View Full Version : How could we get suppressors off of the NFA?
AnthonyCumia
09-25-15, 04:45
How could we word a bill?
I am thinking the "The Noise Pollution Reduction Act" or Hearing Protection Act of 20fill in the blank"
PatrioticDisorder
09-25-15, 05:46
Never going to happen.
With the advent of the Silencerco Maxim, I could potentially see a demand for these among LEA's, eventually I can see police unions basically demanding these for hearing safety concerns. If an integrally suppressed pistol becomes mainstream in law enforcement, I could see the day suppressors get removed legislatively (and maybe SBRs; fingers crossed there).
Easy, Just put OHSA (https://www.osha.gov/) in charge.
They'll make suppressor use mandatory with a 10 year prison sentence for each cartridge discharged without a suppressor.
:rolleyes:
Disband ATF. ;)
The ATF doesn't control whether they are NFA or not.
One would be that they are mainstream, really mainstream. You need to get rid of the Hollywood "assassin's tool" stigma.
You'd have to get current owners to not demand their $200 back per suppressor.
Your method of attack? Suppressors are listed as a "firearm". In nfa, "firearm" is defined. Suppressors do not fit the qualification, they never have.
All that said, I wouldn't hold my breath.
They are not going to want to give up the "free" $200 per unit they are getting now. When you look at how popular suppressors have become, it's easy to see this is a lot of money.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
The ATF doesn't control whether they are NFA or not.A guy can dream of a no ATF America, like the one our founding fathers intended.
AnthonyCumia
09-25-15, 15:50
With the advent of the Silencerco Maxim, I could potentially see a demand for these among LEA's, eventually I can see police unions basically demanding these for hearing safety concerns. If an integrally suppressed pistol becomes mainstream in law enforcement, I could see the day suppressors get removed legislatively (and maybe SBRs; fingers crossed there).
More over think about the savings cost in the way of hearing damage the unions have to shell out.
AnthonyCumia
09-25-15, 15:50
Never going to happen.
Said the same thing about Heller/McDonald.
A guy can dream of a no ATF America, like the one our founding fathers intended.
How about we work to make it a reality instead of just dream of it?
One would be that they are mainstream, really mainstream. You need to get rid of the Hollywood "assassin's tool" stigma.
You'd have to get current owners to not demand their $200 back per suppressor.
Your method of attack? Suppressors are listed as a "firearm". In nfa, "firearm" is defined. Suppressors do not fit the qualification, they never have.
All that said, I wouldn't hold my breath.
They are not going to want to give up the "free" $200 per unit they are getting now. When you look at how popular suppressors have become, it's easy to see this is a lot of money.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
If a person is not willing to restore Liberty for the simple cost of $200 while other greater men gave everything they had and will ever have truly they are the greediest, most damnable fools this side of Hell.
The actual NFA law would have to be changed for it to happen = two houses of congress and the president would have to sign it.
May be a can of worms to go there.
One would be that they are mainstream, really mainstream. You need to get rid of the Hollywood "assassin's tool" stigma.
You'd have to get current owners to not demand their $200 back per suppressor.
Your method of attack? Suppressors are listed as a "firearm". In nfa, "firearm" is defined. Suppressors do not fit the qualification, they never have.
All that said, I wouldn't hold my breath.
They are not going to want to give up the "free" $200 per unit they are getting now. When you look at how popular suppressors have become, it's easy to see this is a lot of money.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
The getting rid of the stigma part is tough, especially when people like Bill Mahrer squawk about certain red states allowing suppressors for hunting. That said, if, somehow, the hipster homesteader movement got into the whole hunting as sustainable food source idea, maybe then there might be a chance...a snowball's chance, but it's more than what we have now. IIRC, suppressors are mandatory for hunters in Scandinavia. Seems people there are more concerned with the noise pollution, hearing safety, and the racket caused by hunters harvesting moose. Those Nords must be crazy!
Flankenstein
09-25-15, 17:37
If a person is not willing to restore Liberty for the simple cost of $200 while other greater men gave everything they had and will ever have truly they are the greediest, most damnable fools this side of Hell.
That's a joke, right?
AnthonyCumia
09-25-15, 17:49
The getting rid of the stigma part is tough, especially when people like Bill Mahrer squawk about certain red states allowing suppressors for hunting. That said, if, somehow, the hipster homesteader movement got into the whole hunting as sustainable food source idea, maybe then there might be a chance...a snowball's chance, but it's more than what we have now. IIRC, suppressors are mandatory for hunters in Scandinavia. Seems people there are more concerned with the noise pollution, hearing safety, and the racket caused by hunters harvesting moose. Those Nords must be crazy!
Bring up the crime rate even with suppressors. Bring up the lower rates of hearing damage.
drummerboy183
09-25-15, 18:51
They are not going to want to give up the "free" $200 per unit they are getting now. When you look at how popular suppressors have become, it's easy to see this is a lot of money.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
This.
Flankenstein
09-25-15, 19:13
This.
No, not that. It's about control, not money. They can print money, they can't print control.
No, not that. It's about control, not money. They can print money, they can't print control.
No,This
How could we word a bill?
We are already on that path. Mainstream use, local and state de-regulation, full acceptance by hunting community.
No, not that. It's about control, not money. They can print money, they can't print control.
Exactly. If it was about money, MJ would have a $200 tax on it.
Flankenstein
09-25-15, 19:40
Exactly. If it was about money, MJ would have a $200 tax on it.
Well...recreational marijuana is taxed different (higher) than medicinal. No registry for recreational use though.
Well...recreational marijuana is taxed different (higher) than medicinal. No registry for recreational use though.
No Federal tax AFAIK.
Flankenstein
09-25-15, 19:47
No Federal tax AFAIK.
Federally illegal. I wouldn't use weed to articulate my point here.
drummerboy183
09-25-15, 21:07
No, not that. It's about control, not money. They can print money, they can't print control.
Makes sense. Disturbingly so.
I agree with others, never gonna happen.
There's no way they'd put their cash cow on a diet. I also think that poking the issue is a good way to invoke a price hike.
It's about control AND money. The ATF wants both.
FlyingHunter
09-25-15, 21:51
I agree with others, never gonna happen.
There's no way they'd put their cash cow on a diet. I also think that poking the issue is a good way to invoke a price hike.
It's about control AND money. The ATF wants both.
This ^^^ is so accurate.
The actual NFA law would have to be changed for it to happen = two houses of congress and the president would have to sign it.
May be a can of worms to go there.
Or an executive order. I'm a realist and I'm sick of "fighting clean". Rip their eyes out and bite their ears off. Executive order everything go get the country right, then burn the bridge so the next guy has as much power as he should.. very little.
AnthonyCumia
09-25-15, 23:00
I agree with others, never gonna happen.
There's no way they'd put their cash cow on a diet. I also think that poking the issue is a good way to invoke a price hike.
It's about control AND money. The ATF wants both.
A one time tax one the point of sale? They would make more money as the volume would increase.
Or an executive order. I'm a realist and I'm sick of "fighting clean". Rip their eyes out and bite their ears off. Executive order everything go get the country right, then burn the bridge so the next guy has as much power as he should.. very little.
Thank you, I am sick of playing by the rule as the other side runs roughshot over us. **** them, lets win.
Or an executive order. I'm a realist and I'm sick of "fighting clean". Rip their eyes out and bite their ears off. Executive order everything go get the country right, then burn the bridge so the next guy has as much power as he should.. very little.
This doesn't solve the problem as when the next or subsequent executive comes into office they can change it back. The law needs to be changed.
Easy, Just put OHSA (https://www.osha.gov/) in charge.
They'll make suppressor use mandatory with a 10 year prison sentence for each cartridge discharged without a suppressor.
:rolleyes:
Clever line of thinking, but I doubt the noise is the only thing they'd want to eliminate.
domestique
09-26-15, 06:52
Clever line of thinking, but I doubt the noise is the only thing they'd want to eliminate.
Also market it as a "lead/powder containment" device.
Begin stigmatizing anyone* who supports anti-gun laws(in any form) being on the books.
* Those who vote for politicians who will not work to repeal the law and anyone involved in the execution/enforcement of those laws and their support(close family members, friends, business associates).
KalashniKEV
09-26-15, 10:35
How could we word a bill?
I am thinking the "The Noise Pollution Reduction Act" or Hearing Protection Act of 20fill in the blank"
LOL... sounds like you've been reading too much Calvin and Hobbes...
It's never going to happen. Period.
The only two ways I can conceive of are if the government were to disappear, and along with it the NFA, or... and this is kind of my own personal daydream, so feel free to laugh... a few hundred thousand people just started 3D printing suppressors for one outing, or bought some kind of 80%-type kit and finished and just mounted them.
The law would just disappear because it would be unenforceable.
Selling stamps for the ATF would be like selling taxi medallions to Uber drivers or collecting hotel tax from Air B&B Operators...
"Ummm...Mr. Director... Sir... we have a problem... apparently the citizens just don't plain give a **** anymore and are just doing whatever they feel like..."
Yeah... I know... "you first" and all... but it would work.
Just look at illegal immigration.
Dist. Expert 26
09-26-15, 10:51
That's honestly a brilliant idea. Yeah, it carries a certain amount of risk, but we really cold have safety in numbers. The only trick is getting the technology to the point where it's feasible.
Simple.....have them sold in states along with a bag of pot.....the Feds will back away and stop the enforcement of federal laws. Allowing the state to make their own laws concerning marijuana and cans.........
So, too far fetched? :blink:
KalashniKEV
09-26-15, 11:32
The only trick is getting the technology to the point where it's feasible.
We're already there.
Plenty of "disposable" suppressor designs out there of varying durability and merit. Just click print (at great peril).
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Glock-Disposable-Suppressor.jpg
No Federal tax AFAIK.
Google 'marijuana tax stamp'. It's a lot like an NFA tax stamp. I can't believe you guys don't know this.
I don't see the government willingly changing NFA laws anytime soon. I can only envision 2 things that could impact current laws in our lifetime:
1 - 3D printing - as the technology improves and becomes more cost effective, this will disrupt the majority of the manufacturing industry, including firearms. Doesn't mean your suppressor will be legal, but it will be harder for anyone to know about it.
2 - Government breakdown - hit by asteroid, revolution, bio warfare, any other doomsday scenario
KalashniKEV
09-26-15, 19:47
Google 'marijuana tax stamp'. It's a lot like an NFA tax stamp. I can't believe you guys don't know this.
+1000
I thought everyone knew marijuana was just wacky tabaccy.
http://www.peachridgeglass.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MarijuanaTaxStamps_1510.jpg
Anyway, we were a good bit of the way towards nullification of SBR regulations thanks to the SIG brace... and once we had a few hundred thousand folks shooting essentially SBRs with floppy-doppy stocks on them, having a rigid stock wouldn't raise a care in the eyes of law enforcement.
The problem was that the only folks who jumped on SIG brace were cornballer types- and cornballers love a lot of attention and involvement with the government. They basically forced the ATF to regulate it's use because of the very same mechanism that would have nullified the law- the fact that it was functionally identical to a stamped SBR.
But again... I'm sure we all know this...
How about the tea party folks get with your representatives and senators and try to get the NFA changed/amended to no longer include suppressors? Use hunting rights, hearing protection, and public safety as your justification.
The law will have to change. ATF cannot reclassify on their own.
Flankenstein
09-27-15, 14:28
Google 'marijuana tax stamp'. It's a lot like an NFA tax stamp. I can't believe you guys don't know this.
Negative. Not the same as the cost for a medicinal card. And like I mentioned, recreational is taxed higher but no record keeping is required. ID to prove age...in and out.
Flankenstein
09-27-15, 14:29
+1000
-1000
Fredericianer
09-27-15, 14:52
The getting rid of the stigma part is tough, especially when people like Bill Mahrer squawk about certain red states allowing suppressors for hunting. That said, if, somehow, the hipster homesteader movement got into the whole hunting as sustainable food source idea, maybe then there might be a chance...a snowball's chance, but it's more than what we have now. IIRC, suppressors are mandatory for hunters in Scandinavia. Seems people there are more concerned with the noise pollution, hearing safety, and the racket caused by hunters harvesting moose. Those Nords must be crazy!
They're definitely not mandatory in Denmark or Sweden, and I don't think they are in Norway or Finland either. Here in Denmark they've only recently been legalised (just over a year ago I think), but are proving very popular indeed among hunters!
AnthonyCumia
09-27-15, 16:41
How about the tea party folks get with your representatives and senators and try to get the NFA changed/amended to no longer include suppressors? Use hunting rights, hearing protection, and public safety as your justification.
The law will have to change. ATF cannot reclassify on their own.
WE know that, but how can we when we have A. A Marxist in the White House, and B sub human scum in the GOP.
WE know that, but how can we when we have A. A Marxist in the White House, and B sub human scum in the GOP.
We can't so please refer to post #2 of this thread.
OrignalRECIPE73
09-30-15, 09:24
I don't think it'll happen...because the moment that it does get taken off the nfa (that's if, and a strong if it happens) SOMEONE will use one in a crime and that'll be all she wrote..It's not a matter of if, but when it'll happen. They'll either be banned like MG's or be put right back on the nfa category. I can honestly see SBR's being taken off the list before anything else. But that's just my opinion.
AnthonyCumia
10-01-15, 03:54
I don't think it'll happen...because the moment that it does get taken off the nfa (that's if, and a strong if it happens) SOMEONE will use one in a crime and that'll be all she wrote..It's not a matter of if it will be used in a crime, but when it'll happen, and the moment that it does it'll all be over. They'll either be banned like MG's or be put right back on the nfa category. I can honestly see SBR's being taken off the lit before anything else. But that's just my opinion.
And? So criminals use them, why should we all be punished for their asshattery?
Trust me just make a a bill and ram it tough or put it in the budget.
Google 'marijuana tax stamp'. It's a lot like an NFA tax stamp. I can't believe you guys don't know this.
Not the same at all. An NFA tax stamp bestows "legality" on owning the weapon. A drug tax stamp is just a means of imposing additional financial penalities and a Federal violation to a drug possession charge, doesn't make owning the drug legal.
Also, widely varies state to state. A marijuana medicinal card in this state costs $200, but that's an annual fee, and payable to the state. No provision for recreational marijuana.
PatrioticDisorder
10-01-15, 06:19
I don't think it'll happen...because the moment that it does get taken off the nfa (that's if, and a strong if it happens) SOMEONE will use one in a crime and that'll be all she wrote..It's not a matter of if it will be used in a crime, but when it'll happen, and the moment that it does it'll all be over. They'll either be banned like MG's or be put right back on the nfa category. I can honestly see SBR's being taken off the lit before anything else. But that's just my opinion.
You're more likely to be beaten to death than killed with a rifle.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/30/fbi-data-shows-youre-more-likely-to-get-beaten-to-death-than-killed-with-a-rifle/
Once police unions start mandating integrally suppressed pistols it will go a long way towards the public viewing them differently. If someone wanted to make suppressors banned after being taken off NFA just because a criminal may or may not use a suppressor one day, it would be easy to mock their stupidity and much harder to ban them than you think.
AnthonyCumia
10-01-15, 07:35
You're more likely to be beaten to death than killed with a rifle.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/30/fbi-data-shows-youre-more-likely-to-get-beaten-to-death-than-killed-with-a-rifle/
Once police unions start mandating integrally suppressed pistols it will go a long way towards the public viewing them differently. If someone wanted to make suppressors banned after being taken off NFA just because a criminal may or may not use a suppressor one day, it would be easy to mock their stupidity and much harder to ban them than you think.
Crossbows are silent and kill more people every year then legally owned suppressors. And you buy them online and no background check.
Same for rat poison, rags, pillows, hammers, etc
AnthonyCumia
10-01-15, 07:41
Not the same at all. An NFA tax stamp bestows "legality" on owning the weapon. A drug tax stamp is just a means of imposing additional financial penalities and a Federal violation to a drug possession charge, doesn't make owning the drug legal.
Also, widely varies state to state. A marijuana medicinal card in this state costs $200, but that's an annual fee, and payable to the state. No provision for recreational marijuana.
Also I do not see a right to smoke weed in the Bill of Rights while I can find a right to keep and bare arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.
oberstgreup
10-03-15, 01:27
Not the same at all. An NFA tax stamp bestows "legality" on owning the weapon.
No, it does not. All it does is document that you have paid the tax, so you can't be prosecuted for failing to pay the tax. If some other provision of state or federal law prohibits you from owning the weapon, the NFA tax stamp does not make it legal for you to own the weapon.
The main difference between an NFA stamp and a federal marijuana tax stamp is that the feds will actually issue an NFA stamp.
Crossbows are silent and kill more people every year then legally owned suppressors. And you buy them online and no background check.
