After V-Tech they didn't learn a damned thing

Winky

Well-Known Member
Sheep to the shearing

sheepdog.jpg
 

2minkey

bootlicker
It is a big fucking deal. Asking your government for permission to possess what you have a right to possess is a simple form of fascism.

The frog analogy is perfect. Taking away your rights in a piecemeal fashion is more comfortable than yanking them away. The entire reasoning behind the 2nd amendment is for your government to be afraid of its citizens.

It's okay though, in a couple of years, you'll need a permit to get caffeine & sugar...it's for your own good & the safety of the children. After all, we can't insure the health of unhealthy peopel now can we?

no, it's not a form of fascism. there are a few things that are regulated for the common good. get over it.

what's got you feeling so oppressed? you can think what you want, write what you want, say what you want, choose to live where you want, blah blah blah. seriously, dude, WTF?

do you think a tax on fucking soda pop is gonna end the world? do you think are competent to make all your own decisions anyway? okay. please feel free to serve as your own physician. or lawyer. next you can build your own mode of transportation.

or maybe you need a little steering there...

behavioral economics, bitches. it's what you commoners need.

:drink2:

drink up!!!!!
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
no, it's not a form of fascism. there are a few things that are regulated for the common good. get over it.

Like a well regulated militia?

It's simple really...wanna change the system? The Constitution explains, in detail, how to do it. However, there is not sentence about regulations concerning the public safety. There are several about regulating government.

I can't build my own car but I can break a horse.

fascism - a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Two out of four is too far along the path.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Better that they not check at all, Gonz?

They never did prior to CFA 68. Prior to that time we operated under the Constitution on firearms purchases. We were able to purchase firearms, any firearms, through the mail from any number of firearms dealers throughout the U.S.

In 1955 you could drive into a gas station and fill 'er up; buy a firearm and ammunition therefor; and drive on down the road -- no questions asked. No background check and no paperwork. Yet there were none of these types of slaughter going on in 1955. Now they have the audacity to tell us that these crimes are due to easy accessibility of firearms.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
i don't have a problem with having to get a lousy permit to purchase or carry a handgun. big fucking deal.

did anyone notice the assault weapons ban that was allowed to sunset in september of '04? i could go out right now and buy an ak47, a couple dozen magazines, and 2000 rounds of ammunition.

oh, the oppression. :alienhuh:

we're not being cooked like frogs. there's a few minor annoyances. big deal.

Ah, yes. compromise. I wrote a short piece on compromise and what it buys us at TFL two years ago.

What did we gain when they demanded that our magazines be limited in size?
What did we gain when they demanded that our firearms of military pattern (speciously called "assault weapons") be registered?
What did we gain when they demanded that some of those firearms should be turned in as illegal after we registered them pursuant to the law?
What did we gain when they demanded that certain firearms be banned as "Saturday Night Specials" (a racist term)?
What did we gain when they demanded that we have to pay to get FOID cards in some states?
What did we gain when they demanded that we have to pay for fingerprinting and mug shots to get an FOID in some states?
What did we gain when they demanded that we strip off the cosmetic features from our firearms of military pattern?
What did we gain when they demanded that we undergo background checks that we have to pay for?
What did we gain when they demanded that certain firearms should not be imported?
What did we gain when they demanded that we should have to wait to a certain period of time before possessing property we had already paid for?
What did we gain when they demanded background checks at gun shows even for personally held firearms being sold by non-dealers?
What did we gain when they demanded that we pay a $200 tax to own certain firearms?

We gained nothing! We have compromised and compromised and compromised until we are tired of being the ones who always give something up.

They always speak of the "Good first step". The Brady Act was a "Good first step". The Assault Weapon ban was a "Good first step". The magazine ban was a "Good first step". The ban on imports was a "Good first step". THERE IS NEVER A SECOND STEP FOR THESE PEOPLE AS THE LAST STEP IS THE GOAL; AND THAT GOAL IS THE UNILATERAL BANNING OF ALL FIREARMS OF ALL TYPES.

