JRH6856
Member
And then, from the NYTimes, comes this tidbit:
For Some, Owning Guns Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Liking Them
For Some, Owning Guns Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Liking Them
How Obama Silenced Gun Control Groups
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Xelera
Member
I personally think now is the best time for Republicans to push the Senate on a gun control vote. Let the Senate vote on every gun control bill they can imagine...
Right now, they would be dead-on-arrival in the House anyways, so best time to try it because they won't pass the House.
AND THEN we then have the vote of every leftists progressive Senator on record of where they stand. Can't talk themselves out of a recorded vote come 2014 election cycle.
Right now, they would be dead-on-arrival in the House anyways, so best time to try it because they won't pass the House.
AND THEN we then have the vote of every leftists progressive Senator on record of where they stand. Can't talk themselves out of a recorded vote come 2014 election cycle.
JRH6856
Member
The Dems know that and they control the Senate calendar. There will only be Senate votes when and if the Dems want them. Right now, Obama is making noises like he want to get Republicans on the record for 2014 so there may be a vote or several.
As for gun control being DOA in the House, I don't like to count unhatched chickens.
I disagree. Fight them every step of the way. Congressmen who don't want their vote on record can actually help us by working behind the scenes to prevent such a vote. Harry Reid for example. He's a Democratic leader, but has personally killed most anti bills in the last decade. I wouldn't want to test his loyalty to party versus his, so far, favorable stance on the 2nd. If you push him to a narrow tie breaking vote on the issue he could go either way. Let him, and others, help us from preventing a vote and not challenge his party loyalty. He's our friend now. There's no reason to make him choose sides, when he's already on our side.
In 2014 only vote for those who are openly pro-2nd amendment.
Nickel Plated
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 385
It's not being defeatist. I did not give up my guns when the bills passed. I am pointing out how it often tends to go.
I am emphasizing that we must fight like our backs are against the wall. Assuming that Americans by and large will not give up their guns is expecting an awful lot of most of them. Which is why we must deal with it now, because things don't always turn out alright in the end.
Many here may stand and disobey, however the membership of this forum is hardly an accurate representation of the country's gun owning community as a whole.
People who are not willing to fight for their rights do not deserve them. We have many peaceful means before it gets to your example of death or surrender. We have over 200 years of history of fighting for our rights, and winning.
Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty.
Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty.
Let me understand - if I register my guns, they'll know where to go to get the guns. If I never register my guns, they"ll never know where or how many I have. If I register one gun and turn in that one gun, then I've complied as they see it while the rest are somewhere safe. Where do I sign up?
JRH6856
Member
Just know that under the scenario I think you are describing, wherever the rest are, safe or not, there they must stay because if you are ever caught with them and they aren't registered...
Don't forget that under this scenario you have also made yourself a criminal.
That if you are ever burglarized, or if your house catches on fire, or if there is ever any other reason for government officials to enter your home and they discover your unregistered stash, you are now going to jail.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
The more I think about this issue, the more I think Magpul had it best in their approach. I'll paraphrase as best I can:
'The police need these items, but we'll require police and government agents to reaffirm their support for the 2nd Amendment and constitution before selling to them'. It's a ceremonial issue when worked like that, but it gets officers who buy their products thinking about the importance of the 2nd Amendment.
I am a police officer, and a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, as you guys know. The legislators who are passing these laws are not speaking for us, and many of us in uniform spoke out against these laws. In fact, the only "officers" I saw speak in favor of these laws were members of the association of chiefs of police. Frankly, those guys are not cops, they're politicians with uniforms. They don't speak for the line officers on most subjects, even if they do have more authority over the department.
As police officers, our need for these items is not reduced anymore than the needs of all of the other citizens. We still need access to semi-automatic rifles, standard capacity magazines, and so on. In fact, while some folks don't want to acknowledge this reality, we generally need to use these tools in actual engagements more often than the average citizen.
I'd definitely never advocate for restricting the rights of any of the rest of you, and I'm not sure that trying to restrict my ability to carry what I need at work will make things any better for 2nd Amendment rights. I just don't think that the anti-gun politicians care if this stuff is also restricted for the police... they just simply hate guns, and want them gone.
'The police need these items, but we'll require police and government agents to reaffirm their support for the 2nd Amendment and constitution before selling to them'. It's a ceremonial issue when worked like that, but it gets officers who buy their products thinking about the importance of the 2nd Amendment.
I am a police officer, and a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, as you guys know. The legislators who are passing these laws are not speaking for us, and many of us in uniform spoke out against these laws. In fact, the only "officers" I saw speak in favor of these laws were members of the association of chiefs of police. Frankly, those guys are not cops, they're politicians with uniforms. They don't speak for the line officers on most subjects, even if they do have more authority over the department.
As police officers, our need for these items is not reduced anymore than the needs of all of the other citizens. We still need access to semi-automatic rifles, standard capacity magazines, and so on. In fact, while some folks don't want to acknowledge this reality, we generally need to use these tools in actual engagements more often than the average citizen.
I'd definitely never advocate for restricting the rights of any of the rest of you, and I'm not sure that trying to restrict my ability to carry what I need at work will make things any better for 2nd Amendment rights. I just don't think that the anti-gun politicians care if this stuff is also restricted for the police... they just simply hate guns, and want them gone.
- Status