Same for rat poison, rags, pillows, hammers, etc
If you expect our laws to be based on common sense I'm afraid you're in for a lot of disappointment.
AnthonyCumia
10-03-15, 01:58
No, it does not. All it does is document that you have paid the tax, so you can't be prosecuted for failing to pay the tax. If some other provision of state or federal law prohibits you from owning the weapon, the NFA tax stamp does not make it legal for you to own the weapon.
The main difference between an NFA stamp and a federal marijuana tax stamp is that the feds will actually issue an NFA stamp.
If you expect our laws to be based on common sense I'm afraid you're in for a lot of disappointment.
I am 24 and know that since I was 13, I have the disappointment of a 50 year old.
Easy, Just put OHSA (https://www.osha.gov/) in charge.
They'll make suppressor use mandatory with a 10 year prison sentence for each cartridge discharged without a suppressor.
:rolleyes:
yes but then it would illegal to shoot without steel toe boots, safety glasses, hard hat, safety vest, etc.
I don't see the government willingly changing NFA laws anytime soon. I can only envision 2 things that could impact current laws in our lifetime:
1 - 3D printing - as the technology improves and becomes more cost effective, this will disrupt the majority of the manufacturing industry, including firearms. Doesn't mean your suppressor will be legal, but it will be harder for anyone to know about it.
2 - Government breakdown - hit by asteroid, revolution, bio warfare, any other doomsday scenario
1 is a moot point, as plumbing hardware already exists.
2 is the ticket. I'm hoping for the second scenario of the ones you listed under 2. The Founding Fathers would have started Round 2 by now.
K
No, it does not. All it does is document that you have paid the tax, so you can't be prosecuted for failing to pay the tax. If some other provision of state or federal law prohibits you from owning the weapon, the NFA tax stamp does not make it legal for you to own the weapon.
:rolleyes: obviously. Let me restate... possessing an NFA weapon without having a tax stamp for it is illegal.
.
Since federal law says that anything they have judged to fall under the purview of the nfa must be registered by the batf to the owner, and then is possessed legally, and charges $200 for said registration, the stamp proves said registration, according to them. Meaning they accept this as proof, and therefore legality.
However, this is only at the federal level. State level is totally independent, they can permit or ban the possession of any nfa items as they see fit, in addition to having whatever state registry or paperwork they see fit.
For instance, here in VA, all classes of nfa items are legal, provided they are registered in accordance with federal law. However, machine-guns must be additionally registered with the state police. In addition, a couple of dds are specifically banned from possession by state law.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
AnthonyCumia
10-03-15, 18:57
1 is a moot point, as plumbing hardware already exists.
2 is the ticket. I'm hoping for the second scenario of the ones you listed under 2. The Founding Fathers would have started Round 2 by now.
****, they would have started in 1860 or 1914.
I think the only way to change the law is to take a page from the liberal's play book and relentlessly fight the law in court. It seems to have worked for them in gay marriage, pot, illegal immigration invasion etc. for some reason we have assumed that laws change through legislation, as our founders intended. That does not seem to be today's reality. I would start by challenging the nfa's definition of a supressor as a firearm. I would then go at it using ADA and OSHA laws against a them. I would use EPA stuff on sound pollution against them. Use the govt to fight and confuse the govt. if a guy can now be defined as a girl we certainly can change the definition of a restricted item to non restricted. We just keep going about it the wrong way.
Not going to happen - ever.
AnthonyCumia
10-04-15, 13:44
Not going to happen - ever.
Really? The same thing was said about Heller..
It would be nice. But, the stigma is just so great.
Liberal heads would literally explode if it were to no longer be nfa. People are just too stupid though. Super sonic ammo isn't really hearing safe even suppressed. But at least the noise doesn't travel for miles.
Dist. Expert 26
10-04-15, 16:15
I think the only way to change the law is to take a page from the liberal's play book and relentlessly fight the law in court. It seems to have worked for them in gay marriage, pot, illegal immigration invasion etc. for some reason we have assumed that laws change through legislation, as our founders intended. That does not seem to be today's reality. I would start by challenging the nfa's definition of a supressor as a firearm. I would then go at it using ADA and OSHA laws against a them. I would use EPA stuff on sound pollution against them. Use the govt to fight and confuse the govt. if a guy can now be defined as a girl we certainly can change the definition of a restricted item to non restricted. We just keep going about it the wrong way.
That's probably the most realistic idea I've heard yet. We just need the NRA ILA to step up and do it.
AnthonyCumia
10-05-15, 05:00
That's probably the most realistic idea I've heard yet. We just need the NRA ILA to step up and do it.
Yeah the NRA needs to spead more money with lawfare/elections and less on feel good nonsense.
PatrioticDisorder
10-05-15, 05:16
I'm more convinced than ever after hearing these leftists come out of the closet as full blown anti constitution that we need to stop playing defense and get on the offense, 50 state concealed carry, elimination of gun free zones on the state and federal level, repeal of the sported clause, Hughes amendment, push to remove suppressors & SBRs off NFA & shall certify at the state level..... We as a group need to continue to support the organizations defending our rights, mainly the NRA and we need to educate and teach the uninitiated guns & gun safety getting more and more people into shooting & owning guns until the anti constitutionalist gun grabbers are a fringe wacko group.
I'm more convinced than ever after hearing these leftists come out of the closet as full blown anti constitution that we need to stop playing defense and get on the offense, 50 state concealed carry, elimination of gun free zones on the state and federal level, repeal of the sported clause, Hughes amendment, push to remove suppressors & SBRs off NFA & shall certify at the state level..... We as a group need to continue to support the organizations defending our rights, mainly the NRA and we need to educate and teach the uninitiated guns & gun safety getting more and more people into shooting & owning guns until the anti constitutionalist gun grabbers are a fringe wacko group.
I agree 100%.
If there's one thing I've learned from the Left (aside from the fact that they are fundamentally, traitors, Islamophiles, Communists, tyrants, racists and evil in general), it's that compromise is a losing strategy. Ramming through changes is the name of the game.
After changes are rammed through, it becomes the new normal. People are too lazy and busy to really make a stand, even on things that directly affect them. For something like making suppressors into a commodity purchased like one would purchase a set of scope rings, which affects literally NOBODY adversely, any opposition would be purely from astro-turf outfits like Bloomberg's "Moms" and the Brady Bunch. Nobody really gives a **** what these clowns think.
The will never take things off the NFA, only add more.
CleverNickname
10-05-15, 19:58
How? Get a rich Republican donor who would donate enough to the Congressional RINOs in power so that they would attach an NFA modification to a must-pass spending bill. Modifying the NFA would even be relevant to the bill, because they'd be modifying tax law. You wouldn't even necessarily need a pro-gun Republican president in power.
Of course, this isn't likely to happen. But that's the only real way I see it happening, unless a lot more people start pushing for it, and it gets passed as a standalone bill, which would require a pro-gun Republican president.
AnthonyCumia
10-05-15, 22:44
The will never take things off the NFA, only add more.
With people like you, who needs Democrats?
How? Get a rich Republican donor who would donate enough to the Congressional RINOs in power so that they would attach an NFA modification to a must-pass spending bill. Modifying the NFA would even be relevant to the bill, because they'd be modifying tax law. You wouldn't even necessarily need a pro-gun Republican president in power.
Of course, this isn't likely to happen. But that's the only real way I see it happening, unless a lot more people start pushing for it, and it gets passed as a standalone bill, which would require a pro-gun Republican president.
Thank you.
AnthonyCumia
10-05-15, 22:45
The will never take things off the NFA, only add more.
With people like you, who needs Democrats?
How? Get a rich Republican donor who would donate enough to the Congressional RINOs in power so that they would attach an NFA modification to a must-pass spending bill. Modifying the NFA would even be relevant to the bill, because they'd be modifying tax law. You wouldn't even necessarily need a pro-gun Republican president in power.
Of course, this isn't likely to happen. But that's the only real way I see it happening, unless a lot more people start pushing for it, and it gets passed as a standalone bill, which would require a pro-gun Republican president.
Thank you.
AnthonyCumia
10-05-15, 22:46
The will never take things off the NFA, only add more.
How? Get a rich Republican donor who would donate enough to the Congressional RINOs in power so that they would attach an NFA modification to a must-pass spending bill. Modifying the NFA would even be relevant to the bill, because they'd be modifying tax law. You wouldn't even necessarily need a pro-gun Republican president in power.
Of course, this isn't likely to happen. But that's the only real way I see it happening, unless a lot more people start pushing for it, and it gets passed as a standalone bill, which would require a pro-gun Republican president.
I agree 100%.
If there's one thing I've learned from the Left (aside from the fact that they are fundamentally, traitors, Islamophiles, Communists, tyrants, racists and evil in general), it's that compromise is a losing strategy. Ramming through changes is the name of the game.
After changes are rammed through, it becomes the new normal. People are too lazy and busy to really make a stand, even on things that directly affect them. For something like making suppressors into a commodity purchased like one would purchase a set of scope rings, which affects literally NOBODY adversely, any opposition would be purely from astro-turf outfits like Bloomberg's "Moms" and the Brady Bunch. Nobody really gives a **** what these clowns think.
Thank You! They are the enemy, why would anyone value what they have to say?
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 19:09
The will never take things off the NFA, only add more.
With "pro gun" people like you, who needs democrats.
Don't rock the boat.
Why not? What is the worse they can do to us? Call us names? Lie about us and the facts?
"Don`t rock the boat" is what has led us to our current infringements. So we are to double down on a failed model, why again?
We are winning lets us suit up, boot up, and kick some ass, with lawfare/social media campaign we are winning. Nut up or shut up.
Let us use the coming super majority in Congress and the White house after the 2016 elections to restore Liberty, to Hell with "fairness" or "moral high ground" let us use the 51 vote rule and any other tactic to restore our Liberty.
With "pro gun" people like you, who needs democrats.
Why not? What is the worse they can do to us? Call us names? Lie about us and the facts?
"Don`t rock the boat" is what has led us to our current infringements. So we are to double down on a failed model, why again?
We are winning lets us suit up, boot up, and kick some ass, with lawfare/social media campaign we are winning. Nut up or shut up.
Let us use the coming super majority in Congress and the White house after the 2016 elections to restore Liberty, to Hell with "fairness" or "moral high ground" let us use the 51 vote rule and any other tactic to restore our Liberty.
Please bring attention to the NFA. Libtards will demand all "assault weapons" be added to it, etc. etc.
CleverNickname
10-06-15, 20:09
Please bring attention to the NFA. Libtards will demand all "assault weapons" be added to it, etc. etc.
If laws move leftwards when the Dems are in power and the Republicans just hold the line when they're in power instead of actually trying to reverse them, then it's just moving left more slowly.
Unfortunately, this is actually the case with many laws, not just gun laws.
PatrioticDisorder
10-06-15, 20:15
Please bring attention to the NFA. Libtards will demand all "assault weapons" be added to it, etc. etc.
They're already demanding confiscation of all guns already, so what's your point? Playing defense has only led to an erosion of rights. By pointing how how asinine it is to put hearing protection under the NFA & how arbitrary it is to put certain barrel lengths under NFA a great argument is made to remove them. More people than you realize would find it ridiculous a stamp is required for an SBR or suppressor.
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 20:18
If laws move leftwards when the Dems are in power and the Republicans just hold the line when they're in power instead of actually trying to reverse them, then it's just moving left more slowly.
Unfortunately, this is actually the case with many laws, not just gun laws.
Thank you, if you are "meeting in the middle" as the the enemy is always moving towards tyranny where will you be moving towards?
They're already demanding confiscation of all guns already, so what's your point? Playing defense has only led to an erosion of rights. By pointing how how asinine it is to put hearing protection under the NFA & how arbitrary it is to put certain barrel lengths under NFA a great argument is made to remove them. More people than you realize would find it ridiculous a stamp is required for an SBR or suppressor.
If most people knew suppressors were legal for civilians to own, they would be gone.
Some of you need to stop living in fantasy land, and accept that firearms are too accessible to crazies.
PatrioticDisorder
10-06-15, 21:55
If most people knew suppressors were legal for civilians to own, they would be gone.
Some of you need to stop living in fantasy land, and accept that firearms are too accessible to crazies.
i see, you're part of the "I believe in the second amendment, BUT...." crowd. Freedom for me but not for thee mentality works great in NY, you'd love it there.
oberstgreup
10-06-15, 21:57
Why not? What is the worse they can do to us? Call us names? Lie about us and the facts?
What could they do? Well, let's see...
Reinstate the "assault weapon" ban with no grandfather clause.
Ban all sales of ammo in calibers commonly used by the military (several European countries do this).
Ban all magazines with a capacity > 10 rounds with no grandfather clause.
Ban everything now included in the NFA with no grandfather clause.
Institute a national gun registry.
Ban all handguns.
Ban all semiauto firearms.
Need more?
These are all things the other side would love to have an excuse to do. Do any of us WANT to see any of these happen? Of course not. But many of us FEAR some of these things might happen, especially if we get Queen Hillary the First (which Donald trump is making more likely every day).
The pendulum has been swinging toward rational gun laws (i.e., rolling back useless restrictions) for about 20 years now and I hope this will continue. However, it's worth thinking about what might give the other side ammunition for its arguments. Like it or not our rights are at the mercy of popular opinion. Whether things OUGHT to be that way is academic. It's how things are.
When people ask how things could possibly get worse life often indulges in the annoying habit of answering the question.
i see, you're part of the "I believe in the second amendment, BUT...." crowd. Freedom for me but not for thee mentality works great in NY, you'd love it there.
If you think that firearms should be accessible to every citizen in the US, you are exceptionally deluded.
This is the kind of BS that gives firearm enthusiasts a bad rep.
PatrioticDisorder
10-06-15, 22:15
If you think that firearms should be accessible to every citizen in the US, you are exceptionally deluded.
This is the kind of BS that gives firearm enthusiasts a bad rep.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So keep everything as it is, and let the crazies go around shooting up schools?
Makes sense to me...
PatrioticDisorder
10-06-15, 22:22
So keep everything as it is, and let the crazies go around shooting up schools?
Makes sense to me...
Considering almost every single mass shooting was in a gun free zone, seems pretty clear to me what the answer is. How about get rid of arbitrary restrictions on where people can carry, something that is already an infringement on the 2nd amendment.
PatrioticDisorder
10-06-15, 22:33
http://youtu.be/oeAy0aQxxOU
http://youtu.be/hR3t7j2tUec
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 22:37
If most people knew suppressors were legal for civilians to own, they would be gone.
Some of you need to stop living in fantasy land, and accept that firearms are too accessible to crazies.
When/where are they not? In some nations like North Korea/Iran/Cuba, ect they are the only ones with them and they hide behind the badge of "the state"
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 22:41
What could they do? Well, let's see...
Reinstate the "assault weapon" ban with no grandfather clause.
Ban all sales of ammo in calibers commonly used by the military (several European countries do this).
Ban all magazines with a capacity > 10 rounds with no grandfather clause.
Ban everything now included in the NFA with no grandfather clause.
Institute a national gun registry.
Ban all handguns.
Ban all semiauto firearms.
Need more?
These are all things the other side would love to have an excuse to do. Do any of us WANT to see any of these happen? Of course not. But many of us FEAR some of these things might happen, especially if we get Queen Hillary the First (which Donald trump is making more likely every day).
The pendulum has been swinging toward rational gun laws (i.e., rolling back useless restrictions) for about 20 years now and I hope this will continue. However, it's worth thinking about what might give the other side ammunition for its arguments. Like it or not our rights are at the mercy of popular opinion. Whether things OUGHT to be that way is academic. It's how things are.
When people ask how things could possibly get worse life often indulges in the annoying habit of answering the question.
And we can avoid all of those bans/laws by not giving them an inch, no more compromises, not more retreats.
They are the enemy and you never win against your enemy by giving into them.
Also cut off the importation of Democratic voters via reducing and capping immigration.
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 22:42
If you think that firearms should be accessible to every citizen in the US, you are exceptionally deluded.
This is the kind of BS that gives firearm enthusiasts a bad rep.
You are the kind of Fudd that gives the 2nd Amendment a bad rep.
You do not want to own a fill in the blank or does not want others to fill in the blank? Great do not own one. But do not limit the rights of others to own what they want.
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 22:46
So keep everything as it is, and let the crazies go around shooting up schools?
Makes sense to me...
No, lets get rid of laws that punish and limit our right to bare arms and defend ourselves.
The sea of Liberty is never without a wave, their will always be some crime, some event that will be used by statist to limit our rights, we are done falling for the lies and tricks.
oberstgreup
10-06-15, 22:51
And we can avoid all of those bans/laws by not giving them an inch, no more compromises, not more retreats.
