Rave if you think the progressives are lying about their agenda over gun control
☆astac☆
2013/01/06 21:40:27
Even though the facts point out that the progressives are wanting to confiscate and ban all weapons. Why is it they outright lie on sites like this and on the MSM news shows.
Do you believe anything the progressives say about the gun control debate
Do you believe anything the progressives say about the gun control debate
Top Opinion
-
beachbum 2013/01/06 22:04:34
Now, you could become a part of the solution to prevent mass killings of 1st graders in elementary schools by defining the "arms" to be "well regulated" in the hands of private citizens or "well regulated militias". For I would really like this definition established before 225 years of "arms" evolution leads to Anthrax, Sarin Gas, or Dirty Nukes in the hands of private citizens. . . they already have assault weaponry with 30 bullet magazines. . .
Now you can be part of the solution by rejecting your evil progressive ideology
Fighting against the government is treason. The constitution has a clause on treason, Aricle 3, Section 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights was clearly putting paragraph 4 of the sixth article of The Articles of Confederation into the newly adopted constitution:
". . . but every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage."
Those Bushmaster assault rifles used in both Newtown, CT, as well as Webster, NY, need to be "well regulated" and kept "in public stores", and not in the hands of deranged, private citizens. . . Why don't you be part of the solution by withdrawing YOUR support of the concept of "a license to kill". . .
All Liberals lie, even if out of ignorance.
Unless We the People take a stand against these Sadists they are going to rule over every aspect of our lives. Every day little by little we are having our Freedoms and our Liberties taken away.
They have taken over the***
Health Industry
Car Industry
Student Loans
They have waged a War on Conservative Women
They have waged a War on Black and Hispanic Conservatives.
They have waged a War on our Religious Freedoms
They have been allowed to take MORE and MORE of our hard earned money for redistribution to those who nothing more then DEBTS to SOCIETY.
They have taken over the Energy Industry.
They have waged a war on the COAL INDUSTRY.
They sent BILLIONS of $$$$ to BRAZIL so that they an continue to DRILL while denying DRILLING right here in the U.S.A.
Need I go on?
We're on the Road to Serfdom.
You're really not aware, obviously what has really happened in our country so a little education is necessary.
The Four Headed Hydra of Fascism
The Four Headed Hydra of Fascism began taking shape under Ronald Reagan with the Moral Majority vowing to take over or create its own party.
Head One. The existing Political Party taken over by the Rabid Radical Political REICH.
Head Two. The Rabid Radical Political REICH is Controlled by the Rabid Radical Religious REICH of the coalition of the Evangelical movement of Christendom.
Head Three. The Ultra Rich industrialists in the vain of the Koch Brothers and other Billionaires PLUS the major fund raisers like Karl Rove.
Head Four. The Propaganda arm under the guise of the Faux News owned by Rupert Murdock for TV and Newspapers PLUS the Radio groups owned by Clear Communications under BAIN CAPITAL featuring Rush Limbaugh and other mouthpie...
>
You're really not aware, obviously what has really happened in our country so a little education is necessary.
The Four Headed Hydra of Fascism
The Four Headed Hydra of Fascism began taking shape under Ronald Reagan with the Moral Majority vowing to take over or create its own party.
Head One. The existing Political Party taken over by the Rabid Radical Political REICH.
Head Two. The Rabid Radical Political REICH is Controlled by the Rabid Radical Religious REICH of the coalition of the Evangelical movement of Christendom.
Head Three. The Ultra Rich industrialists in the vain of the Koch Brothers and other Billionaires PLUS the major fund raisers like Karl Rove.
Head Four. The Propaganda arm under the guise of the Faux News owned by Rupert Murdock for TV and Newspapers PLUS the Radio groups owned by Clear Communications under BAIN CAPITAL featuring Rush Limbaugh and other mouthpieces. AND on the internet you have Glenn Beck
There you have the Four Headed Hydra of Fascism as it has developed here in the US> Remember the words attributed to Sinclair Lewis It isn't IF but --
WHEN FASCIST COMES TO AMERICA IT WILL BE WRAPPED IN THE FLAG CARRYING A CROSS.