So, what will we gain when they:
Demand that we register our firearms and have to pay for that "privilege"?
Demand that we register ourselves and have to pay for that "privilege"?
Demand that we have to have a permit to move our own property from place to place and we have to pay for the "privilege"?
Demand that we pay outrageous taxes on firearms and ammunition?
Demand that we have to keep our firearms locked in expensive "approved" safes or at expensive gun clubs?
Demand that we have to buy an "arsenal permit" when the number of firearms we own exceeds a certain number?
Demand that we have to buy an "arsenal permit" when the number of rounds of ammunition, or components thereof, exceeds a certain number?
Demand that we have to keep special insurance policies if we own a firearm?
Demand that we only be able to buy one firearm in any given period of time -- month, year, lifetime?

If any of you think that what I have posted is untrue, it is not. All of these have been proposed by various state and federal legislators. The anti-firearms faction NEVER gives up ANYTHING! They just keep demanding that we compromise away our rights, our liberties, and our property; and that we should accept this as "common sense". In the same breath they tell us that they are not anti-firearm and that they don't want to disarm law abiding citizens.

The same people who say that "Saturday Night Specials" should be banned because they have no militia purpose are the same ones who say that "assault weapons" should be banned because they are "weapons of war".

So tell me about "compromise" and "common sense" and how they don't really want to disarm us. Then ask yourself this one simple question:

If it is, as the Founders stated, that firearms in the hands of the citizenry are the last bastion against government tyranny; why is that same government so anxious to disarm that citizenry -- especially those firearms of military utility?

It's not about safety. It's not about common sense. It's not about "the children". It's about POWER; raw, unbridled power. Make no mistake about that. The power to regulate is the power to deny.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
no, it's not a form of fascism. there are a few things that are regulated for the common good. get over it.

That's what they said of the Jews in 1939. Nothing much came of it though.

Sleep on. Don't worry. Be happy.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
No, Jim..that is NOT what they said to the jews in 39. Allude to you hearts' content - it will avail you nothing. The war is over, the terrorists have won..you are always afraid.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
In 1955 you could drive into a gas station and fill 'er up; buy a firearm and ammunition therefor; and drive on down the road -- no questions asked. No background check and no paperwork. Yet there were none of these types of slaughter going on in 1955. Now they have the audacity to tell us that these crimes are due to easy accessibility of firearms.
ROFL!! Forgot all about organized crime, the prohibition etc... somehow, you forgot all about some of the bloodiest decades in American History ending right around the 50's - and going up when the restrictions started being loosened up again.

hmrt.gif
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Not quite...there was wholesale slaughter going on and it dipped substantially when prohibition got stopped and then again in the 50, when guns werent' given out willy nilly.

Match that with a more effective police force and reported crime numbers and arrests go up. Not to mention the revolution and race-wars in the 60's and 70's. ..lots of anger (and drugs and pushers) to go with the love, eh.

Controlling who can own and buy guns to stop criminals from getting them anywhere/anytime is, was and continues to be a good idea. Allow the criminal element easy and cheap access to firearms and you'll really start seeing the crime rate vault upwards.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
Allow the criminal element easy and cheap access to firearms and you'll really start seeing the crime rate vault upwards.

Allow?
doesn't make a diff in the law...They are criminals.
You really don't know how it is on the streets here do you.
Laws are for law abiding citizens. Criminal minded people couldn't care less.
Guns are very easy to get by anyone, if you don't care about the law.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
Ah, yes. compromise. I wrote a short piece on compromise and what it buys us at TFL two years ago.

so, um, again, did you notice that the AWB was allowed to sunset? where is there a "compromise" when i can legally buy a 75 round drum magazine for an AK?

gee, that certainly would not be enough to defend my home from the evildoers.

but don't let my rational, reasonable opinions in the way of the drama of the freedom heroes.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! save yourself from those evil jesus and freedom hating lefties that are actually just like hitler! right after you change your register tape.

:horse:
 
Top