No, we can't. It's not up to us. It's up to the entire electorate, the vast majority of whom are not in either camp. We can shout "No retreat, no surrender!" til we're blue in the face, but if 51% of the voters decide they agree with the other side, there is not a single thing we can do about it.
This is not war and it isn't football, it's politics. Politics doesn't work like war or football. You don't win at politics by knocking heads, you win by persuading people that you are right. This requires rational discussion, not fanaticism. No retreats is a fine goal and I agree with it but by itself making that pledge accomplishes nothing.
So keep everything as it is, and let the crazies go around shooting up schools?
Makes sense to me...
Try and ban/control this: http://gizmodo.com/3d-printed-guns-are-only-getting-better-and-scarier-1677747439
Try and ban/control what was used in Boston Marathon bombing: pressure cooker with metal bits inside
It is naive to assume that banning/regulating something such as guns won't result in perps substituting something else in their place.
If I was a nut job, I'd mow you down with my giant truck for disagreeing with me, and no regulation would stop me from doing it. Fortunately, I value innocent life and don't find that to be a remotely appropriate method to settle a civil disagreement. Ergo, I type in a forum.
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 23:04
No, we can't. It's not up to us. It's up to the entire electorate, the vast majority of whom are not in either camp. We can shout "No retreat, no surrender!" til we're blue in the face, but if 51% of the voters decide they agree with the other side, there is not a single thing we can do about it.
A more then 50% of the American people support gun rights, with a media campaign and the continued conquest of the cultural landscape, factored in with taking back education via vouchers and choice as well as reducing immigration we can win this long term.
In the mean time, lets push, worse case we do not not win, but if you do not try and change something, nothing ever changes.
Look at Heller and McDonald, and that was with a court that is stacked against us.
This is not war and it isn't football, it's politics. Politics doesn't work like war or football. You don't win at politics by knocking heads, you win by persuading people that you are right. This requires rational discussion, not fanaticism. No retreats is a fine goal and I agree with it but by itself making that pledge accomplishes nothing.
You are right, but like in war what matters is victory, how is it achieved is of little consequence.
We have the facts, we have the stats, we have more and more of a message and in the face of the nation and world going to hell and people starting to see it we can restore the 2nd Amendment
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 23:06
Try and ban/control this: http://gizmodo.com/3d-printed-guns-are-only-getting-better-and-scarier-1677747439
Try and ban/control what was used in Boston Marathon bombing: pressure cooker with metal bits inside
It is naive to assume that banning/regulating something such as guns won't result in perps substituting something else in their place.
If I was a nut job, I'd mow you down with my giant truck for disagreeing with me, and no regulation would stop me from doing it. Fortunately, I value innocent life and don't find that to be a remotely appropriate method to settle a civil disagreement. Ergo, I type in a forum.
Hell ban bleach and ammonia.
Ban drones that can carry more then 5 pounds.
Hell ban bleach and ammonia.
Ban drones that can carry more then 5 pounds.
don't forget to ban knives. The UK knows what they're doing, right?
http://www.citizen-action.com/british-police-order-citizens-surrender-knives/article1327
AnthonyCumia
10-06-15, 23:12
don't forget to ban knives. The UK knows what they're doing, right?
http://www.citizen-action.com/british-police-order-citizens-surrender-knives/article1327
Yea its not like they can make more with any metal and heat...Right?
Or shapen sticks, or just import guns...
Please bring attention to the NFA. Libtards will demand all "assault weapons" be added to it, etc. etc.
Exactly.
They're already demanding confiscation of all guns already, so what's your point? Playing defense has only led to an erosion of rights. By pointing how how asinine it is to put hearing protection under the NFA & how arbitrary it is to put certain barrel lengths under NFA a great argument is made to remove them. More people than you realize would find it ridiculous a stamp is required for an SBR or suppressor.
Silencers are not "hearing protection"
I am tired of hearing this stupid argument. You are never going to win this issue arguing from this perspective. Liberals and big government statists are never going to buy this argument.
Really? The same thing was said about Heller..
Heller didn't do shit.
It said
"You have a right to own a gun"
"a gun" is not the same as "any gun"
This ruling gave enough wiggle room to ban basically any firearm other than a single shot firearm.
PatrioticDisorder
10-07-15, 19:36
Silencers are not "hearing protection"
I am tired of hearing this stupid argument. You are never going to win this issue arguing from this perspective. Liberals and big government statists are never going to buy this argument.
I've converted several generally liberal minds on this topic, your argument is invalid.
PatrioticDisorder
10-07-15, 19:37
Heller didn't do shit.
It said
"You have a right to own a gun"
"a gun" is not the same as "any gun"
This ruling gave enough wiggle room to ban basically any firearm other than a single shot firearm.
I read the entire majority opinion on Heller and it sure as hell does not give enough wiggle room to ban anything other than a single shot firearm.
I read the entire majority opinion on Heller and it sure as hell does not give enough wiggle room to ban anything other than a single shot firearm.
Yes it does.
It does not set any type of threshold for the quickness in which a gun can fire, size of ammunition, or the number of rounds a firearm can hold.
Any class of gun can be banned.
Honestly- if you really think about it, we have had a guy in office for 7 years and nothing on the issues of assault rifles or NFA items have been touched. They have been talked about many times over but no executive order, no legislation. Only talk and no action. Think about this current administration and what we have still on the table, makes my head turn.
Besides California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. You can still have:
assault rifles
Hi cap magazines
SBR's-$200
Suppressors-$200
80% lowers- think about that! That just seems like a high priority for Barry- it doesn't even seem legal but it is.
Laser designators- think about that- those are the things seal team 6 uses- why is that on the streets. (liberal point of view)
Bulk ammo without paperwork
Gun show sales
private sales
any military style gun
They wont remove anything from the NFA because there are too many people willing to pay the $200- I bet out of those who are willing to pay $200 would pay $500 if they had to. I consider it to be a small price to pay.
They are going to ban imported semi auto rifle caliber "pistols"
PatrioticDisorder
10-07-15, 20:11
Yes it does.
It does not set any type of threshold for the quickness in which a gun can fire, size of ammunition, or the number of rounds a firearm can hold.
Any class of gun can be banned.
You're making blatant misstatements. Read pages 54 starting under III through the top of page 56 (preferably the entire majority opinion, it's really not that long). Stating "any class of gun can be banned" is a blatant misrepresentation of the majority opinion in Heller Vs. DC.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
AnthonyCumia
10-07-15, 23:29
Silencers are not "hearing protection"
I am tired of hearing this stupid argument. You are never going to win this issue arguing from this perspective. Liberals and big government statists are never going to buy this argument.
They are hearing protection, and yes leftist/statist supporters are that stupid.
AnthonyCumia
10-07-15, 23:29
Heller didn't do shit.
It said
"You have a right to own a gun"
"a gun" is not the same as "any gun"
This ruling gave enough wiggle room to ban basically any firearm other than a single shot firearm.
It is a step in the right direction.
AnthonyCumia
10-07-15, 23:36
Honestly- if you really think about it, we have had a guy in office for 7 years and nothing on the issues of assault rifles or NFA items have been touched. They have been talked about many times over but no executive order, no legislation. Only talk and no action. Think about this current administration and what we have still on the table, makes my head turn.
Besides California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. You can still have:
assault rifles
Hi cap magazines
SBR's-$200
Suppressors-$200
80% lowers- think about that! That just seems like a high priority for Barry- it doesn't even seem legal but it is.
Laser designators- think about that- those are the things seal team 6 uses- why is that on the streets. (liberal point of view)
Bulk ammo without paperwork
Gun show sales
private sales
any military style gun
They wont remove anything from the NFA because there are too many people willing to pay the $200- I bet out of those who are willing to pay $200 would pay $500 if they had to. I consider it to be a small price to pay.
Do not give them any ideas.
But just because Barry Soetoro was all talk and no action on this issues does not mean the next leftist sub human will do the some thing. We are lucky he cares more about golf and jet setting then leading.
Do not give them any ideas.
But just because Barry Soetoro was all talk and no action on this issues does not mean the next leftist sub human will do the some thing. We are lucky he cares more about golf and jet setting then leading.
who knows. I hate to think about it.
Thank you, if you are "meeting in the middle" as the the enemy is always moving towards tyranny where will you be moving towards?
^^THIS^^
The "Progressives" don't compromise (well, except of course their souls to evil, that is).
If most people knew suppressors were legal for civilians to own, they would be gone.
Some of you need to stop living in fantasy land, and accept that firearms are too accessible to crazies.
Cars, alcohol, knives, hammers, are too accessible to crazies. Register them all. Ban them in fact.
If you think that firearms should be accessible to every citizen in the US, you are exceptionally deluded.
This is the kind of BS that gives firearm enthusiasts a bad rep.
Free adult citizens (proper citizens, not illegals, terrorists, etc.) should have the right to keep and bear arms, as per the Constitution.
Having a "bad rap" to Progressives is actually a reliable sign that something is a good idea.
When Progressives declare something as "common sense", then that means it is a horrible idea.
So keep everything as it is, and let the crazies go around shooting up schools?
Makes sense to me...
Crazies shooting up schools might have something to do with those "gun free zones", i.e. disarmed victims zone.
Crazies also stab people en masse. What kinds of "knife control" should be have?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966
When/where are they not? In some nations like North Korea/Iran/Cuba, ect they are the only ones with them and they hide behind the badge of "the state"
Great point.
Crazies shooting up schools is terrible. So is democide at the hands of the state. The latter is simply ignored when discussing gun control, but is a historically inevitable outcome of civilian disarmament.
No, we can't. It's not up to us. It's up to the entire electorate, the vast majority of whom are not in either camp. We can shout "No retreat, no surrender!" til we're blue in the face, but if 51% of the voters decide they agree with the other side, there is not a single thing we can do about it.
This is not war and it isn't football, it's politics. Politics doesn't work like war or football. You don't win at politics by knocking heads, you win by persuading people that you are right. This requires rational discussion, not fanaticism. No retreats is a fine goal and I agree with it but by itself making that pledge accomplishes nothing.
The vast majority of the electorate do not/should not negate the existence of natural rights.
Saying no retreat, no surrender actually works. The gay marriage crowd did not get what they wanted by saying "let's compromise". You win by dictating the terms of battle.
Silencers are not "hearing protection"
I am tired of hearing this stupid argument. You are never going to win this issue arguing from this perspective. Liberals and big government statists are never going to buy this argument.
Silencers are the same thing as mufflers for your car.
Try driving around without a muffler. See how fast the law would be on our ass.
Silencers are a tool to minimize noise pollution, and hearing damage.
Honestly- if you really think about it, we have had a guy in office for 7 years and nothing on the issues of assault rifles or NFA items have been touched. They have been talked about many times over but no executive order, no legislation. Only talk and no action. Think about this current administration and what we have still on the table, makes my head turn.
Besides California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. You can still have:
assault rifles
Hi cap magazines
SBR's-$200
Suppressors-$200
80% lowers- think about that! That just seems like a high priority for Barry- it doesn't even seem legal but it is.
Laser designators- think about that- those are the things seal team 6 uses- why is that on the streets. (liberal point of view)
Bulk ammo without paperwork
Gun show sales
private sales
any military style gun
They wont remove anything from the NFA because there are too many people willing to pay the $200- I bet out of those who are willing to pay $200 would pay $500 if they had to. I consider it to be a small price to pay.
If you had to pay a $200 tax to exercise your other Constitutionally-protected natural rights, would you be OK with that?
Sure, things could be worse, but that's hardly a reason to tolerate such a situation. Living under the British *could have been worse*. It still justified revolution.
You're making blatant misstatements. Read pages 54 starting under III through the top of page 56 (preferably the entire majority opinion, it's really not that long). Stating "any class of gun can be banned" is a blatant misrepresentation of the majority opinion in Heller Vs. DC.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
What class of gun is safe from further banning? Give me a direct answer.
Single shot?
Pump action shotgun?
Detachable box magazine fed semi auto rifle?
I am waiting for your answer.
PatrioticDisorder
10-08-15, 13:12
What class of gun is safe from further banning? Give me a direct answer.
Single shot?
Pump action shotgun?
Detachable box magazine fed semi auto rifle?
I am waiting for your answer.
Do you have an intellectual disability? I suggest you actually read Heller vs. DC, the Miller case was cited in there several times including the majority opinion agreeing with Miller that 2a protects arms in "common use." So to answer your question, all 3 classes of firearms you cited are indeed in common use, thus protected.
Do you have an intellectual disability? I suggest you actually read Heller vs. DC, the Miller case was cited in there several times including the majority opinion agreeing with Miller that 2a protects arms in "common use." So to answer your question, all 3 classes of firearms you cited are indeed in common use, thus protected.
You are reading words into the decision that aren't there.
If a future AWB was sent to scotus, it would be upheld. The safe act was upheld in court even though the ar15 is the most common rifle in America.
PatrioticDisorder
10-08-15, 16:07
You are reading words into the decision that aren't there.
If a future AWB was sent to scotus, it would be upheld. The safe act was upheld in court even though the ar15 is the most common rifle in America.
No, I read the entire majority opinion and I know what is and isn't in it. The ruling did leave "wiggle room" for gun control but it does not allow entire classes of firearms to be banned. If the SAFE act was challenged before the SCOTUS it would be shot down. The chicken little mentality is not a winning strategy, always playing defense falls right into the hands of the left. Also using words like "toy" to describe a firearm or "enthusiast" to describe yourself does nothing to forward the cause, they cheapen a constitutionally protected right.
AnthonyCumia
10-08-15, 19:59
No, I read the entire majority opinion and I know what is and isn't in it. The ruling did leave "wiggle room" for gun control but it does not allow entire classes of firearms to be banned. If the SAFE act was challenged before the SCOTUS it would be shot down. The chicken little mentality is not a winning strategy, always playing defense falls right into the hands of the left. Also using words like "toy" to describe a firearm or "enthusiast" to describe yourself does nothing to forward the cause, they cheapen a constitutionally protected right.
Thank You.
AnthonyCumia
10-08-15, 20:08
who knows. I hate to think about it.
Well that is why we need to do the following.
Insure they never hold power in any real number, we do that by doing the following
Purging the GOP of its RINOs/Cucks who value "compromise" or "respectability" over victory.
Take back education via choice/vouchers. With education out of their hands they will not have the means to poison the minds of future generations/future voters.
Greatly reduce immigration as to cut off the voter importation pipeline for the Democratic party.
With education lost and immigration shut down we will cap and reduce their power...With a solid party we can have a united front against the leftist scum.
Well that is why we need to do the following.
Insure they never hold power in any real number, we do that by doing the following
Purging the GOP of its RINOs/Cucks who value "compromise" or "respectability" over victory.
Take back education via choice/vouchers. With education out of their hands they will not have the means to poison the minds of future generations/future voters.
Greatly reduce immigration as to cut off the voter importation pipeline for the Democratic party.
With education lost and immigration shut down we will cap and reduce their power...With a solid party we can have a united front against the leftist scum.
Hells yes!
People seem to have forgotten the importance of winning. I don't mean elections. I mean long-term victory. Way too many people are blinded by short-term gain, or even worse short-term aversion of loss, even when it comes at the cost of guaranteed long-term loss.
e.g.1. sell out the country, Western civilization and your children's generation to win votes, favor with the mainstream media.
e.g.2. sell out your own rights and the rights of others to appear "reasonable" to completely unreasonable morons stuck in perpetual adolescence
The ruling did leave "wiggle room" for gun control but it does not allow entire classes of firearms to be banned. If the SAFE act was challenged before the SCOTUS it would be shot down.
Keep thinking that.
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 00:13
Hells yes!
People seem to have forgotten the importance of winning. I don't mean elections. I mean long-term victory. Way too many people are blinded by short-term gain, or even worse short-term aversion of loss, even when it comes at the cost of guaranteed long-term loss.
e.g.1. sell out the country, Western civilization and your children's generation to win votes, favor with the mainstream media.
e.g.2. sell out your own rights and the rights of others to appear "reasonable" to completely unreasonable morons stuck in perpetual adolescence
McCathery just got shot down to be House Speaker, which is great because he is like Eric Cantor only with 10 fewer IQ points.
If you had to pay a $200 tax to exercise your other Constitutionally-protected natural rights, would you be OK with that?
Sure, things could be worse, but that's hardly a reason to tolerate such a situation. Living under the British *could have been worse*. It still justified revolution.
