8
8
0
Are Democrats coming for your guns?
President Obama has served his time as public enemy number one, according to the gun lobby, and it should come as no surprise that he’s planning to announce his backing of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
They say they aren't, but do you believe them. I think they are FOS.
President Obama has served his time as public enemy number one, according to the gun lobby, and it should come as no surprise that he’s planning to announce his backing of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
They say they aren't, but do you believe them. I think they are FOS.
Are Democrats coming for your guns?
Posted from guns.comPosted in these groups: 
Democrats
Gun Control
Democrats Gun Control
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 19
12
12
0
They are, but not in the literal sense that everyone assumes. Everything is a gradual process and some of the best chess players take forever to make a move. The ultimate goal is legislation. It doesn't matter what the legislation is, because each new piece is a stepping stone to the next objective.
Now I know this is the type of thing that would make me sound like some crazy conspiracy theorist, but hear me out.
We have the 2nd Amendment. We know what it says. It's been debated for generations. Now how do you know what the 2nd Amendment says if you haven't read it yourself? It baffles me that schools no longer teach handwriting. If you can't read a historical document, what is there to prevent a "revision" to your own Rights?
Then we have the mass shootings. Why is it the 1st thing to be pushed is more gun control? We already have laws in place. In a common sense world, how is one more law going to prevent one more tragedy?
Ban automatic weapons. Now the public can't access automatic weapons.
Then ban semi-automatic because it contains the word automatic.
Now let's ban magazines of more than 30 rounds because who needs to fire more than 10 rounds.
Now let's ban magazines of 10 rounds because who needs more than a 6 shooter.
Now let's ban anyone from having a firearm who had any form of a mental illness in their lifetime.
Now let's classify everything as a mental illness.
Now let's ban any servicemember from from owning a weapon because they have ptsd and might be unbalanced.
Every little concession on the 2nd Amendment is one step closer to bringing out a straight repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Hell, they almost allowed the victims of gun violence to be able to sue manufacturers for the deaths their weapons cause. Can you imagine if manufacturers stopped creating products because they were afraid of potential lawsuits. The idea that issue even made it into a courtroom is troublesome.
Now I know this is the type of thing that would make me sound like some crazy conspiracy theorist, but hear me out.
We have the 2nd Amendment. We know what it says. It's been debated for generations. Now how do you know what the 2nd Amendment says if you haven't read it yourself? It baffles me that schools no longer teach handwriting. If you can't read a historical document, what is there to prevent a "revision" to your own Rights?
Then we have the mass shootings. Why is it the 1st thing to be pushed is more gun control? We already have laws in place. In a common sense world, how is one more law going to prevent one more tragedy?
Ban automatic weapons. Now the public can't access automatic weapons.
Then ban semi-automatic because it contains the word automatic.
Now let's ban magazines of more than 30 rounds because who needs to fire more than 10 rounds.
Now let's ban magazines of 10 rounds because who needs more than a 6 shooter.
Now let's ban anyone from having a firearm who had any form of a mental illness in their lifetime.
Now let's classify everything as a mental illness.
Now let's ban any servicemember from from owning a weapon because they have ptsd and might be unbalanced.
Every little concession on the 2nd Amendment is one step closer to bringing out a straight repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Hell, they almost allowed the victims of gun violence to be able to sue manufacturers for the deaths their weapons cause. Can you imagine if manufacturers stopped creating products because they were afraid of potential lawsuits. The idea that issue even made it into a courtroom is troublesome.
(12)
(0)
SCPO Jason McLaughlin
Cpl Dennis F. - Arms is defined in Webster as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense". We as society already define what is acceptable arms: you can't bear a nuke, an aerosol can of weaponized anthrax, or a Tomahawk missile (even though the federal Government has them; so much for the Federalist paper argument). The aforementioned "arms" aren't legal to own because laws were passed to prevent it. Are those laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment? No. Therefore, there is precedent on defining the arms that people can own. So, the Constitutional right to bear arms is not a Constitutional right to bear an AR-15 with a 30 round clip. I think high-capacity "assault rifles" should be reserved for special police units and for the military only not private citizens. So before you respond let me make some points clear:
1. I know that most gun violence is committed with handguns. I am not calling on a ban on handguns. They are a valuable self/home-defense tool. I am against concealed carry laws but support open carry.
2. I know the term "assault rifle" is a made-up term. There are lots of semi-automatic weapons that are not "assault rifles", but if a rifle has a fully automatic variant than that is how I would define it.
3. I am for limiting magazine capacity, I think 10 is too much and would rather see 5 rounds as a capacity limit. I believe that making ownership of high capacity magazines illegal is a necessity. I would institute a turn in program and a deadline. Nothing you are going to say would change that.
5. I would grandfather in current "assault rifle" ownership, but require licensing, registration, and insurance requirements that follows the rifle along with having to register any sale.
4. I understand that criminals don't obey the law, but don't think we should define our societies values by what criminals do. I do support harsher sentencing guidelines for commission of crimes with illegal weapons.
