE LIST..." (see Big Frank's thread on the "Legal Forum" ). But - more locally the FREEP is really getting on the "ban the gun banwagon" (mis-spelling intended). Stephen Henderson's "Time to rethink guns and freedom." Hmmm...you will be more freer the less guns you own - you're just to dumb to realize it . Mitch Albom ( the - "I'm not against dis-arming hunters" DFP columnist ) "Citing forefathers is misplaced in gun debate." You shouldn't be allowed to own an AR because - well because - Hitler invented it. Yes - the Sturmgewehr . And thus because Thomas Jefferson and George Washington never used a Sturmgewehr to fight the British at Concord ( "THESE WERE NOT THE WEAPONS OF OUR FOREFATHERS" ) it is thus illogical to cite our Constitutional forefathers in defending our right to own an AR .450 Bushmaster for deer hunting in Zone 3 or shoot three-gun competition with a 5.56 AR or even to maybe someday use the same in defense of ourselves or loved ones at some remote locale.

But on Friday the Detroit News published "The Gun Control Farce" by Thomas Sowell. The following, I think, is one of the most telling comments on leftie gun grabbers that I have read in decades:

In both England and the United States, those people most zealous
for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals
and most restrictive on police.

Makes you wonder whose side the leftie libs are really on...?????

cross-posted from the "Legal Issues" forum because I seem to have so many "followers" on this one.

9mm Hi-Power

 

[cleew]

And just when we thought the world was safe from the endless barrage of hyperbole from 9mm, well, I guess we were incorrect.

 

[kingfisher 11]

Some people need to be shown a couple of times to get it.

 

[cleew]

Well, an agenda perhaps but a "WAR?" The very word suggests things like air strikes, heavy artillery, massive exchanges of firearm fire. That's where the hyperbole comes in. I do understand the Democrats have a real conundrum. They will do anything to avoid uttering anything that may be deemed "racist." Because of that, they continue to attempt to reduce punishment of crimes performed by "disadvantaged" people. Unfortunately, that also takes into consideration firearm laws. Take a look at Chicago for example. A multitude of strict firearm laws but, when it gets to court, it becomes another matter. An additional 30 days perhaps? Yes, I believe we have plenty of firearm related rules and regulations but we lack the enforcement of same.

Let's not, however, stoop to their level with an all or nothing approach. We gun owners need public support, support from non-gun owners. We won't receive it by excessive use of "hyperbole" by using words like "WAR" in our dialog. We, indeed, have a number of actual facts on our side, we should concentrate on using them.

I also want to apologize to 9mm HP ... when I said he used the "same post" in two different sub-forums, I was mistaken, On one it was addressed as "Dem/Lib War ..." while the other was addressed as "Dem/Progressive/Libtard War ..." Sorry.

 

[9mm Hi-Power]

Dem/Lib/Progressive anti-gun agenda...

Yes, I've been slapped by the PC police and must now use "agenda" in place of "war" in describing the dem war (oops I did it again) on guns.

Kalifornia's Dem/Lib/Progressive Gauleiter Jerry Brown just signed a bunch of new anti-gun laws which included:

1. A background check and registration of the purchase of ALL firearm ammunition with the California of Justice.
2. Amends the definition of "assault weapon" to include ANY semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. (Ruger 10/22 comes first to mind closely followed by the Remington 750, or how about the now almost ancient Remington Model 8 ) ?

3. Beginning in 2017 if you are found in possession of a firearm magazine that holds greater than 10 cartridges you will be fined $250.00.

In full disclosure Brown did to his benefit veto other gun legislation that was not aimed at gun ownership per se but rather legislation dealing with home-made firearms, extending the ban on the purchase of more than one handgun per month to include all firearms etc..