Key word: "IF YOU HAD TO". Well, we don't. Its a bad comparison and not logical and your implying that having to pay $200 tax for a suppressor is like having to pay $200 for your freedom of speech. Birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, drivers license aren't free and technically freedoms or at least freedom implied privileges . In fact, if you want to assemble and hold a protest, you have to get a permit and that cost money, if your going to use a PA system, you have to have a different permit and that cost more money.The constitution says "right to bear arms", which we have that right. Its simple, rights are freedoms, but necessary free- Uncle Sam has to make money too. I'm not on anyone's side on this subject, i do believe that suppressors should be available as an option but anytime the government opens up a discussion on topics like this, we always hear the left contribute ignorant, unintelligent information about how 19 million people were killed with silencers just last month in the state of Rhode Island and how attaching a silencer makes a gun completely silent just like in the movies. Better to leave something's the way they are, too many people complained about the rising cost of health care and now look, you get fined if you don't have it.
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 00:34
What compromise had gotten us.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 01:40
Ok, I laughed a bit.
Well it is true is it not?
oberstgreup
10-09-15, 02:50
Well that is why we need to do the following.
Insure they never hold power in any real number, we do that by doing the following
Purging the GOP of its RINOs/Cucks who value "compromise" or "respectability" over victory.
That sort of thinking is why we're extremely likely to get President Clinton the Second next November.
The same people who insisted on getting rid of Eric Cantor got us Terry McAuliffe as governor of Virginia. I am ashamed to be in the state that has that scum as governor, but there he is. The Republicans gave him that election by hijacking the nominating process to take the choice away from Republican voters and give the nod to a fanatic with an obsession with women's private parts who blew what should have been an easy election for Republicans to win. So let me repeat: the sort of thinking you advocate gave us Terry McAuliffe as governor. NOT a more ideologically correct Republican, but the most shameful scum the Democrats could find to run. And he is our governor. I guess some people would rather lose and have a McAuliffe as governor than win with someone who is not 100% ideologically correct. I call these people "idiots". And he has already vetoed a number of pro-gun bills that were passed by our General Assembly, including a "shall issue" law for CLEOs signoff on Form 4s.
This mess in the House right now is exactly what the Democrats want. The Republicans come off looking like a bunch of amateurs who are incapable of governing and mark my words, this will cost votes next November. Then instead of "RINOs" (meaning Republicans who actually have some idea how to get things done in Congress) we'll be back to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and another liberal who hates America in the White House. But I guess that will be okay because the shattered, powerless remnants of the GOP will be ideologically pure!
Every time Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz open their mouths they cost the GOP more votes next year. But immature children who have zero understanding of politics just lap it up and beg for more. I hope you'll be satisfied when the likes of Terry McAuliffe are running the whole country and not just this unfortunate state. And when that happens you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights goodbye forever because they will pack the federal courts with liberals who will be only too happy to overturn Heller and rule that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the states' right to have the National Guard, and then sit back and smile while Clinton and her cronies in the now Democrat-led Congress ban and confiscate everything more modern than a flintlock musket.
Yeah, our rights SHOULDN'T be at the mercy of the electorate. And people shouldn't kick dogs or shoot schoolchildren, but the sad fact is that that's the way this world we live in is and we have no choice but to deal with it. We live in a democratic republic and the side that gets the most votes wins and rules, no matter how stupid or awful or immoral you know their policies are. Don't EVER make the mistake of thinking that because you know you're right it's impossible to lose. It is ALWAYS possible to lose and it is ALWAYS possible to get worse and your rights are ALWAYS at the mercy of the majority.
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 04:14
That sort of thinking is why we're extremely likely to get President Clinton the Second next November.
The same people who insisted on getting rid of Eric Cantor got us Terry McAuliffe as governor of Virginia.
No, what got you that was a 3rd party Libertarian that bled off enough voters that insure he who.
I am ashamed to be in the state that has that scum as governor, but there he is. The Republicans gave him that election by hijacking the nominating process to take the choice away from Republican voters and give the nod to a fanatic with an obsession with women's private parts who blew what should have been an easy election for Republicans to win. So let me repeat: the sort of thinking you advocate gave us Terry McAuliffe as governor. NOT a more ideologically correct Republican, but the most shameful scum the Democrats could find to run. And he is our governor. I guess some people would rather lose and have a McAuliffe as governor than win with someone who is not 100% ideologically correct. I call these people "idiots". And he has already vetoed a number of pro-gun bills that were passed by our General Assembly, including a "shall issue" law for CLEOs signoff on Form 4s.
No, it was a 3rd party as well as the GOP not funding the race and leave him for dead.
I understand your hate and it is justified.
This mess in the House right now is exactly what the Democrats want. The Republicans come off looking like a bunch of amateurs who are incapable of governing and mark my words, this will cost votes next November. Then instead of "RINOs" (meaning Republicans who actually have some idea how to get things done in Congress) we'll be back to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and another liberal who hates America in the White House. But I guess that will be okay because the shattered, powerless remnants of the GOP will be ideologically pure!
No, we are doing what they did a few years ago, they purged the Blue Dogs from the party and it worked, we are just getting rid of the Neo Cons/Cucks and it will insure we get things done, not "go along to get along" which got us no where. How many pro guns laws did we pass and how many infringements did we repeal when we owned Congress and the White House?
How many?
How many immigration laws did we pass?
How many departments/programs/agencies did we shut down?
Not a damn one.
When you have that chances and you blow it, the voters will be pissed and rightfully so.
When the leftists had such control they rammed though Obamacare and luckily wasted their political capital in that one push.
What will cost us voters is being soft spoken, P.C low energy people like most Neo Cons/Cucks.
Notice how many people stayed home with Romeny? Did you think they were just lazy? No they say him as weak and soft on the issues.
Every time Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz open their mouths they cost the GOP more votes next year.
Really? So why are they surging in the polls?
Why do they draw a crowd?
But immature children who have zero understanding of politics just lap it up and beg for more. I hope you'll be satisfied when the likes of Terry McAuliffe are running the whole country and not just this unfortunate state.
No, I understand you do not "meet in the middle" as your opposition is always moving towards tyranny as it will drag you further and further towards it.
And when that happens you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights goodbye forever because they will pack the federal courts with liberals who will be only too happy to overturn Heller and rule that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the states' right to have the National Guard, and then sit back and smile while Clinton and her cronies in the now Democrat-led Congress ban and confiscate everything more modern than a flintlock musket.
Or we can avoid it by running candidates that will win by being strong candidates instead of weak undefined people that try and apply to everyone and win the vote of no one.
Yeah, our rights SHOULDN'T be at the mercy of the electorate. And people shouldn't kick dogs or shoot schoolchildren, but the sad fact is that that's the way this world we live in is and we have no choice but to deal with it. We live in a democratic republic and the side that gets the most votes wins and rules, no matter how stupid or awful or immoral you know their policies are. Don't EVER make the mistake of thinking that because you know you're right it's impossible to lose. It is ALWAYS possible to lose and it is ALWAYS possible to get worse and your rights are ALWAYS at the mercy of the majority.
We have winning ideas/polices/ but without candidates that will take the fight to the opposition during the race and while in office.
Trust me the Neo Cons and Cucks believe that non sense and how has that rewarded us?
More over why do you think i support taking back education, we can inoculate young mind to the lies of the left and cut off the supply of young and dumb voters, which will lead to long term gains in our favor.
Not sure if serious or not. FSA voters are increasing. Good luck purging the GOP. And as a reality check most people in America are not subscribing to the right wing all or nothing mentality.
Take back education how?
How are you going to reduce illegal or any other immigration when the Border Patrol is being controlled at the top by those that want it?
Well that is why we need to do the following.
Insure they never hold power in any real number, we do that by doing the following
Purging the GOP of its RINOs/Cucks who value "compromise" or "respectability" over victory.
Take back education via choice/vouchers. With education out of their hands they will not have the means to poison the minds of future generations/future voters.
Greatly reduce immigration as to cut off the voter importation pipeline for the Democratic party.
With education lost and immigration shut down we will cap and reduce their power...With a solid party we can have a united front against the leftist scum.
oberstgreup
10-09-15, 05:53
No, what got you that was a 3rd party Libertarian that bled off enough voters that insure he who.
And why do you think that Libertarian got so much more of the vote than any Libertarian had ever gotten in VA up to that point? The Libertarians have been running for decades and no one ever voted for them before. It was moderate Republicans and independents who refused to vote for Cuccinelli because he is an extremist and an incredibly divisive politician. Nominating him was a big middle finger to moderate and independent voters and they responded by voting for someone else. Now we have the usual BS excuses blaming everyone except Ken Cuccinelli for that loss. He lost because people refused to vote for him.
They say those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You're demonstrating the correctness of that saying. Republicans nominated a bomb-thrower who deliberately offends everyone but the hard-line base and we ended up with with a liberal Democrat crook and party hack as governor. The same people who nominated Cuccinelli now tell us to double down on the stupid. It's also said the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. I am telling you if the GOP does the same on a national scale it will mean four, maybe eight more years of a Democrat in the White House. You can take that to the bank. And then there will be all sorts of great excuses about Libertarians or RINOs whatever, just like there are now over Governor McAuliffe. And they will all be equally worthless. I don't want a lot of really great excuses for why we have Queen Hillary, I want a Republican in the White House. There is NO Republican who is not preferable - on guns or any other issue - to Clinton or Biden or Sanders or anyone else the Democrats are going to run.
In short, I don't give a crap exactly how or why Cuccinelli lost or who betrayed who or who let who down. We nominated Cuccinelli, now we have Governor McAuliffe. Those are the facts. One followed the other like night follows day.
Really? So why are they surging in the polls?
Why do they draw a crowd?
Because they pander to the extreme and play to the basest emotions of the crowd. This is a lamentable feature of Tea Party politics (although leftists have their own identical version), the idea that whatever infuriates the other side the most must be right. It is infantile. The same people think Sarah Palin is wonderful because liberals hate her so much. She is ignorant, flighty, addled, and has no moral center; a reality TV star who is possibly the worst conservative candidate for national office I have seen in my lifetime, but because liberals hate her so much she must be great, right? But she probably cost the GOP 10% of the popular vote in 2008. The fanatics cannot seem to understand that rabid hate and deliberate, even proud ignorance are turnoffs to most voters.
And they are only surging in the polls of Republicans against other Republican candidates. They do horribly in matchups against the Democrats. Any of them will lose the general election by 10 points or more if nominated. They cannot possibly win. Nominating them would mean wrapping the Oval Office up for the Democrats with a nice red bow on top.
And that isn't even really about ideology. The problem with Trump isn't that he's too conservative, it's that he's a reality TV star and a blowhard who likes being as offensive as possible and thinks that is scoring points. His open contempt for women has offended just about every woman I know, including some very conservative ones. He's not even really a conservative, he 's just willing to say whatever he thinks will bring him votes at this point in the process. Apart from immigration he has zero actual ideas on policy, he just says if he gets elected all problems will go away like magic because he's just that awesome. Cruz is less silly but he's also a bomb-thrower. Nevermind that his antics never actually accomplish anything, he really, really pisses off the liberals so he must be awesome. Like I said, infantile. The aim of conservative politics is not to piss off liberals. That is not how success is defined. It may be fun but it is not helpful.
No, I understand you do not "meet in the middle" as your opposition is always moving towards tyranny as it will drag you further and further towards it.
Politics is the art of the possible. You can shout about ideological purity all you like but you can't get what you can't get. Most people in this country are neither hard-line fringe liberals nor hard-line fringe conservatives. They are repelled by what they see as extremist politics. They are repelled by people who act like the object of government is to piss off the other side, not to actually govern effectively. Whether you like that or not that's the way it is. Anyone who hopes to win needs to convince those people that they are serious about governing, not just out to poke a stick in the other side's eye out of spite.
Or we can avoid it by running candidates that will win by being strong candidates instead of weak undefined people that try and apply to everyone and win the vote of no one.
Funny that Obama won twice being and doing exactly the latter.
Mull that over for a minute. Barack Obama won the majority of the vote in this country twice. How could that possibly have happened? You claim it was because the Republicans opposing him were insufficiently hard-line conservative. Why on earth would you imagine that anyone who would even consider voting for Obama - which is plainly a majority of the voters, since a majority did, in fact, vote for him - would prefer a right-wing fanatic? Why would anyone who is holding out for a right-wing fanatic ever vote for Obama under any circumstances? It's absurd on its face.
And it's not because most of the voters stayed home. The last two presidential elections had higher turnout than any other elections in our history.
You may despise politicians who are willing to compromise and put actually governing ahead of ideological purity, but that's exactly what most voters want, and refusing to even consider it is a sure way to lose elections. Obama won by convincing a majority that that's the sort of president he'd be. Whether that's really true is another matter, the point is that that's what most voters want and that's what they voted for. And if the Republicans nominate someone whose only policy is no compromises whatsoever, they will lose. Like night follows day.
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 07:22
Not sure if serious or not. FSA voters are increasing. Good luck purging the GOP. And as a reality check most people in America are not subscribing to the right wing all or nothing mentality.
Which is why we need to reduce and cap immigration, no need to import voters for the leftists as well as create new jobs/make industries return.
Take back education how?
Vouchers and School Choice, with the Cartel of Government run education broken we can have millions of future voters learn real history, civics, understand the proper role of goverment(which goverment run schools never do as they have a interests in increasing their power.) and the value of Western Culture, Liberty and being taught how to defend it for the cultural marxist scum who wish to destroy it.
Every wonder why leftist hate the idea of having to compete for the minds of the youth? Its because they can not compete and they know this.
With this pipeline cut they will wither and die as they should..
How are you going to reduce illegal or any other immigration when the Border Patrol is being controlled at the top by those that want it?
No, it is not, which is why we need to get rid of the Neo Cons/Cucks who are either in the pocket of the "cheap" labor supporters or the Cucks who either thing we can win over the 3rd world masses or will not defend their own nation/culture/Liberty out of fear of being called "racist".
More or less a updated version of the 1924 immigration act.
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 08:27
And why do you think that Libertarian got so much more of the vote than any Libertarian had ever gotten in VA up to that point? The Libertarians have been running for decades and no one ever voted for them before. It was moderate Republicans and independents who refused to vote for Cuccinelli because he is an extremist and an incredibly divisive politician. Nominating him was a big middle finger to moderate and independent voters and they responded by voting for someone else. Now we have the usual BS excuses blaming everyone except Ken Cuccinelli for that loss. He lost because people refused to vote for him.
Really? LOL. Cuccinelli was too "extreme"? How?
So you do not care how the race ended, why he lost, you just think he lost because he was the candidate?
So tell us, what would have lead us to winning?
Please I have to hear this.
They say those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Like President McCain or President Romney? You know the "electable candidates"?
You're demonstrating the correctness of that saying. Republicans nominated a bomb-thrower who deliberately offends everyone but the hard-line base and we ended up with with a liberal Democrat crook and party hack as governor. The same people who nominated Cuccinelli now tell us to double down on the stupid. It's also said the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. I am telling you if the GOP does the same on a national scale it will mean four, maybe eight more years of a Democrat in the White House. You can take that to the bank. And then there will be all sorts of great excuses about Libertarians or RINOs whatever, just like there are now over Governor McAuliffe. And they will all be equally worthless. I don't want a lot of really great excuses for why we have Queen Hillary, I want a Republican in the White House. There is NO Republican who is not preferable - on guns or any other issue - to Clinton or Biden or Sanders or anyone else the Democrats are going to run.
Using facts and tapping in to righteous anger of the American people is "bomb throwing" to you?
Do you want any republican or someone who will make hay will the sun shines?
Wrong again maybe are just as bad on other issues like Immigration which will insure one party rule of the Democratic party in the coming years if immigration levels are not reduced and capped.
In short, I don't give a crap exactly how or why Cuccinelli lost or who betrayed who or who let who down. We nominated Cuccinelli, now we have Governor McAuliffe. Those are the facts. One followed the other like night follows day.
Who should we have nominated?
Who? A more weaker candidate?
Because they pander to the extreme and play to the basest emotions of the crowd.
And that is bad, why? They are using facts to back up the fact that leftist ideas and programs are a failure.
This is a lamentable feature of Tea Party politics (although leftists have their own identical version), the idea that whatever infuriates the other side the most must be right. It is infantile. The same people think Sarah Palin is wonderful because liberals hate her so much. She is ignorant, flighty, addled, and has no moral center; a reality TV star who is possibly the worst conservative candidate for national office I have seen in my lifetime, but because liberals hate her so much she must be great, right? But she probably cost the GOP 10% of the popular vote in 2008. The fanatics cannot seem to understand that rabid hate and deliberate, even proud ignorance are turnoffs to most voters.
So you attack a whole justifiable group of people who are tried of being sold out by their own party based one bad pick of a VP candiate from a old foolish cuck?