Your spreading of blatant lies and totally outrageous comments here make you nothing but a troll for the New American Fascist Party aka the Republican/Tea Party.
NOT.
You two are just to ignorant of the REAL facts to understand how very dangerous to our basic civil rights what is happening REALLY is.
They won't catch on until THEY are in the camps.
So what do the LibProgs do? SCREAM "GUN CONTROL!" Oh, let's save the children with new laws that wouldn't have done anything to save those kids at Sandy Hook School.
The last part of the Second Amendment answers the question. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You could probably label me as a "progressive", but I don't want to take any law-abiding citizen's guns away, but I do think that they should be harder to get and registered and regulated like automobiles are.
Obviously (I hope), allowing any schmuck to easily and anonymously obtain an instrument of siege warfare (tank, bazooka, mortar, etc.) or combat-grade high explosive (grenades, mines, plastic explosives, etc.) should be pretty darn illegal. Same goes for heavy machine guns like the SAW, .50 Cal, or Vulcan Minigun (do I really have to spell this out?). Yes, this is more restrictive than standard vehicle ownership law, but your Chevy wasn't designed and built for the express purpose of killing human beings at range, so we have to take some extra precautions to "promote the general welfare" in this regard.
As for other types of small arms, they should be regulated like automobiles in the sense that 1) sales of such items between licensed vendors and/or individuals need to be tracked and registered, 2) you need a permit to obtain a firearm, with certain weapons (like an AR 15 or AK 47) or more...
Obviously (I hope), allowing any schmuck to easily and anonymously obtain an instrument of siege warfare (tank, bazooka, mortar, etc.) or combat-grade high explosive (grenades, mines, plastic explosives, etc.) should be pretty darn illegal. Same goes for heavy machine guns like the SAW, .50 Cal, or Vulcan Minigun (do I really have to spell this out?). Yes, this is more restrictive than standard vehicle ownership law, but your Chevy wasn't designed and built for the express purpose of killing human beings at range, so we have to take some extra precautions to "promote the general welfare" in this regard.
As for other types of small arms, they should be regulated like automobiles in the sense that 1) sales of such items between licensed vendors and/or individuals need to be tracked and registered, 2) you need a permit to obtain a firearm, with certain weapons (like an AR 15 or AK 47) or more than a certain number of weapons requiring a special permit, 3) said permit(s) should only be issued after the individual has completed a certified safety course, and 4) firearms purchased need to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are still in possession of the registered owner. I could go on, but I think that would be a good start for bringing the country somewhere in the vicinity of reasonable gun regulation.
Joe, first off, all of the above ARE illegal, in that they are 'Class III' weapons and require extensive registration, licensing and substantial fees paid in order to own them.
My comment was to merely point out the disparity that people often make when, like Al Gore did when he compared auto ownership requirements to firearms ownership.
== == ==
RE: "As for other types of small arms, they should be regulated like automobiles in the sense that 1) sales of such items between licensed vendors and/or individuals need to be tracked and registered, 2) you need a permit to obtain a firearm, with certain weapons (like an AR 15 or AK 47) or more than a certain number of weapons requiring a special permit, 3) said permit(s) should only be issued after the individual has completed a certified safety course, and 4) firearms purchased need to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are still in possession of the registered owner"
What exactly do you think your above requirements would do other than create a database that some future gov't feel good program would use to confiscate an ever larger catagory of firearms? O...
Joe, first off, all of the above ARE illegal, in that they are 'Class III' weapons and require extensive registration, licensing and substantial fees paid in order to own them.
My comment was to merely point out the disparity that people often make when, like Al Gore did when he compared auto ownership requirements to firearms ownership.