So a casual poll - how many of you would be comfortable with undergoing a background check and registration as a public safety move when buying a box of shotgun shells should dems/libs,progressives pass such legislation in Michigan ? How many of you view your kid's Ruger 10/22 an "assault weapon" similar to Hitler's Sturmgewehr per Mitch Albom ? (see previous post) ? Just curious

9mm Hi-Power

 

[TNL]

Well, an agenda perhaps but a "WAR?" The very word suggests things like air strikes, heavy artillery, massive exchanges of firearm fire. That's where the hyperbole comes in. I do understand the Democrats have a real conundrum. They will do anything to avoid uttering anything that may be deemed "racist." Because of that, they continue to attempt to reduce punishment of crimes performed by "disadvantaged" people. Unfortunately, that also takes into consideration firearm laws. Take a look at Chicago for example. A multitude of strict firearm laws but, when it gets to court, it becomes another matter. An additional 30 days perhaps? Yes, I believe we have plenty of firearm related rules and regulations but we lack the enforcement of same.

Let's not, however, stoop to their level with an all or nothing approach. We gun owners need public support, support from non-gun owners. We won't receive it by excessive use of "hyperbole" by using words like "WAR" in our dialog. We, indeed, have a number of actual facts on our side, we should concentrate on using them.

I also want to apologize to 9mm HP ... when I said he used the "same post" in two different sub-forums, I was mistaken, On one it was addressed as "Dem/Lib War ..." while the other was addressed as "Dem/Progressive/Libtard War ..." Sorry.

So is Dallas hyperbole? Was I imagining that up to 4 shooters with SKSs triangulated from an elevated position and fired upon police officers? That same hyperbole not kill 5 officers and wound 7? Hyperbole didn't shoot some of these officers in the back? Chicago has 64 shot over July 4 weekend? Hyperbole? Sorry cleew, that's not hyperbole; it's reality. And a war it is.

 

[cleew]

So is Dallas hyperbole? Was I imagining that up to 4 shooters with SKSs triangulated from an elevated position and fired upon police officers? That same hyperbole not kill 5 officers and wound 7? Hyperbole didn't shoot some of these officers in the back? Chicago has 64 shot over July 4 weekend? Hyperbole? Sorry cleew, that's not hyperbole; it's reality. And a war it is.

If you actually read the post, you would, with a bit of concentration and comprehension, have understood I was referring to the title of the thread and not the approximate 30,000 people who lose their life in the US each year by firearms. As a matter of fact, I suppose you may be one of the "Dem/Lib" folks 9mm is referring to ... perhaps?

 

[TNL]

I read your post. Perhaps you should too. You say "war" suggests "things like air strikes, heavy artillery, massive exchanges of firearm fire." and "That's where the hyperbole comes in." War is also what played out in Dallas. The military shooting tactics used by the killer, the use of robots and explosive devices to neutralize the killer, and the fact that he was trained by the US Army all are directly related to elements of war.

The propaganda machine that is social media also is closely related to war. Because of the media, social and otherwise, there have been at least 2 copycat ambushes on police officers in the less than 24 hrs. since the Dallas event. CNN started with the assault weapons ban BS while the killer was still barricaded last night. They had no idea what kind of firearm he had (SKS btw). So you have these awful shootings - Orlando and Dallas - and the Dem/Lib faction wants hardcore gun control, yet no one is addressing the real issue of the shooter's motives - ISIS and BLM. Yeah, it's a kind of war.

This summer is in it's infancy. We have a bitter election coming up with the SCOTUS hanging in the balance along with POTUS. Things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

 

[cleew]

I read your post. Perhaps you should too. You say "war" suggests "things like air strikes, heavy artillery, massive exchanges of firearm fire." and "That's where the hyperbole comes in." War is also what played out in Dallas. The military shooting tactics used by the killer, the use of robots and explosive devices to neutralize the killer, and the fact that he was trained by the US Army all are directly related to elements of war.