And they are only surging in the polls of Republicans against other Republican candidates. They do horribly in matchups against the Democrats. Any of them will lose the general election by 10 points or more if nominated. They cannot possibly win. Nominating them would mean wrapping the Oval Office up for the Democrats with a nice red bow on top.
See the polls and then say such things. More over the Dem Debates will show they have no ideas and if that fossil Socialist is elected he will lose the race.
And that isn't even really about ideology. The problem with Trump isn't that he's too conservative, it's that he's a reality TV star and a blowhard who likes being as offensive as possible and thinks that is scoring points.
No, it is about ideology, the Neo Cons has their chance and they have failed epicly. That "reality T.V star has a proven record have job creation as well as turning debt into profit. Can not say the same thing about other candidates, also he is kicking their asses in the poll.
His open contempt for women has offended just about every woman I know, including some very conservative ones.
Then they are the kind of soft skinned people that get offend over nothing.
Apart from immigration he has zero actual ideas on policy, he just says if he gets elected all problems will go away like magic because he's just that awesome.
Did you not see his policy on gun rights and taxes? More over what ideas do YOU have?
Cruz is less silly but he's also a bomb-thrower. Nevermind that his antics never actually accomplish anything, he really, really pisses off the liberals so he must be awesome. Like I said, infantile. The aim of conservative politics is not to piss off liberals. That is not how success is defined. It may be fun but it is not helpful.
That "bomb thrower" helped us stop the left from banning more firearms in the aftermath of Sandy Hook and you call him a bomb thrower for attacking the left? God that is how you treat a man trying to help you? Anything fact based or that stops the left will piss off Leftists, its going to happen our goals are the restoring of Liberty and if that means a few leftist get upset, so be it.
If that means in order to get suppressed machine guns to my door from an Estore with no paperwork we have to offend some "protected class" so be it.
Politics is the art of the possible.
Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done.
Robert A. Heinlein
You can shout about ideological purity all you like but you can't get what you can't get. Most people in this country are neither hard-line fringe liberals nor hard-line fringe conservatives.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/gallup-conservatives-liberals-outnumber/2015/02/10/id/623987/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/22/conservatives-are-among-the-most-politically-active-americans/
They are repelled by what they see as extremist politics.
Sure they do...
They are repelled by people who act like the object of government is to piss off the other side, not to actually govern effectively.
So why are they not repelled by leftist or by Trump?
Whether you like that or not that's the way it is. Anyone who hopes to win needs to convince those people that they are serious about governing, not just out to poke a stick in the other side's eye out of spite.
And we are convince others, by using facts, and drawing attention to them and our policies with bluntness as being P.C gets us nowhere.
Funny that Obama won twice being and doing exactly the latter.
McCain and Romney where not strong candidate and their loses proved it.
Mull that over for a minute. Barack Obama won the majority of the vote in this country twice. How could that possibly have happened?
He won the 2nd time by the hair of his ass, in a crap economy (he made worse) with a media that was openly on his side, against a meek candidate.
You claim it was because the Republicans opposing him were insufficiently hard-line conservative. Why on earth would you imagine that anyone who would even consider voting for Obama - which is plainly a majority of the voters, since a majority did, in fact, vote for him - would prefer a right-wing fanatic?
Low info voters? Media helping him, weak candidates. More over if you think McCain or Romney are "right wing "fanatics"" then you are just spouting leftist talking points or buzzwords.
And it's not because most of the voters stayed home. The last two presidential elections had higher turnout than any other elections in our history.
No 4 million people did not even make it to the poll
http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/11/three-million-republican-voters-stayed-home-on-election-day/
home.http://www.redstate.com/diary/griffinelection/2012/11/14/what-went-wrong-in-2012-the-case-of-the-4-million-missing-voters/
Thanks to A. A media that was openly in the pocket for "The first black President" and B. Low info voters.
You may despise politicians who are willing to compromise and put actually governing ahead of ideological purity, but that's exactly what most voters want, and refusing to even consider it is a sure way to lose elections.
Compromising with bad ideas is a very bad idea. Compromising with policies and bill that reduce Liberty, and empower the left is not in our favor. We have no obligation to help the left or to work/vote to our determent.
Obama won by convincing a majority that that's the sort of president he'd be. Whether that's really true is another matter, the point is that that's what most voters want and that's what they voted for. And if the Republicans nominate someone whose only policy is no compromises whatsoever, they will lose. Like night follows day.
Convincing the desperate, the poor, the young, and the dumb is a easy feat for the dishonest.
Really? So what has compromise gotten us?
The 16th, 17th, and the 18th Amendments
The National Firearms Act
The Gold Confiscation Act
Interment of German, Italian, and Japanese Americans during the war without charges or tiral
Violation of the 1st Amendment in the Civil Rights Act
The Immigration Act of 1965 (which has turned America into a lefter leaning nation)
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The creation of the Department of Education
The Hughes Amendment
The Amnesty in 1986
The Patriot Act
The War in Iraq
And countless more really, really, really bad ideas. How as that worked out for us?
That's not compromise, that's incrementalism. They've been chipping away at us for a while and we've got nothing in return. We have not compromised, we've been robbed of our wealth and our of Liberty.
You just want to "compromise" on every issue, every topic, everything until we have nothing left to give up.
What has the left every given up on? Not just slow their push for, just give up? Name one goal/topic/ issue. Name one.
We have been compromising with our liberties, freedoms, and prosperity for too long and what has it gotten us?
Yes it is a problem, one that will be solved when the time is ready.
When you compromise with failure, you create more failure.
When you compromise with corruption, you create more corruption.
When you compromise with injustice, you create more injustice.
When you compromise with cronyism, you create more cronyism.
When you compromise with criminality, you create more criminality.
When you compromise with moral relativism, you create more moral relativism.
When you compromise with give up freedom you give up more freedom.
When you compromise with National Sovereignty, you give up more National Sovereignty.
When you compromise with bad ideas, you get more bad ideas.
When you compromise with evil, you get more evil.
When you compromise with tyranny, you get more tyranny.
When is compromising with a bad idea anything less then a really, really, really bad idea?
My attitude will not destroy us, your will destroy us "nothing is right, nothing thing is wrong, nothing is good nothing is evil, success and failure are just a matter of opinion and not results as well as countless other failed views and opinions created by moral relativism
John F. Kennedy — 'We cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.
Cuccinelli lost because:
*He ran a bad campaign
*He is self proclaimed far-right wing running for election in a purple state
*McAuliffe played himself as a centist and had better name recognition
Exit polling showed most voters were not just voting for McAuliffe but against Cuccinelli. You can't win a statewide election in VA unless you win the counties around the blue core of Northern VA which he lost.
PatrioticDisorder
10-09-15, 10:10
You fellas ever think VA governorship was lost because of the expansion of guberment jobs in the DC area? Let's face it, VA had been turning purple for a while, I believe it's solidly light blue at this point. Tea party candidates have cleaned clock on a national level for several years now, RINOs have been getting jacked up. There is no such thing as "moderate", a "moderate" is someone who isn't paying attention; the left is on a persistent March towards statism that has been sped up over the past 8 years. I suspect many "moderates" would vote left anyone due to peer pressure, the only way to win the debate and win them over is to effectively make the argument why the left is wrong and you'll solidify them as a voter forever once they see what a conservative/libertarian led government looks like.
PatrioticDisorder
10-09-15, 10:11
Cuccinelli lost because:
*He ran a bad campaign
*He is self proclaimed far-right wing running for election in a purple state
*McAuliffe played himself as a centist and had better name recognition
Exit polling showed most voters were not just voting for McAuliffe but against Cuccinelli. You can't win a statewide election in VA unless you win the counties around the blue core of Northern VA which he lost.
Nah, your state is light blue now, solidly. McAullitffe is about as far left as you can get, out of the closet with it and he's been that way for a while.
Nah, your state is light blue now, solidly. McAullitffe is about as far left as you can get, out of the closet with it and he's been that way for a while.
I disagree with this. It's firmly purple. The governorship was lost because Cuccinelli was a bad candidate. We have had a number of successful Republican governors. All that being said the Gov of VA has very limited power compared to other states.
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 11:13
I disagree with this. It's firmly purple. The governorship was lost because Cuccinelli was a bad candidate. We have had a number of successful Republican governors. All that being said the Gov of VA has very limited power compared to other states.
Thank God right?
Thank God right?
The power is closest to the people through the legislature, I think that's the way it should be. It partly eliminates the debacles you have in states like NY where Cuomo thinks he is the second coming. There are few people a can't stand and that guy is at the top of the list.
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 11:58
The power is closest to the people through the legislature, I think that's the way it should be. It partly eliminates the debacles you have in states like NY where Cuomo thinks he is the second coming. There are few people a can't stand and that guy is at the top of the list.
More reason I support tight immigration laws, I wish we could have kept his great grandfather out of the nation and back in Italy where his mobster genes belong.
oberstgreup
10-09-15, 19:06
Really? LOL. Cuccinelli was too "extreme"? How?
He is obsessed with abortion, for one thing. That is a losing issue for conservatives. Most people don't support a total ban and most people are offended by the tactic of harassing and intimidating women who seek to have one. He also sought to have the state sodomy law reinstated. Trying to re-criminalize homosexuality is about as losing an issue as you can find today. The vast majority of the public not only opposes that but is highly offended by it.
So you do not care how the race ended, why he lost, you just think he lost because he was the candidate?
I KNOW he lost because he was the candidate. I knew he was going to lose from the moment they rigged the nomination process to select him. So did everyone with a brain who was not blinded by fanaticism.
So tell us, what would have lead us to winning?
Letting the Republican voters nominate the candidate in a primary, as is the usual practice. They would have nominated Bolling and Bolling would have beaten McAuliffe by a handy margin.
Using facts and tapping in to righteous anger of the American people is "bomb throwing" to you?
No. Deliberately picking unnecessary fights over trivial issues is bomb throwing. Shutting down the government to make a point when you know you can't win is bomb throwing. Using ethnic slurs to describe immigrants or saying they're all rapists and murderers is bomb throwing. All of these things are meant to provoke and to generate buzz for the person doing them, not to actually enact sound policies.
So you attack a whole justifiable group of people who are tried of being sold out by their own party based one bad pick of a VP candiate
Yes. They forced her on McCain. He was threatened with a revolt on the convention floor if he didn't let the hard-liners pick the VP candidate. And she was hugely popular for years after losing that election because she was offensive to liberals.
from a old foolish cuck?
That sort of juvenile innuendo is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It turns people off. It turns them off not because you're too conservative, but because you're deliberately being offensive. Nobody likes that except other fanatics.
Anything fact based or that stops the left will piss off Leftists
You're not listening. The problem isn't that leftists are pissed off. The problem is doing things JUST to piss leftists off despite the fact that they are terrible ideas in every other way. Things like picking Palin for VP or supporting an idiot like Trump. They are not terrible ideas because they're too conservative, they're terrible ideas because they reek of incompetence and lack of the slightest bit of perspective.
If that means in order to get suppressed machine guns to my door from an Estore with no paperwork we have to offend some "protected class" so be it.
That is not happening, so forget it.
McCain and Romney where not strong candidate and their loses proved it.
No, they weren't, that's true. But I'm pretty sure McCain would have won anyway if he hadn't had an idiot like Palin as his VP pick. His age and health was already a liability, but even more they meant people paid a lot more attention to the VP candidate because his age and health made it a lot more likely that she'd end up as president. A lot of sensible people just couldn't stand the thought of any possibility of President Palin. Not because she's conservative, but because she's an idiot with no moral center. It made me grit my teeth but I voted for McCain anyway and hoped his health would hold out. But a lot of people didn't.
Low info voters? Media helping him, weak candidates.
Excuses. I don't want excuses, I want a Republican president. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz are not going to be that president. They cannot win.
Really? So what has compromise gotten us?
What has the left every given up on? Not just slow their push for, just give up? Name one goal/topic/ issue. Name one.
Take a look at Europe, specifically the UK, and the differences between there and here. The UK has a total ban on firearms and a ban on carrying ordinary folding knives. They have completely socialized medicine run (terribly) by the government. They have a 45% tax bracket and their total tax burden is 50% higher than ours as a percentage of GDP. We don't have any of those things. Liberals would like to have them but in practical terms they don't even try and implement them.
When is compromising with a bad idea anything less then a really, really, really bad idea?
When not compromising gets you something even worse.
You despise moderates more than liberals, but I'll take a moderate government any day of the week over a liberal one that will enact much worse policies.
You want a total gun ban like England's or Australia's? Because that not only can but WILL happen if the GOP keeps losing elections and trashing its own leadership. And all the really, really ideologically pure conservatives will be scratching their heads and trying to think of more excuses for why we let our 2nd Amendment rights get trampled.
Do you really think that can't happen? Ask yourself this: how many votes on the Supreme Court would it have taken for Heller to go the other way? (Hint: it's less than two.) And how many of the current justices are likely to be replaced in the next administration? (Hint: four of them - two liberals one conservative, and one moderate who was in the Heller majority - will be in their 80s by then.) Do you want Hillary Clinton appointing their successors? Because I cannot think of ANYTHING worse for our 2nd Amendment rights than that.
This is why I go on arguing this here. Because I do not want to see Hillary Clinton elected so she can pack the Supreme Court with liberals who will destroy our rights. Honestly, I can't think of any more terrifying prospect in our politics today. And if the Republicans nominate a clown like Trump that is exactly what we will get.
It isn't going to happen via the legislative process - the courts are the only plausible method of changing the NFA's application to suppressors.
Who wants to be a test dummy?
It isn't going to happen via the legislative process - the courts are the only plausible method of changing the NFA's application to suppressors.
Who wants to be a test dummy?
How about just "it isn't going to happen"
AnthonyCumia
10-09-15, 23:38
It isn't going to happen via the legislative process - the courts are the only plausible method of changing the NFA's application to suppressors.
Who wants to be a test dummy?
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1795079_State_law_vs_NFA_This_maybe_the_first_test_case.html&page=2
This guy might....
AnthonyCumia
10-10-15, 01:07
He is obsessed with abortion, for one thing. That is a losing issue for conservatives. Most people don't support a total ban and most people are offended by the tactic of harassing and intimidating women who seek to have one. He also sought to have the state sodomy law reinstated. Trying to re-criminalize homosexuality is about as losing an issue as you can find today. The vast majority of the public not only opposes that but is highly offended by it.
Facts and links...I will say we can avoid the abortion issue all together by having over the counter birth control. PP was in favor of this but lose all interests as they made large sums of money off of organ harvesting.
I KNOW he lost because he was the candidate. I knew he was going to lose from the moment they rigged the nomination process to select him. So did everyone with a brain who was not blinded by fanaticism.
Yeah it had nothing to do with the changing make up of the state right?
Had nothing to do with a media that spreads lies or a underfunded campaign.
Letting the Republican voters nominate the candidate in a primary, as is the usual practice. They would have nominated Bolling and Bolling would have beaten McAuliffe by a handy margin.
Is that not how they do so in VA? Would not know, do not live there.
No. Deliberately picking unnecessary fights over trivial issues is bomb throwing. Shutting down the government to make a point when you know you can't win is bomb throwing. Using ethnic slurs to describe immigrants or saying they're all rapists and murderers is bomb throwing. All of these things are meant to provoke and to generate buzz for the person doing them, not to actually enact sound policies.
Spending, Debt, Immigration, and Gun Rights are not "trivial issues".
Illegal immigrant is not a slur, nor did anyone call them all rapist and murders.
They drawn attention to us, our causes, and show the American people we do not fear the left or being called names for advancing the cause of Liberty. Which has help us surge in the polls.
Yes. They forced her on McCain. He was threatened with a revolt on the convention floor if he didn't let the hard-liners pick the VP candidate. And she was hugely popular for years after losing that election because she was offensive to liberals.
Really? LOL so he had no say? I find that her to believe. But he is a cuck so color me shocked.
That sort of juvenile innuendo is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It turns people off. It turns them off not because you're too conservative, but because you're deliberately being offensive. Nobody likes that except other fanatics.
LOL and yet we are winning. The Alt right is taking over the right as we should. The current "Buckley" Conservatism has failed us on every issue. Time for man of action.
Call out people for being failures, and supporting goals and policies that harm the base as well as reduce our power and control is not "offensive" but I guess those being called out would see that way.
Nothing to retort with other then repeating the some line of "compromise" as everything they claim to love, value, and defend is being destroyed more and more every day.
You're not listening. The problem isn't that leftists are pissed off. The problem is doing things JUST to piss leftists off despite the fact that they are terrible ideas in every other way. Things like picking Palin for VP or supporting an idiot like Trump. They are not terrible ideas because they're too conservative, they're terrible ideas because they reek of incompetence and lack of the slightest bit of perspective.