To sum up: Have as many pistols and hunting rifles as you want. Keep the "assault rifles" you have, but increase the responsibility of ownership. Be prepared to have to reload more often.
1. I know that most gun violence is committed with handguns. I am not calling on a ban on handguns. They are a valuable self/home-defense tool. I am against concealed carry laws but support open carry.
2. I know the term "assault rifle" is a made-up term. There are lots of semi-automatic weapons that are not "assault rifles", but if a rifle has a fully automatic variant than that is how I would define it.
3. I am for limiting magazine capacity, I think 10 is too much and would rather see 5 rounds as a capacity limit. I believe that making ownership of high capacity magazines illegal is a necessity. I would institute a turn in program and a deadline. Nothing you are going to say would change that.
5. I would grandfather in current "assault rifle" ownership, but require licensing, registration, and insurance requirements that follows the rifle along with having to register any sale.
4. I understand that criminals don't obey the law, but don't think we should define our societies values by what criminals do. I do support harsher sentencing guidelines for commission of crimes with illegal weapons.
To sum up: Have as many pistols and hunting rifles as you want. Keep the "assault rifles" you have, but increase the responsibility of ownership. Be prepared to have to reload more often.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
SCPO Jason McLaughlin Your assertion that the UK has 50 times less gun deaths than the US is one of the big smoke screens constantly used by the gun control crowd. The relevant statistic is violent crime, and the UK's violent crime rate has spiked so high since they banned firearms that they now have the highest violent crime rate in the EU.
In Heller v. DC, Justice Scalia covered AR-15's and 30-round magazines. Any arm that is commonly used by the citizenry is protected under the 2nd Amendment. Semi-automatic AR's and AK's are the most commonly used rifles by citizens in our country, so they are protected. Likewise, 30-round magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is not a made up term. An assault rifle fires a intermediate-power cartridge and is fully automatic. The M4 you use in the military is a perfect example of an assault rifle. The term "assault weapon" is a term made up by the gun control crowd to demonize semi-automatic military-look-alike AR's and Ak's that civilians use.
And there is a very good reason why civilians should have high capacity magazines, which I can go into if you would like to hear it, but I have to run right now.
Cpl Dennis F.
In Heller v. DC, Justice Scalia covered AR-15's and 30-round magazines. Any arm that is commonly used by the citizenry is protected under the 2nd Amendment. Semi-automatic AR's and AK's are the most commonly used rifles by citizens in our country, so they are protected. Likewise, 30-round magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is not a made up term. An assault rifle fires a intermediate-power cartridge and is fully automatic. The M4 you use in the military is a perfect example of an assault rifle. The term "assault weapon" is a term made up by the gun control crowd to demonize semi-automatic military-look-alike AR's and Ak's that civilians use.
And there is a very good reason why civilians should have high capacity magazines, which I can go into if you would like to hear it, but I have to run right now.
Cpl Dennis F.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Dennis F.
Cpl Mark McMiller - Have at it. I quit arguing with anti-gunners, when I discovered that my dog carries a better conversation, and has more sense.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Cpl Dennis F. - I know I don't have to explain this to you, so I'll do it for the benefit of anyone else reading this. Murderers know how many people they plan to kill and they get to pick the time and place for the murder. A good guy, on the other hand, is not expecting to be attacked nor does he have any way of knowing how many attackers there will be or how they will be armed. If high capacity magazines are banned, a murderer will ignore the law and use high capacity magazines anyway or load up on extra guns and/or more low capacity magazines while the good guy, who probably only has a handgun and, at most, two spare magazines, just had his ammo capacity cut in half when he needs all the firepower he can get in order to stop the murderer who is prepared.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
Why are you asking? Several key Democrats have spoken quite openly of their intent to disarm America. I've never heard a Republican speak of such a thing, have you?
(9)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I thought it would be a good discussion topic, and no, I've never heard any republicans speak of such a thing.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LT Erik Frederick
I agree they speak about it but cant imagine how it would get implemented without significant, potentially violent civil unrest.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I think about cigarettes. I don't smoke, my parents and brother did. I didn't like cigarette smoke when I ate. I would come out of some dining places smelling like I had been burning hay stubble. Then they had smoking sections. Then they banned smoking from Resturants, work places, People have even tried to ban smoking in condos people own. I didn't care when they banned cigarettes in Resturants. I think liberals have the same hope for guns. If the gun laws we have were enforced it would go a long way. When gun store owners express concern law enforcement should react. How many people expressed concern? In April Disney World notified the FBI about Mateen. Gun store employees notified the FBI had concerns about Mateen 4 or 5 weeks ago. So here is a guy who was investigated by the FBI two or three times. Then FBI was notified twice about his activities and nothing happens? Oh I know, let's get another law to ignore.
(6)
(0)
LTC David Brown
SGT (Join to see) - agreed my point is that guns and rights will be taken away by inches or fractions of inches until we look around and they are gone!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC David Brown, I'm Sorry, I should have made my comment more clear, in that I understood the comparison, and that's exactly what they are doing now. I don't know if the NRA can get this back in control, like they have before.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google