== == ==
RE: "As for other types of small arms, they should be regulated like automobiles in the sense that 1) sales of such items between licensed vendors and/or individuals need to be tracked and registered, 2) you need a permit to obtain a firearm, with certain weapons (like an AR 15 or AK 47) or more than a certain number of weapons requiring a special permit, 3) said permit(s) should only be issued after the individual has completed a certified safety course, and 4) firearms purchased need to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are still in possession of the registered owner"
What exactly do you think your above requirements would do other than create a database that some future gov't feel good program would use to confiscate an ever larger catagory of firearms? Or is that your real objective?
Can you provide any specific benefits your above regulatory oversight would provide society by imposing these requirements on the approximately 22 million AR owners in the U.S? Or is this just "feel good" speculation on your part?
As to your fears of confiscation, you answer the question yourself - with tens of millions of AR and similar type weapons already out there, a nation-wide confiscation program would be impractical to the point of impossible.
Paranoid much?
You know we can't structure our entire society around the slippery slope consern. There are a lot of good things that would be bad if you took them too far (almost every good thing actually).
I am a liberal. I believe guns are a tool. As such they have benefits and weaknesses. They have potential security benefits but are NOT magical security wants that make bad people go away. They are potentially lethal but so is a lot of useful equipment. I don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens but just as with all potentially lethal tools some regulations are warranted.
I'm a liar eh? In what way? I stated If I cited facts and statics you could find fault in those and claim I'm a liar. I basically stated my OPINION as a fellow American. I did so in a forum dedicated to discussing opinions. So what POSSIBLE reason could I have to lie? Did everyone left of center get together and decide half of us were going to LIE about our opinions regarding guns to lull conservatives into a false sense of security?
Some liberals DO support strong gun bans. Within predominantly liberal forums where liberals debate with each other this is a topic we argue about. While I understand the viewpoint that the way to stem massive gun violence is not to have guns; I strongly believe that's an incorrect oversimplification that does not properly take the uniqueness of American culture into account (and not the first move in a Nazi-esque takeover). Of course as part of a holistic approach (including better access to mental health care) some regulation of ANY potentially lethal tool is ALWAYS warranted.
Of course, for some re...
I'm a liar eh? In what way? I stated If I cited facts and statics you could find fault in those and claim I'm a liar. I basically stated my OPINION as a fellow American. I did so in a forum dedicated to discussing opinions. So what POSSIBLE reason could I have to lie? Did everyone left of center get together and decide half of us were going to LIE about our opinions regarding guns to lull conservatives into a false sense of security?
Some liberals DO support strong gun bans. Within predominantly liberal forums where liberals debate with each other this is a topic we argue about. While I understand the viewpoint that the way to stem massive gun violence is not to have guns; I strongly believe that's an incorrect oversimplification that does not properly take the uniqueness of American culture into account (and not the first move in a Nazi-esque takeover). Of course as part of a holistic approach (including better access to mental health care) some regulation of ANY potentially lethal tool is ALWAYS warranted.
Of course, for some reason you think I've decided it is worth my time to come here and LIE about that opinion.
In the end I'm led to a conclusion regarding a subset of the pro-gun individuals. I believe (again just an opinion that I would have no logical reason to LIE about) that for SOME people having someone TRYING to take their guns away is more important to them than the guns themselves. It's weird and disturbing but it appears there are some people who have an emotional need to have liberals TRY to take their guns away to fulfill some heroic fantasy. As such they need their opponents to have certain opinions and motivations that better contrast the heroic ideals of their fantasy selves. It reminds me of when my dog comes up to me with a rope in his mouth BEGGING me to tug on the other end.
Generally a few people who thought this way would be a nuisance. However a lot of guys like this have actually been elected to congress. How the heck should could like me ever even have a reasoned debate with someone who thinks that when I say "background check "I really mean "give me your guns and report to the nearest FEMA camp"? And they believe that because, for some sad reason it fulfills some post-apocalyptic fantasy of theirs.