Us winning, or talking about issues with objectivity and facts is offensives to the left. They get offended about everything all the time. More over that "idiot" Trump is winning, will win and will rape the leftist in the debates and election. How so? Please to hear this.
That is not happening, so forget it.
Not with that attitude.
No, they weren't, that's true. But I'm pretty sure McCain would have won anyway if he hadn't had an idiot like Palin as his VP pick. His age and health was already a liability, but even more they meant people paid a lot more attention to the VP candidate because his age and health made it a lot more likely that she'd end up as president. A lot of sensible people just couldn't stand the thought of any possibility of President Palin. Not because she's conservative, but because she's an idiot with no moral center. It made me grit my teeth but I voted for McCain anyway and hoped his health would hold out. But a lot of people didn't.
Do you really think anything would be any different with that RINO in office?
Excuses. I don't want excuses, I want a Republican president. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz are not going to be that president. They cannot win.
And should Trump win and be better then that "compromiser" Reagan that what will you say.
Take a look at Europe, specifically the UK, and the differences between there and here. The UK has a total ban on firearms and a ban on carrying ordinary folding knives. They have completely socialized medicine run (terribly) by the government. They have a 45% tax bracket and their total tax burden is 50% higher than ours as a percentage of GDP. We don't have any of those things. Liberals would like to have them but in practical terms they don't even try and implement them.
Well they are getting more of more of what they want because we are "compromising" with them.
When not compromising gets you something even worse.
And why is that?
You despise moderates more than liberals, but I'll take a moderate government any day of the week over a liberal one that will enact much worse policies.
I despise traitors more then I do the enemy. It is understand that the enemy is working against us while traitors betray the bonds and culture of Liberty we work to protect.
You want a total gun ban like England's or Australia's? Because that not only can but WILL happen if the GOP keeps losing elections and trashing its own leadership. And all the really, really ideologically pure conservatives will be scratching their heads and trying to think of more excuses for why we let our 2nd Amendment rights get trampled.
Like how we lost with "electable" McCain/Romney? You just want to compromise all the time on all issues and play by the rules/limits the left creates? You might as well turn in your arms to the police and be a slave.
Do you really think that can't happen? Ask yourself this: how many votes on the Supreme Court would it have taken for Heller to go the other way? (Hint: it's less than two.) And how many of the current justices are likely to be replaced in the next administration? (Hint: four of them - two liberals one conservative, and one moderate who was in the Heller majority - will be in their 80s by then.) Do you want Hillary Clinton appointing their successors? Because I cannot think of ANYTHING worse for our 2nd Amendment rights than that.
This is why I go on arguing this here. Because I do not want to see Hillary Clinton elected so she can pack the Supreme Court with liberals who will destroy our rights. Honestly, I can't think of any more terrifying prospect in our politics today. And if the Republicans nominate a clown like Trump that is exactly what we will get.
How did two of those leftist judges get on the court again? Wait, didn't the cucks vote them in? Your know "compromise", how is that working out for us?
How is that "compromising" judge Roberts working out for us, you know the one picked by the "compromiser in chief "republican" GWB" working out for us?
How is all of that compromising working out for us again? Because it looks like it has lead us to our current situation.
Sorry if you can not understand that.
Why done elected traitor that is why we have a strong candidate to beat that lying witch or that aged socialist. More over if the court makes such a ruling A Supreme Court decision would expose the illegitimacy of the court and reveal the outright criminality of the federal government.
If, somehow, the U.S. Supreme Court finds these new state gun restrictions laws to be "constitutional," such a decision would be equivalent to a declaration that the court has openly abandoned its only real duty, which is to halt overreaching laws that violate the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
At this point, there would be widespread realization that the judiciary is an occupying enemy force acting in violation of their sworn oaths of office. If such a scenario unfolds, I theoretically predict, but do not condone, the likelihood that disgruntled individuals, having been stripped of their freedoms by a clearly illegal and unconstitutional judiciary, would take it upon themselves to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court justices who violated the Constitution as well as key high-level members of the federal government. Again, I'm not condoning this nor advocating it, because I do not believe violence is the appropriate path to a long-term solution in all this. However, I cannot deny the possibility of a decentralized, spontaneous armed response to the "long train of abuses" that liberty-loving Americans continue to suffer under today.
Learn more: http://web.archive.org/web/20130602072336/http://www.naturalnews.com/039795_gun_control_Supreme_Court_Constitution.html#ixzz3o8qizrPw
Compromise is futile in the long run.
The GOP has been infiltrated by closet Progressives. When I say closet Progressives, I don't even mean ones that necessarily are aware of their own Progressive nature. The cultural backdrop has shifted so far towards extreme Progressivism, that even a lot of "conservatives" are having to pander to this insatiable thirst for more government control and spending on stupid shit and all that comes with that.
Yes, I understand that it's risky to go against the sacred cows of Progressivism, but it can be done.
Cutting off immigration is a very important first step. I say that as an immigrant. The fundamental difference between the immigration of today and he immigration of yesteryear is that today's immigrants come into the country with a generally negative view of the West, and exclusively to personally gain, rather than build the country. Their identity and ultimate loyalties remain with their ancestral homeland, even their children's, who are born here. Immigrants of yesteryear either pulled their weight or starved. As "uncompassionate" as that may seem, it was par for the course for everybody, and ruled out any leeching off of other productive individuals.
I see so many immigrants around me that have this mentality, that it sickens me. Even the ones that work, do so begrudgingly and feel a sense of being owed something by the West. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. They know they have it better here than in wherever the **** they came from, yet still feel hostility towards the West for all sorts of perceived injustices.
I think this field of GOP candidates is pretty damn good. As long as an immigrant-pandering fool such as Jeb Bush doesn't win the nomination, I am very hopeful. The stream of Demoncrat voters is cut off, there is hope for America. Otherwise, we may go past the demographic and ideological tipping point, beyond which we will never recover.
AnthonyCumia
10-10-15, 14:43
Compromise is futile in the long run.
The GOP has been infiltrated by closet Progressives. When I say closet Progressives, I don't even mean ones that necessarily are aware of their own Progressive nature. The cultural backdrop has shifted so far towards extreme Progressivism, that even a lot of "conservatives" are having to pander to this insatiable thirst for more government control and spending on stupid shit and all that comes with that.
They are either that dumb or they are controlled opposition, either way they are on the way out.
Yes, I understand that it's risky to go against the sacred cows of Progressivism, but it can be done.
By default we have to as the "sacred cows" "rules" ect are rigged to favor statist/leftist.
Cutting off immigration is a very important first step. I say that as an immigrant. The fundamental difference between the immigration of today and he immigration of yesteryear is that today's immigrants come into the country with a generally negative view of the West, and exclusively to personally gain, rather than build the country.
It fills my hear to see that you can see that and value keeping America America and not letting it degenerate into the state of the rest of the world.
You are the kind we need to be letting in rather then the 3rd world hordes.
Their identity and ultimate loyalties remain with their ancestral homeland, even their children's, who are born here. Immigrants of yesteryear either pulled their weight or starved. As "uncompassionate" as that may seem, it was par for the course for everybody, and ruled out any leeching off of other productive individuals.
Even worse we are forced pay for this army to be raised against us, we are forced under the lies of "diversity" and multiculturalism instead of them assimilating to a clearly superior nation, culture, and set of values and principals.
If they do not value it then we have no reason to keep them here.
I see so many immigrants around me that have this mentality, that it sickens me. Even the ones that work, do so begrudgingly and feel a sense of being owed something by the West. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. They know they have it better here than in wherever the **** they came from, yet still feel hostility towards the West for all sorts of perceived injustices.
Thank you, you love Latin America/Islam/Africa/Asia or even Western European so much? Go the **** back,we did not want or need subversive people or groups?
I think this field of GOP candidates is pretty damn good. As long as an immigrant-pandering fool such as Jeb Bush doesn't win the nomination, I am very hopeful. The stream of Demoncrat voters is cut off, there is hope for America. Otherwise, we may go past the demographic and ideological tipping point, beyond which we will never recover.
Jeb is in 4 or 5% and that is with more then 100 Million compared to Trump who has spent only 2 Million in campaign funding.
If we do not stop the current immigration system and work to restore immigration sanity our rights will be voted away by an imported voter base.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/04/2012-phc-identity-23.png
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/04/2012-phc-identity-24.png
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/05/latinos-chp9-12.png
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/05/latinos-chp9-13.png
http://aapivoices.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gun-control-graph-1024x865.png
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/10/PH-2014-10-latino-voters-2014-midterm-election-02-02.png
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/420x366ximage_thumb12.png.pagespeed.ic.3ChCBPD_hS.png
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/research-pub/FAIR_HowToWin_2015.pdfNearly 50 percent of admissions to the U.S. come from only ten countries.
Such immigration of large numbers of non compatible people will lead to division and maybe even civil war.
Shows us what "compromise" has gotten us in immigration with the Democrats who are replacing the American nation, cultural, and people with that of the 3rd world just because the American people are rejecting their failed ideas.
oberstgreup
10-11-15, 02:25
LOL and yet we are winning.
I don't call Obama winning two elections winning for us. I don't call Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court for probably the next 25 years winning.
More over that "idiot" Trump is winning, will win and will rape the leftist in the debates and election. How so? Please to hear this.
No, he will not. He would lose by 20% in the general election. He is an incompetent idiot and blowhard who has never been successful at anything in his life other than inheriting a lot of money, bankrupting several companies thereby losing lots of other people's money, and acting like a clown and blowhard on reality TV so people tune in to laugh at him. He is acting like a clown in this campaign as well. Unfortunately there are a number of people who enjoy his clown act - but nowhere near enough for him to win the general election.
Do you really think anything would be any different with that RINO in office?
Yes. Yes, I do. And you should too. We would not have Obamacare and we would not have Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court. If you can't see any difference between Roberts and Alito on one hand and Kagan and Sotomayor on the other then you are blind. We also wouldn't have wasted the breathing space the surge in Iraq gave us. And we wouldn't have this horrible deal that will guarantee Iran has nuclear weapons within a decade. I'd call all of that pretty important.
How did two of those leftist judges get on the court again? Wait, didn't the cucks vote them in?
No, the Democrats voted them in. They had a big majority in the Senate at that time. There was nothing the Republicans could do to block them. A few Republicans voted for each in the full Senate but they both would have been confirmed anyway. Had there been any chance of their nominations failing the leadership could have tried harder to impose party discipline but as it was they didn't bother. The committee votes were both party line votes so the Democrats won both easily with their majority on the committee.
But more important, if McCain had been president those two liberals never would have been nominated. The choice of who to nominate is MUCH more important than the confirmation.
How is that "compromising" judge Roberts working out for us, you know the one picked by the "compromiser in chief "republican" GWB" working out for us?
Roberts and Alito both voted to uphold the 2nd Amendment in Heller along with the other three justices who were appointed by Republicans. Kagan and Sotomayor voted against us joined by the other two justices appointed by Democrats. If Gore or Kerry had been president instead of Bush there would be two more liberals on the Court and the Supreme Court would have held that the is no individual right under the 2nd Amendment for anyone to own any gun. Try and wrap your head around that. "RINO" "Compromisers" = 2nd Amendment upheld. Democrats = 2nd Amendment effectively repealed. That is what's at stake here.
If, somehow, the U.S. Supreme Court finds these new state gun restrictions laws to be "constitutional," such a decision would be equivalent to a declaration that the court has openly abandoned its only real duty, which is to halt overreaching laws that violate the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
Sure. You and I agree about that. But there is not going to be a revolution. Just because everyone you know would want one won't make it happen. Instead that traitorous Court would establish as the supreme law of the land that you and I have no right to own guns at all, and President Clinton II would introduce and probably pass a new "Assault Weapon" Ban for starters and who knows how far they'd get after that. I certainly don't want to find out.
Again, that is what's at stake here. There is not a single Republican running for president right now who would not be much, much, much more protective of our rights than any of the Democrats who are running. What is not just important but absolutely VITAL for our freedom is for the Republicans to win the next election. I don't much care which of them wins as long as one of them wins. So I'll support whoever looks like they have the best chance of winning. And I promise you that will not be Trump, Carson, or Cruz. None of them has the slightest chance of winning the general. I would be happier with a real conservative like Rubio but I'd still take Jeb Bush over Clinton any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And again, if you think there is no difference between them, and most especially who they'd pick for the Supreme Court, you have a SERIOUS lack of perspective.
AnthonyCumia
10-11-15, 04:46
I don't call Obama winning two elections winning for us. I don't call Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court for probably the next 25 years winning.
We stopped the last few AWB pushes as well as amnesty. We could be in alot worse shape.
How did they get on the court again? Oh that is right "moderates" "compromised"..How is that going to help us?
No, he will not. He would lose by 20% in the general election. He is an incompetent idiot and blowhard who has never been successful at anything in his life other than inheriting a lot of money, bankrupting several companies thereby losing lots of other people's money, and acting like a clown and blowhard on reality TV so people tune in to laugh at him. He is acting like a clown in this campaign as well. Unfortunately there are a number of people who enjoy his clown act - but nowhere near enough for him to win the general election.
How is that cuck Jeb or any of the other "moderates" doing in the polls?
Yes. Yes, I do. And you should too. We would not have Obamacare and we would not have Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court.
Really? once again, how many republicans "compromised" and voted to place those two on the bench?
Which they would not have been had the Republicans had a spine and voted against them and if Roberts had a pair of balls either way.
If you can't see any difference between Roberts and Alito on one hand and Kagan and Sotomayor on the other then you are blind. We also wouldn't have wasted the breathing space the surge in Iraq gave us. And we wouldn't have this horrible deal that will guarantee Iran has nuclear weapons within a decade. I'd call all of that pretty important.
Yeah Roberts gave us Obamacare when he could have spared us while the "Wise Latina" Commie midget are ideologues and will vote in favor of left wing statism every time. All of which are on the bench due to moderates and "compromise".
As for Iran, do not care, if they wipe out Israel they will destroy each other and our reason for being in the Middle East will be gone.
No, the Democrats voted them in. They had a big majority in the Senate at that time. There was nothing the Republicans could do to block them. A few Republicans voted for each in the full Senate but they both would have been confirmed anyway.
So that made it O.K? They did not bother doing anything, just "went along to get along". Great mindset.
Had there been any chance of their nominations failing the leadership could have tried harder to impose party discipline but as it was they didn't bother. The committee votes were both party line votes so the Democrats won both easily with their majority on the committee.
Which is why the leadership is being replaced as it should be.
But more important, if McCain had been president those two liberals never would have been nominated. The choice of who to nominate is MUCH more important than the confirmation.
No, we would have more "Conservative judges" like Roberts, which has worked out so well for us so far.
Roberts and Alito both voted to uphold the 2nd Amendment in Heller along with the other three justices who were appointed by Republicans. Kagan and Sotomayor voted against us joined by the other two justices appointed by Democrats. If Gore or Kerry had been president instead of Bush there would be two more liberals on the Court and the Supreme Court would have held that the is no individual right under the 2nd Amendment for anyone to own any gun. Try and wrap your head around that. "RINO" "Compromisers" = 2nd Amendment upheld. Democrats = 2nd Amendment effectively repealed. That is what's at stake here.
No "RINO" "Compromisers" = Immigration lead Demographic changes and leads to Democarts having one party rule thanks to tens of millions of welfare voters.
By default "compromising with them and running weak candidates insures they win. Sorry if you can not understand that fact.
More over if the court makes such a ruling I can promise millions would see the courts and Federal goverment for the tyrannical thugs they are and things would get very "interesting".
Sure. You and I agree about that. But there is not going to be a revolution. Just because everyone you know would want one won't make it happen. Instead that traitorous Court would establish as the supreme law of the land that you and I have no right to own guns at all, and President Clinton II would introduce and probably pass a new "Assault Weapon" Ban for starters and who knows how far they'd get after that. I certainly don't want to find out.
Yeah just lay down and die, submit to tyranny and try be the best boot licker, right?
Again, that is what's at stake here. There is not a single Republican running for president right now who would not be much, much, much more protective of our rights than any of the Democrats who are running. What is not just important but absolutely VITAL for our freedom is for the Republicans to win the next election. I don't much care which of them wins as long as one of them wins. So I'll support whoever looks like they have the best chance of winning. And I promise you that will not be Trump, Carson, or Cruz. None of them has the slightest chance of winning the general. I would be happier with a real conservative like Rubio but I'd still take Jeb Bush over Clinton any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And again, if you think there is no difference between them, and most especially who they'd pick for the Supreme Court, you have a SERIOUS lack of perspective.
Sorry if you can not understand that if we do not reduce immigration any gains we make will be erased due to mass immigration changing the making up/political landscape and therefore we have to select a President that will reduce immigration as to insure we are not displaced and robbed of our dominance over this nation.