The propaganda machine that is social media also is closely related to war. Because of the media, social and otherwise, there have been at least 2 copycat ambushes on police officers in the less than 24 hrs. since the Dallas event. CNN started with the assault weapons ban BS while the killer was still barricaded last night. They had no idea what kind of firearm he had (SKS btw). So you have these awful shootings - Orlando and Dallas - and the Dem/Lib faction wants hardcore gun control, yet no one is addressing the real issue of the shooter's motives - ISIS and BLM. Yeah, it's a kind of war.

This summer is in it's infancy. We have a bitter election coming up with the SCOTUS hanging in the balance along with POTUS. Things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

Oh, ok, had you begun this particular thread and utilized the same title, you would have inserted a few of the recent Dallas commentaries as substantiation of the claim: "Dem/Lib war on guns." Likely because you equate something like Hillary's monologues to a sniper actually killing someone. In some sick, distorted way, I guess that could make some sense to someone. I don't know who but I'm sure someone would buy into that comparison.

I would also take a guess that the old adage, "sticks and stones ...," is also a corruption for real, honest to God, taking of lives. Sorry, I don't understand your perspective and I also don't buy into it.

Your claim that the "social and otherwise" media are solely responsible ("Because of the media ...") for spawning copycat killings of police and otherwise. The only way to prevent that is to shut down all, every last outlet of the media. After all, a commercial is forcing you to go out and purchase something you may not need, The bullying on an elementary school playground will, "because" it was reported in some obscure press article, certainly spawn similar incidents. Yep, there's a whole lot of sick puppies out there however I suspect the vast majority are not necessarily concerned with the media reporting on their illicit activities. Some? Absolutely! The really sick ones.

 

[TNL]

Do you even read what you write? It's convoluted and difficult to understand. Please don't infer on me what's not there. The irony of it all is that we may be on the same page...I think.

 

[walleyeman2006]

seems to me fighting over the use of the word war is counter productive....

remind the liberal cocaine has been illegal for decades

 

[cleew]

Do you even read what you write? It's convoluted and difficult to understand. Please don't infer on me what's not there. The irony of it all is that we may be on the same page...I think.

One more time in the hope you will understand ... See Spot run, run Spot run. So far so good? As far as an "inference," when you suggest, as seems very logically so, that the media is also solely responsible for the 2 "copycat ambushes on police," you open yourself up for great many other comparisons that may or may not be due to the media. See, you don't know for certain what the cause was however, your "opinion" that those two instances were caused by the media (social and otherwise) are just supposed to be accepted as fact. Your "because I said it, it must be true" attitude is what I take exception to. My exception is certainly not based on some wild guess or even inference, it is solely base upon your words. Sorry if you failed to make the connection.

I do, however, remain confused as to the reason you made an attempt to compare the Dallas shooting to my taking exception to the use of the word :WAR" in the title of the thread. I perceived that word as being a gross exaggeration of what the "Dems/Libs" are doing (And, yes, I am familiar with the term "war of words.") and even suggested that the word "agenda" seemed somewhat more appropriate. At least that term would not have been a gross exaggeration or, hyperbole, if you will. However, to compare a single word in a thread heading to the Dallas shooting is beyond a stretch. Well beyond and as you seem unable to comprehend my posts, I admit to not being able to understand that comparison you threw out.

I do believe that 9mm HP used that particular word to attract as much attention to his post as possible. He seems to revel in the number of replies each of his threads receives. He has remarked something to the effect that he loves this forum, based, it appears, on the number of responses to his threads, especially those that happen to agree with him. For those and other reasons, I envy him some. He, as do all of us, has unique opinions and is not shy about expressing them. Good for him! I, on the other hand, perhaps because of my envy, very much appreciate, when I have the rare opportunity to do a bit of "poking in the ribs with my elbow" as a verbal gesture, to take advantage of it. In that same vein, I should probably inquire as to the meaning of the term "Libs." It could, certainly, be construed to be Libertarians. As could his term "Libtards." While it could be so construed, I really don't believe that's his intended target though.

