Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process


T. H. O' Sullivan

Recommended Posts

Posted

What all of the gun grabber/gun control types fail to take into consideration is what happens when states start saying "Not only will we not enforce that law, we will not allow the YOU (the Federal government) to enforce the law within our state lines. (Variations of which you are starting to see with ACA/Obamacare)

 

They also fail to consider what will happen when the courts overturn the law they propose or what will happen when they lose control of Congress or the White House.

Posted

The KOS is the most radical leftist site on the web. Garbage in, garbage out.

That's why I found the responses to the OP encouraging, almost all the responses were opposed to the idea of banning guns.

Posted

That's why I found the responses to the OP encouraging, almost all the responses were opposed to the idea of banning guns.

 

 

I find that that amazing, CBB. Thanks for the follow-up.

Posted

The Daily KOS has a certain number of infiltrators who troll that site just to mix things up a little, by adding some Conservative theory. Same thing happens on the Democratic Underground. Makes the lefty's heads explode.

Posted

If you have read this thread and think it is worth reading the link, let me save you a few minutes of your life. Don't! It is mindless drivel.

Isn't that the case with most of the anti-gun Left...mindless drivel? However, ol' "Sporks", the author of that piece, lays out a nice chronology for

the anti-gunner's ultimate dreams. Considering Feinstein's laundry list on her website for a 2013 AWB, that Daily KOS contributer fits in perfectly with

what their ultimate goals are.

Posted

There plans are much more complicated than necessary. If the politicians wanted us to give up our guns, the first thing they should do is to vote to end all gun laws at the federal level and let the states each make their decisions. Then as the maps on election day show about 2/3rds of the states would keep their guns while the more populous and liberal states would restrict the hell out of them. When their communities were models for peace and prosperity from the banning of legal gun ownership, the remaining folks will follow their shining example (or be mercilessly used as slave labor until they drop dead)

Posted

Well, in addition to his gan ban suggestions, we need to severely restrict the right of Freedom of Speech, so that dissenters to these ideas won't be able to say anything against them. Probably need to suspend elections as well, just stay the course with what we got. Not much need for individual property, either, all these things should and could be better run by the government. If we're gonna start down the slippery slope, hell, let's just go wide open.....

Posted

Hey T.H.O.!

 

Thanks for the post!

 

Reading articles like this reminds me of the following quote, "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster. - Sun Tzu "

 

I had to look the quote up to get it right. :blush:/> This entire page has some great quotes.

 

I also like this one, "Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. - Sun Tzu"

 

I can't remember where I got the following link. I find it very reasonable and potentially useful in discussing guns with folks who are anti-gun rights. Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Posted

I have had discussions with anti-2nd Amendment types, and they always bring up that the founders never envisioned Glocks or AR Rifles, therefore that portion of the Bill of Rights is not valid now. I counter their argument that the 1st Amendment and Freedom of the Press never envisioned Television, Radio or the Internet. Should we just invalidate those means of Press communications?

 

As a general rule, an argument with anti-gunners is a trail that leads nowhere. Always remember that the founders thought the first 10 Amendments were something special. These aren't a Bill of Wants or Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, that man or government cannot take away. Any new laws or executive orders violating any of those rights should be fought against, and ignored. Just say NO!

Posted

I have had discussions with anti-2nd Amendment types, and they always bring up that the founders never envisioned Glocks or AR Rifles, therefore that portion of the Bill of Rights is not valid now. I counter their argument that the 1st Amendment and Freedom of the Press never envisioned Television, Radio or the Internet. Should we just invalidate those means of Press communications?

 

As a general rule, an argument with anti-gunners is a trail that leads nowhere. Always remember that the founders thought the first 10 Amendments were something special. These aren't a Bill of Wants or Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, that man or government cannot take away. Any new laws or executive orders violating any of those rights should be fought against, and ignored. Just say NO!

 

In Colonial times, musket met musket. In these "modern" times, I want to be armed as closely matched to my enemies as I can. As far as I know, the 2nd Amendment does not define what arms are acceptable. Don't think my Sharps would be a good match against an AR in a firefight....

Posted

In Colonial times, musket met musket. In these "modern" times, I want to be armed as closely matched to my enemies as I can. As far as I know, the 2nd Amendment does not define what arms are acceptable. Don't think my Sharps would be a good match against an AR in a firefight....

 

 

Depends on the conditions and ranges involved. My Sharps will out shoot an AR at 600-1000 yards if I do my part, but I have to admit it would be hard to compete with modern guns beyond a shot or two.

Posted

I was in basic training at Fort Knox, KY in the Summer of 1978. First time I ever fired an M16A1. Coolest thing in the way of firearms I have ever shot. Loved the thing. Got my expert badge with hitting popup targets at 300 meters. Would love to have a Sharps, but as a rider on horseback almost every day, would have to go with an 1874 Military Carbine model with saddle ring.

Posted

If the left were really serious about banning guns they would start a repeal movement on the 2nd Amendment. That's the only thing that will work and it's just about impossible to do. They keep up the rhetoric on banning guns so they can keep their jobs and make money writing articles and books etc. The whole Brady movement is all about them sitting around and trying to collect donations from like minded people. If there were no guns they wouldn't have a job. Just MHO.

 

:) Rye

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.