Trump is the best, backed up by a Conservative Party who understands that this is for all the marbles we can insure that gains we make are made and maintained. We had Bush and the Neo Cons in control for how many years? What did they do on immigration? Oh that is right they almost gave away the nation to the Democratic Party on a sliver platter and insured we can never win any Presidential election again in the name of "compromise" and "winning over the Hispanics" which would/will lead to any gains made on gun rights being lost and more and more infringements on the right to keep and bare arms.
You pick traitors to fight the enemy instead of patriots,Ignore history as well as current treads and the influence of demographics fueled by mass immigration that will make America a one party nation but you have the gull to say I lack perspective?
You think compromising with a a tireless and ruthless enemy that stops at nothing to advance designs and systems of absolute despotism is a winning strategy. That alone proves that the Neo Con/Cuck/Moderate wing is a failure, never mind its massive track record of doing nothing to stop and reverse the gains made by the left.
Your side had its chance and failed either because it is incompetent or it is controlled opposition, either way it is has no redeeming value and it is being replaced. If only we did not give ground to your side in the early 50s we could have prevented the victory of so much of the leftist agenda and preserved a great deal of Liberty that has been lost.
The rules are simply, win at all cost and if that means the left goes fuller retard and the gracious losers of the "Conservative" Establishment get purged, so be it.
Because as we have seen over the last 70 years we have lost a lot of ground playing by the rules the left has set forth and the cucked right have chosen to obey. Time to wise up and rise up.
You want to have gun rights really restored? Join us. Think it is "impossible", or wont happen, leave us, we have no need or want for nay says or 5th columns.
PatrioticDisorder
10-11-15, 05:58
Not only all of the above, Dubya made a push to renew the federal assault weapons ban and his administration filed an amicus brief in favor of DC in Heller vs. DC, both Bushes were no fans of firearm rights and RINOs. Putting Bush Sr. On the ticket in 1980 was Reagan's biggest mistake.
I do believe a conservative can and will win, if that doesn't happen the country is doomed, we are on the brink.
AnthonyCumia
10-11-15, 06:14
Not only all of the above, Dubya made a push to renew the federal assault weapons ban and his administration filed an amicus brief in favor of DC in Heller vs. DC, both Bushes were no fans of firearm rights and RINOs. Putting Bush Sr. On the ticket in 1980 was Reagan's biggest mistake.
I do believe a conservative can and will win, if that doesn't happen the country is doomed, we are on the brink.
"Oh but we need to compromise and elect people who will not fight for or give away our rights or we will lose our rights".
Reagan was not saint on the 2nd either.
oberstgreup
10-11-15, 14:16
A lot of irrelevant nonsense.
You ignored every salient point. Roberts and Alito voted to uphold the 2nd in Heller. If those two slots had been filled by a Democrat Heller would have gone the other way. And the newest liberal justices, Sotomayor and Kagan, were voted in by Democrats who had a majority in the Senate. There is no change you could have made in the Republican caucus to have changed that because the Democrats had a majority. If you replaced the few Republicans who voted to confirm them with clones of Ted Cruz they still would have been confirmed because the Democrats had enough votes by themselves. Sotomayor and Kagan did not get on the court because of "traitors" or "cucks" or 'RINOs". The got on the court because Democrats won elections.
Let me try to put it in terms you cannot fail to understand. The next president will get to appoint several Supreme Court justices - somewhere between two and four. A Republican in the White House - ANY Republican - means pro-gun justices who will maintain the Heller rule. A Democrat in the White House - ANY Democrat - means anti-gun justices and you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye. Those are the facts.
AnthonyCumia
10-11-15, 19:17
You ignored every salient point. Roberts and Alito voted to uphold the 2nd in Heller. If those two slots had been filled by a Democrat Heller would have gone the other way. And the newest liberal justices, Sotomayor and Kagan, were voted in by Democrats who had a majority in the Senate. There is no change you could have made in the Republican caucus to have changed that because the Democrats had a majority. If you replaced the few Republicans who voted to confirm them with clones of Ted Cruz they still would have been confirmed because the Democrats had enough votes by themselves. Sotomayor and Kagan did not get on the court because of "traitors" or "cucks" or 'RINOs". The got on the court because Democrats won elections.
Let me try to put it in terms you cannot fail to understand. The next president will get to appoint several Supreme Court justices - somewhere between two and four. A Republican in the White House - ANY Republican - means pro-gun justices who will maintain the Heller rule. A Democrat in the White House - ANY Democrat - means anti-gun justices and you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye. Those are the facts.
You clearly can not see the harm of compromise and that it has lead us to where we are.
oberstgreup
10-11-15, 19:54
You clearly can not see the harm of compromise and that it has lead us to where we are.
I see the harm of compromising on some issues. I see the harm of fighting too hard on others, trying to get what you just don't have the votes for, and losing elections because of it. What has led us to where we are is losing elections to Democrats. That's what got us the Hughes Amendment, that's what got us the AWB in 1994, and that's what got us the ACA and all the other "progress" we've seen under Obama. All of those was voted in by Democrats (the Hughes Amendment was never actually voted on, it was added in by trickery by the Democrat-controlled House leadership). None of it was a compromise by "RINOs". None of it required a single Republican vote because the Democrats had won the presidency and a majority in Congress. That's what happens when you lose elections. And God alone knows what sort of horrible "progress" we'll get if the Democrats win in 2016. I will guarantee this: it is worse than the worst nightmare you can imagine if a "RINO" wins instead.
The best way you can possibly throw away your 2nd Amendment rights is to vote to nominate a Republican presidential candidate who can't win the election. There is NO Republican running for president who is not infinitely preferable to EVERY Democrat running for President on 2nd Amendment issues.
And if you think 'That's okay because if we lose the election we'll just have a revolution" then I don't know what to say to that. How do you answer complete lunacy?
AnthonyCumia
10-11-15, 22:10
I see the harm of compromising on some issues. I see the harm of fighting too hard on others, trying to get what you just don't have the votes for, and losing elections because of it. What has led us to where we are is losing elections to Democrats.
So not having "electable" but weak candidates had nothing to do with that?
That's what got us the Hughes Amendment, that's what got us the AWB in 1994, and that's what got us the ACA and all the other "progress" we've seen under Obama. All of those was voted in by Democrats (the Hughes Amendment was never actually voted on, it was added in by trickery by the Democrat-controlled House leadership). None of it was a compromise by "RINOs". None of it required a single Republican vote because the Democrats had won the presidency and a majority in Congress. That's what happens when you lose elections. And God alone knows what sort of horrible "progress" we'll get if the Democrats win in 2016. I will guarantee this: it is worse than the worst nightmare you can imagine if a "RINO" wins instead.
What did the Rinos do to walk any of it back? We had the White House and Congress under GW? What did they do? What bills do they ram though to over turn infringements or reduce immigration? Not a damn thing.
Rinos are bad, maybe as bad as the enemy. Maybe not. They sell us out on issues they claim to care about.
The best way you can possibly throw away your 2nd Amendment rights is to vote to nominate a Republican presidential candidate who can't win the election. There is NO Republican running for president who is not infinitely preferable to EVERY Democrat running for President on 2nd Amendment issues.
Not really, you have some people that support increasing immigration which is changing America and its political landscape to favor one party rule for the Democrats. Their are Republicans who are just as bad if not worse then Democrat . To quote Ann Coulter "They are bad Republicans they are no good Democrats.
And if you think 'That's okay because if we lose the election we'll just have a revolution" then I don't know what to say to that. How do you answer complete lunacy?
At some point when you play by the rules of a rigged game you stop playing by the rules as they serve only to insure the preservation of tyranny.
I hope we can avoid such out comes but if not, well so be it.
oberstgreup
10-12-15, 01:31
What did the Rinos do to walk any of it back? We had the White House and Congress under GW? What did they do?
They let the assault weapon ban expire. Granted, that was just passivity, but it's better than a Dem Congress and president would have done. It's not nothing. And as noted before they appointed the justices who were the key votes in Heller. That's not nothing either.
PatrioticDisorder
10-12-15, 05:06
They let the assault weapon ban expire. Granted, that was just passivity, but it's better than a Dem Congress and president would have done. It's not nothing. And as noted before they appointed the justices who were the key votes in Heller. That's not nothing either.
GWB actively campaigned congress to continue the AWB, that is a fact my friend. He also squeaked by 2 elections, a real conservative won a 49 state landslide 20 years prior, compare & contrast.
They are either that dumb or they are controlled opposition, either way they are on the way out.
I am not saying that there is any kind of conspiracy/collusion between the 2 parties, a la "illuminati", etc, but for all intents and purposes, what we have with RINO's bending over for Regressives (a more appropriate term for Leftists) isn't that much different.
By default we have to as the "sacred cows" "rules" ect are rigged to favor statist/leftist.
Exactly. I see it all the damn time in all Western countries. "Conservative" parties are trying to outdo the Regressives on social spending, entitlement programs, etc. Yes, they aren't as bad when it comes to obscenely pandering to Islam, but at some point it becomes a subtle distinction between platforms that aren't fundamentally different.
It fills my hear to see that you can see that and value keeping America America and not letting it degenerate into the state of the rest of the world.
You are the kind we need to be letting in rather then the 3rd world hordes.
Before you get your hopes up too high, be aware of this:
1) I came here when I was pretty young
2) Even then, it wasn't until after being here for close to 20 years that I finally slowly came to realize that the West is superior in every conceivable way to the rest of the world (yes, it takes a LONG time to break out of that mentality, and that is only with a combination of luck and exposure to people with ideas outside the urban retardation bubble). Most, no wait, ALL of the people in the immigrant social circle I know are high-functioning retards - socialist at heart, not big on the West, like Obama, blame Bush for everything, etc.
3) The cherry on the cake is that this isn't even from a 3rd world country, but from Eastern Europe (okay, not exactly the top of the heap, but better than average - plenty of university education, history of relatively advanced technology, etc.) Imagine how much more retarded the average immigrant is from a bona fide 3rd World butt****istan.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but the problem with en masse immigration is that there is no possible way to screen out anything worthwhile importing from the shit. Quality control requires you slow down the production line.
If they do not value it then we have no reason to keep them here.
We, the people, don't, but they the politicians do (votes). Well, the Democrat ones, anyways. The RINO's chasing immigrant votes is a pathetic exercise in futility. It's like watching a dog chase its tail.
Thank you, you love Latin America/Islam/Africa/Asia or even Western European so much? Go the **** back,we did not want or need subversive people or groups?
Great point. Used to be that people would flee those shitpits to come to freedom. Now they flee to come get free shit.
Freedom ain't the same thing as free shit.
Jeb is in 4 or 5% and that is with more then 100 Million compared to Trump who has spent only 2 Million in campaign funding.
We should send Jeb Bush as a peace offering to the Mexican cartels. We'll just tell him that Mexican druglords are a potential hotbed of Latino Republican voters.
Such immigration of large numbers of non compatible people will lead to division and maybe even civil war.
We're almost there. There are significant portions of the population (including but not limited to BLM, New Black Panthers, basically all Muslims, self-hating White SJW's) who would kill with reckless abandon given the opportunity.
Since we are at war with the Regressives, I don't see anything wrong with deception. They do it. We should too.
Screw it. Run some candidates preaching lovey-dovey mumbo jumbo. Run some preaching socialist crap. Run some who tonguebathe Islam and immigration.
Then when they get into power, bam, surprise cockfags, we're turning this bitch around.
Maybe I haven't slept in too long, or maybe this makes some sense. Either way, that's just the way I'd do it.
AnthonyCumia
10-12-15, 06:59
They let the assault weapon ban expire. Granted, that was just passivity, but it's better than a Dem Congress and president would have done. It's not nothing. And as noted before they appointed the justices who were the key votes in Heller. That's not nothing either.
All they did what let a law expire. They did nothing. What did they do to over turn the Hughes Amendment? Or the Gun Control Act or NFA? What did they do? After all "Any Republican is better then a Democrat" when it comes to gun rights, right?
What happened? Why did they do nothing?
Why? It is because they were Neo Cons, who cared more about starting/fighting wars for "other nations" importing "cheap" labor" and exporting jobs to the Chamber of Commence Donors then protecting the American worker, Economy, Borders, Sovereignty. our rightfully dominance over them and then using said dominance to restoring our Liberty.
We had a golden opportunity to ram though bills, to fully restore the 2nd Amendment as well as consolidation our power and gains to insure the left never again is able to inflect their insanity against us. What did they do? They did the worse things possible, got us into worthless wars, wasted trillions of dollars and countless lives trying to "bring democracy to the Iraq and Afghanistan, helped off shore countless jobs, and then tried to give away our nation to tens of millions of illegal who will be future Democrats.
Wow...Its almost like the values of the kind of Republicans matters, does it?
I mean if "republicans are better then Democrats you would think they would have made hay while the sun shines, Right?
They had the Golden Opportunity to great things and they at best did nothing, or at worse ****ed it up completely.
They ****ed up things so good that the backlash gave us a Marxist moron and a leftist Congress who put 2 leftist judges on the Court to begin with.
We had such a golden chance and the Neo Cons and the Cucks costed us a great deal on top of 60 years of failure. They are failures, their mindset is a failure, their leadership methods are failures, their goals and priorities do nothing for America, its people, our rights and their defense.
So as you can see it really does matter what kind of Republicans we elect.
Time for us to purge the Neo Cons/Cucks from the party and telling the COC the following 1. You need us more then we need you, their is no other party that give a damn about you and 2. displacement levels of immigration will insure your short term gains are taxes and regulated out of your hands and your ability to do business will be destroyed when the only party in town is the Democrats.
In the words of Kenny Powers "YOUR ****ING OUT, WE`RE ****ING IN".
Interesting how a thread on a subject digresses and devolves into a purse fight.
Not that I haven't seen the same before on different subjects......ON ARFCOM.
Mr. Kelly's Pogo was right.
AnthonyCumia
10-13-15, 04:21
I am not saying that there is any kind of conspiracy/collusion between the 2 parties, a la "illuminati", etc, but for all intents and purposes, what we have with RINO's bending over for Regressives (a more appropriate term for Leftists) isn't that much different.
Met the new boss just as bad if not worse then the old boss.
Exactly. I see it all the damn time in all Western countries. "Conservative" parties are trying to outdo the Regressives on social spending, entitlement programs, etc. Yes, they aren't as bad when it comes to obscenely pandering to Islam, but at some point it becomes a subtle distinction between platforms that aren't fundamentally different.
Being "regressive lite" is not much of a choice/change.
Before you get your hopes up too high, be aware of this:
1) I came here when I was pretty young
2) Even then, it wasn't until after being here for close to 20 years that I finally slowly came to realize that the West is superior in every conceivable way to the rest of the world (yes, it takes a LONG time to break out of that mentality, and that is only with a combination of luck and exposure to people with ideas outside the urban retardation bubble). Most, no wait, ALL of the people in the immigrant social circle I know are high-functioning retards - socialist at heart, not big on the West, like Obama, blame Bush for everything, etc.
3) The cherry on the cake is that this isn't even from a 3rd world country, but from Eastern Europe (okay, not exactly the top of the heap, but better than average - plenty of university education, history of relatively advanced technology, etc.) Imagine how much more retarded the average immigrant is from a bona fide 3rd World butt****istan.
Really is a mind ****, is it not? We are the best, we are not even better then the same nations/cultures they came from but yet they still come and try and remake what they fled from.
Well do not worry soon we will reduce immigration just like the 1924 Immigration act.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but the problem with en masse immigration is that there is no possible way to screen out anything worthwhile importing from the shit. Quality control requires you slow down the production line.
Which is why we are going to. Mass immigration is like failure today as it was in the 1800s.
We, the people, don't, but they the politicians do (votes). Well, the Democrat ones, anyways. The RINO's chasing immigrant votes is a pathetic exercise in futility. It's like watching a dog chase its tail.
No, it is so very true, they do not want what they are selling, they need to stop cucking and start rising. Deport them and stop bring in future voters for the opposition is very simply.
Great point. Used to be that people would flee those shitpits to come to freedom. Now they flee to come get free shit.
Freedom ain't the same thing as free shit.
Its even worse when they do so knowingly, and ever worse when it happens in the states, like when leftist flee blue states to red states only to **** them up.
We should send Jeb Bush as a peace offering to the Mexican cartels. We'll just tell him that Mexican druglords are a potential hotbed of Latino Republican voters.
LOL, some how I think he will pass. The Bush Clan does not care about their heritage, nation, or Liberty as seem dead set on destroying them.
We're almost there. There are significant portions of the population (including but not limited to BLM, New Black Panthers, basically all Muslims, self-hating White SJW's) who would kill with reckless abandon given the opportunity.