 

[DecoySlayer]

The "agenda"' "war",. whatever you want to call it is not only "against guns". It is an "agenda", "war", whatever you want to call it, to eliminate the entire Constitution, starting with the Bill of Rights. It does not matter to them if they do it legally, or not, just so they do it. They want total control, and we are letting them have it.

 

[cleew]

Just, certainly, another opinion but, would not this entire discussion be better served in the political part of the forum as opposed to the concealed carry part? Besides, 9mm HP would have more competition for his agitation-type posts there and may pick up some pointers on improving his game (wink, wink 9mm).

I mean, from the hyperbole laden topic to now the abandonment of the entire constitution, it does seem the perfect match for the political forum.

 

[DecoySlayer]

Just, certainly, another opinion but, would not this entire discussion be better served in the political part of the forum as opposed to the concealed carry part? Besides, 9mm HP would have more competition for his agitation-type posts there and may pick up some pointers on improving his game (wink, wink 9mm).

I mean, from the hyperbole laden topic to now the abandonment of the entire constitution, it does seem the perfect match for the political forum.

You are likely right, but, an "attack" on any part of the Bill of Right is VERY dangerous.

The problem is that "they" want to take away, restrict ownership, whatever, outside of "legal" means. Many "liberals" for lack of a better term, want to out right outlaw guns, or restrict ownership, without jumping throughout following the rule of law or the Constitution.

There are only a couple of LEGAL way to do what they want. They would have to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, OR, call for a Constitutional Convention and start over. "They" don't want to do either. "They" are trying to do it in the courts or through executive order. "They" are also using the "bureaucracy", like ATFE, to "impose regulations" (laws not passed by Congress), again, mostly through executive orders.

There are many "problems" with the laws we have today but I will refrain from posting on them in this forum.

 

[cleew]

You are likely right, but, an "attack" on any part of the Bill of Right is VERY dangerous.

The problem is that "they" want to take away, restrict ownership, whatever, outside of "legal" means. Many "liberals" for lack of a better term, want to out right outlaw guns, or restrict ownership, without jumping throughout following the rule of law or the Constitution.

There are only a couple of LEGAL way to do what they want. They would have to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, OR, call for a Constitutional Convention and start over. "They" don't want to do either. "They" are trying to do it in the courts or through executive order. "They" are also using the "bureaucracy", like ATFE, to "impose regulations" (laws not passed by Congress), again, mostly through executive orders.

There are many "problems" with the laws we have today but I will refrain from posting on them in this forum.

While I do agree that "they" are certainly among the anti-gun crowd, you seem to have forgotten, perhaps, the most likely way they could get their wish No, it is highly unlikely that any attempt to repeal any of the amendments
would even approach any degree of success and a "start over" is even less likely. Your post even suggests that "executive orders" and the "courts" are outside the realm of legality. I do believe that's a stretch. I would also suggest that every single political electee in DC has some type of agenda. To date, I don't believe I could describe any of them as being for our personal betterment.

No, the far easier method to employ is through the Supreme Court. Since the court is currently deadlocked, it is more important than ever to prevent one of "them" from possibly getting "their" person through the nomination process. Far more likely than an amendment repeal is the likelihood of an overturning of The Heller case. After all, the 2nd amendment does, indeed, begin with the words "A well regulated Militia ... ." The interpretation of those 4 words is, at the present time, the only thing allowing us to maintain our firearms in the manner we do. The debate of the meaning of those words has gone on for a good many years and is still, in the minds of a good many, not clear as to the intent. We can all suggest what we each believe them to mean but that has no bearing on the actual interpretation. The Supreme Court is the last word on that and, as are most court decisions, remain somewhat precarious.

 

[yooper Bob]

Hey all, words can be taken many ways. Just look at how many elected people and media refer to firearms as assault weapons, heck a fly swatter can be an assault weapon if you hit someone with it. Maybe we should ban everything.