Since we are at war with the Regressives, I don't see anything wrong with deception. They do it. We should too.
Screw it. Run some candidates preaching lovey-dovey mumbo jumbo. Run some preaching socialist crap. Run some who tonguebathe Islam and immigration.
Then when they get into power, bam, surprise cockfags, we're turning this bitch around.
Maybe I haven't slept in too long, or maybe this makes some sense. Either way, that's just the way I'd do it.
The truth always makes sense.
This is why anti-gun liberals push for universal background checks, in order create a de facto (and illegal) registry of firearms owners, so they can build an enemies list of gun owners to target for confiscation efforts.
This is why leftist totalitarians are so intent on banning standard capacity magazines, and those modern firearms most clearly beneficial to a modern militia, even those those magazines and firearms are not used in crimes to a statistically significant degree.
It isn’t about stopping massacres.
It isn’t about saving lives.
It’s about setting the stage for tyranny, and protecting the government from a people who would remain free.
AnthonyCumia
10-13-15, 04:24
So do you think we could slip this into a spending bill?
steyrman13
10-13-15, 21:04
So do you think we could slip this into a spending bill?
Why not?
Just pass the bill and we will read it later right?!
AnthonyCumia
10-13-15, 21:44
Why not?
Just pass the bill and we will read it later right?!
Very true, I mean we need to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
AnthonyCumia
10-14-15, 02:19
Good God the debate really has shown the Democratic Party has gone of the rails into pure insanity.
Goes to show us our enemy is not compromising nor slowing down nor should we.
AnthonyCumia
10-15-15, 16:29
I agree with others, never gonna happen.
There's no way they'd put their cash cow on a diet. I also think that poking the issue is a good way to invoke a price hike.
It's about control AND money. The ATF wants both.
Could have said the same thing about Prohibition or Weed.
Very true, I mean we need to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
Stalin would be proud of Comrade Pelosi.
Could have said the same thing about Prohibition or Weed.
Exactly. One of the goals of these restrictions is to get people to give up hope and resign themselves to fatalism/defeatism. Don't let them win.
AnthonyCumia
10-16-15, 04:30
Stalin would be proud of Comrade Pelosi.
He would, then have her shot..
Exactly. One of the goals of these restrictions is to get people to give up hope and resign themselves to fatalism/defeatism. Don't let them win.
A great tactic that that use as we to it to ourselves.
ASA announced this today: http://americansuppressorassociation.com/asa-announces-hearing-protection-act-a-bill-to-remove-suppressors-from-the-nfa/
Oh would you look at that, looks like I'm about .28 seconds too late ;)
civiliansheepdog
10-22-15, 18:21
There is absolutely no reason for even Dems to not support this bill. The NFA in its entirety is absurd.
There is absolutely no reason for even Dems to not support this bill. The NFA in its entirety is absurd.
They'll never let logic or reason stand in their way. Even if this makes it through both houses I'd be willing to bet our fearless leader will veto it.
They should highlight that New Zealand, Finland and Norway have no restrictions on suppressor use. Progressives seem to hate when America is unique, and enjoy following the crowd. Pointing out that fancy Europeans and an Oceanic country do this might help the cause.
oberstgreup
10-22-15, 20:25
They'll never let logic or reason stand in their way. Even if this makes it through both houses I'd be willing to bet our fearless leader will veto it.
Yeah, there is no way this makes it through with a Democrat in the White House. There aren't enough Feinsteins and Schumers in Congress to pass new anti-gun laws but there are enough to sustain a veto. And there are Democrats who are pro-2nd Amendment but none of them would ever be able to win the nomination for president in that party.
Standby for the wailing of "only assassins need silencers" from the usual anti-2a suspects.
Dist. Expert 26
10-23-15, 10:21
This defeatist attitude is exactly what got us to the point we're in now. Instead of being pessimistic, how about we all stand behind this thing just like we did with the M855 ban? The results might just be surprising.
I agree that we need to stand behind this and be loud and clear (punny, right?). Supporters definitely need to point out the suppressor laws in the lib's favorite European countries and how unregulated they are. People also need to be educated about how much, or little, suppressors actually suppress a gunshot. As we all know, it's not like Hollywood makes it out to be.
AnthonyCumia
10-25-15, 20:47
They should highlight that New Zealand, Finland and Norway have no restrictions on suppressor use. Progressives seem to hate when America is unique, and enjoy following the crowd. Pointing out that fancy Europeans and an Oceanic country do this might help the cause.
They really do.
They claim to value it but they do nothing but do everything in their power to destroy us and rob us of our Liberty.
It might be a point to notice those nations have a far lower cost to treat hearing damage then us, hearing damage is I think the 7th most costly pubic health issue, in large part due to the fact we can not own suppressors without great burden.
http://americansuppressorassociation.com/education/
https://silencerco.com/education/
Hell even the DailyKos supports this...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/05/405370/-A-Democrat-s-guide-to-why-firearm-sound-suppressors-silencers-should-be-made-easier-to-obtain
And yet these morons in Congress refuse to do anything, then we have to worry about the Boy King.
Standby for the wailing of "only assassins need silencers" from the usual anti-2a suspects.
Then point out that more Crossbows, hammers, or knives are used to murder people then in one month, then suppressed firearms have over the last, what 50 years?
Name a suppressor that was legally owned that was used to commit murder. We will wait.
This defeatist attitude is exactly what got us to the point we're in now. Instead of being pessimistic, how about we all stand behind this thing just like we did with the M855 ban? The results might just be surprising.
If you change nothing, nothing changes.
"Compromising" and "playing it safe" have also lead us to this point, we have the internet now, we can smash the enemy.
Then point out that more Crossbows, hammers, or knives are used to murder people then in one month, then suppressed firearms have over the last, what 50 years?
Name a suppressor that was legally owned that was used to commit murder. We will wait.
Bingo.
Hell, I haven't even heard of an illegally owned suppressor being used to commit murder. More people are killed with chairs than all suppressors.
AnthonyCumia
10-26-15, 21:26
+1 Absolutely. Emailed my rep. Am absolutely confident that this can become reality.
Sell it as a long term saving plan compared to the cost of hearing damage, hell sell it as a way to get more tax income as more and more will be sold, therefore increasing the amount of local/state sales tax.
Bingo.
Hell, I haven't even heard of an illegally owned suppressor being used to commit murder. More people are killed with chairs than all suppressors.
More people are killed with bombs, strangulation, arson, etc, then any kind of suppressors.
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html
Now this means either 1. Criminals are not caught because of any suppressor they use, or 2. They just use other methods..Either way time to get rid of this moronic law that prevents us from having safety equipment
http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2015/10/26/ngvac-is-trying-to-out-stupid-csgv/
NGVAC is trying to out-stupid CSGV, I was shocked it took them so long.
This defeatist attitude is exactly what got us to the point we're in now. Instead of being pessimistic, how about we all stand behind this thing just like we did with the M855 ban? The results might just be surprising.
I hope it passes and I've written my representative about it. I will support any piece of legislation that supports or restores gun rights, as well as making sure my representatives know I hope they will back that legislation as well. However, as long as Obama is president I don't think this stands a chance. He will do whatever it takes to shut it down, legal or otherwise. Having said that, nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong.
More people have died from taking a massive shit and getting a brain aneurysm.
AnthonyCumia
10-27-15, 16:52
More people have died from taking a massive shit and getting a brain aneurysm.
You can get an aneurysm from taking a shit?
I am sure NASA has killed more people then legal suppressed firearms.
You can get an aneurysm from taking a shit?
I am sure NASA has killed more people then legal suppressed firearms.
You can certainly vagal down and die of a heart attack.
I don't call it a defeatist attitude. It's called planet America. The reality is that we have over 316 million people in America. Firearms deaths account for less than 10,000.
Gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Violent crime overall has continued a down ward trend.
All of these facts mean nothing to the people who want to take away guns from Americans. No amount of reason, common sense or statistics will change their minds.
This defeatist attitude is exactly what got us to the point we're in now. Instead of being pessimistic, how about we all stand behind this thing just like we did with the M855 ban? The results might just be surprising.
AnthonyCumia
10-27-15, 20:22
I don't call it a defeatist attitude. It's called planet America. The reality is that we have over 316 million people in America. Firearms deaths account for less than 10,000.
Gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Violent crime overall has continued a down ward trend.
All of these facts mean nothing to the people who want to take away guns from Americans. No amount of reason, common sense or statistics will change their minds.
You are right, it will not so why not roll over these sheeple.
The plan is very simple, they lose, we win, we restore Liberty and they never again limit our rights
Eddiesketti
10-27-15, 20:57
You are right, it will not so why not roll over these sheeple.
The plan is very simple, they lose, we win, we restore Liberty and they never again limit our rights
I like it. After all, that is what they did to us.
AnthonyCumia
10-28-15, 01:43
I like it. After all, that is what they did to us.
Its a great plan, to hell with "respectability" or moral superiority, victory is the sole thing that we seek.
Its a great plan, to hell with "respectability" or moral superiority, victory is the sole thing that we seek.
Agreed.
Progressives/the Left/Democrats whatever they call themselves lie, cheat, steal, wipe their ass with the Constitution and commit treason openly. We need to get into power by saying whatever the hell will get us elected, and then shut down all their vote farms, reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. That's going to create a lot of enemies, out of work bureaucrats, parasites without a host, "non-profits" without a steady stream of sugar from Uncle Sam, a.k.a. other people's money.
Jesus Christ dude, get a grip. I'm sorry you can't grasp the reality thing. The president will never sign this, and that assumes it makes it to his desk. And we can't get a 2/3 override so the entire thing is pointless.
We just had another shooting weeks ago and people calling for banning shit again.
You are right, it will not so why not roll over these sheeple.
The plan is very simple, they lose, we win, we restore Liberty and they never again limit our rights
Dist. Expert 26
10-28-15, 10:08
Jesus Christ dude, get a grip. I'm sorry you can't grasp the reality thing. The president will never sign this, and that assumes it makes it to his desk. And we can't get a 2/3 override so the entire thing is pointless.
We just had another shooting weeks ago and people calling for banning shit again.
That doesn't mean we can't get it tacked onto some much larger bill (one that they have to pass so they can read it). I know its a longshot, but giving up before the fight really even begins isn't going to get us anywhere.
AnthonyCumia
10-28-15, 11:37
Agreed.
Progressives/the Left/Democrats whatever they call themselves lie, cheat, steal, wipe their ass with the Constitution and commit treason openly. We need to get into power by saying whatever the hell will get us elected, and then shut down all their vote farms, reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. That's going to create a lot of enemies, out of work bureaucrats, parasites without a host, "non-profits" without a steady stream of sugar from Uncle Sam, a.k.a. other people's money.
It will create alot of enemies, but if we do nothing they will win by default, time for us to shut down and remove the left and their imported voter blocs.
It is best to always be well armed in case we lose with the ballot box.
That doesn't mean we can't get it tacked onto some much larger bill (one that they have to pass so they can read it). I know its a longshot, but giving up before the fight really even begins isn't going to get us anywhere.
Hey that is how the left got the Hughes Amendment into law (well "law") and that worked.
If you do not try we will never know.
Jesus Christ dude, get a grip. I'm sorry you can't grasp the reality thing. The president will never sign this, and that assumes it makes it to his desk. And we can't get a 2/3 override so the entire thing is pointless.
We just had another shooting weeks ago and people calling for banning shit again.
I know he will not, that being said the fact we are making this much of a push is a great sign/start.
We will have a chance to ram this though when we take back Congress/White House as we should have back when we control both of them, but sadly we did not have real Conservative but cucks who were only interested in the agenda of the Chamber of Commence.
The Sea of Liberty is never without a wave, their will always be some issue, some crises, some event that will be seen by some as "not the right time". It is time we start throwing caution to the wind as trying to appease the enemy has gotten us nothing but lose of Liberty.
If they're going to play dirty there's no reason we shouldn't either. Load down every leftist must pass piece of legislation with amendments we want, passed on a voice vote and dare them vote against it/veto it. Worst case scenario is we get lots and lots of votes on record ripe for political advertisement. 2015 leading into 2016 is the PRIME time to do that....
"Did you know Senator Nitwit voted to send grandma to the guillotine? Well he did. Let Senator Nitwit know we won't stand for grandma losing her head."
LO,, well the biggest sin in politics is to lose, and the greatest and most avoidable tragedy is for a people to lose their Liberty.
What has "playing nice" and being "respectable" gotten us? Nothing by lose of Prosperity, Liberty, Nation, and our rightfully supremacy over them.
Hey that is how the left got the Hughes Amendment into law (well "law") and that worked.
If you do not try we will never know.
If they're going to play dirty there's no reason we shouldn't either. Load down every leftist must pass piece of legislation with amendments we want, passed on a voice vote and dare them vote against it/veto it. Worst case scenario is we get lots and lots of votes on record ripe for political advertisement. 2015 leading into 2016 is the PRIME time to do that....
"Did you know Senator Nitwit voted to send grandma to the guillotine? Well he did. Let Senator Nitwit know we won't stand for grandma losing her head."
AnthonyCumia
10-30-15, 11:29
If they're going to play dirty there's no reason we shouldn't either. Load down every leftist must pass piece of legislation with amendments we want, passed on a voice vote and dare them vote against it/veto it. Worst case scenario is we get lots and lots of votes on record ripe for political advertisement. 2015 leading into 2016 is the PRIME time to do that....
"Did you know Senator Nitwit voted to send grandma to the guillotine? Well he did. Let Senator Nitwit know we won't stand for grandma losing her head."
Do not get me wrong, great idea but as in the case of the budget bill with the CMP 1911s in it, the leftist have no problem vetoing the bill, and then blaming us for their actions.
I wonder if he knew about the CMP 1911s?
Really hope we get this bill past now, but if we have wait until we have the Congress and White House, well better late then never.
Just a thought: don't just write to the Reps, hit up your Senators as well. Get everybody talking about the benefit of noise reduction. The example I used was feral hogs, which are quickly becoming becoming a plague everywhere. Can't poison them, that would kill unintended targets. Can't shoot them with arrows; its just too slow. Oh, by the way: they don't just chew up everything in sight, they spread disease... Point out that we don't want to agitate neighbors who don't care for loud reports going off constantly. The subdivision that sprung up around a shooting range (happens everywhere), not just our hearing health, but those around us. Suppressors reduce concussion as well.
Highlight the benefits and get everybody talking about the benefits. The fact is that johnny killyoudead never uses a suppressor, which puts cans in an even more responsible light: the price isn't going to change, just availability and Johnny still won't waste his money on them; noise is terror. As crazy as this sounds, there are a ton of people who are irritated by us shooting our guns at the crack of dawn, or during their favorite tv show. This is a way to placate those people without their really knowing it. There are too many benefits to allowing suppressors to come off regulation to allow the negatives to put a hard stop to it. When we can get everybody talking about this, DC, your capitol, my capitol, even at the gas station on the corner, we can win. This can't just be carried by the NRA's legal team, it has to come from every shooting enthusiast and go to every politician we can think of. If that's too idealistic, so be it. What's more American that trying to do what's best for everybody?
AnthonyCumia
11-08-15, 13:38
Just a thought: don't just write to the Reps, hit up your Senators as well. Get everybody talking about the benefit of noise reduction. The example I used was feral hogs, which are quickly becoming becoming a plague everywhere. Can't poison them, that would kill unintended targets. Can't shoot them with arrows; its just too slow. Oh, by the way: they don't just chew up everything in sight, they spread disease... Point out that we don't want to agitate neighbors who don't care for loud reports going off constantly. The subdivision that sprung up around a shooting range (happens everywhere), not just our hearing health, but those around us. Suppressors reduce concussion as well.
Highlight the benefits and get everybody talking about the benefits. The fact is that johnny killyoudead never uses a suppressor, which puts cans in an even more responsible light: the price isn't going to change, just availability and Johnny still won't waste his money on them; noise is terror. As crazy as this sounds, there are a ton of people who are irritated by us shooting our guns at the crack of dawn, or during their favorite tv show. This is a way to placate those people without their really knowing it. There are too many benefits to allowing suppressors to come off regulation to allow the negatives to put a hard stop to it. When we can get everybody talking about this, DC, your capitol, my capitol, even at the gas station on the corner, we can win. This can't just be carried by the NRA's legal team, it has to come from every shooting enthusiast and go to every politician we can think of. If that's too idealistic, so be it. What's more American that trying to do what's best for everybody?
Talk about the money we will save from hearing damage.
Some people are beyond reason and reject any fragment of facts. But they will not stop us.
Smashing leftism and securing our future.
Just watch, we'll start pointing out the safety aspect of suppressors and next thing you know they'll go from being restricted to being required. :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.