HEY COMMIE
- Thread starter EvilWayz
- Start date
I hear this is one of the things that will be banned by Obama's executive action. Looks like you wasted your money.Check out my new "carry rig."
Eh well, I'll sit here in my gated community fondling my gun until such time as they want to come get it.
Who knows. But I wouldn't be surprised as the guy honestly believes that he is king.
Pretty sweet rig, just needs a couple of upgrades. I think you should add some picatinny quad-rails with a red-dot sight, a flashlight, a magpul single-point sling, a laser and a collapsible bipod to the holster itself.
Haha.. You my friend, are not one of those "tactical" guys.. You know who I'm talking about.
Happy New Year to everyone on the forum- Hope everyone has a 2016 full of love, peace, joy and prosperity. I can't believe I signed up for this friggin thing ten years ago!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-gun-control-actions-faces-gop-backlash.html
Here you go. I believe you were specifically mentioned by name.
I finished making this earlier, was a mostly complete rifle that needed a few tweaks.Pretty sweet rig, just needs a couple of upgrades. I think you should add some picatinny quad-rails with a red-dot sight, a flashlight, a magpul single-point sling, a laser and a collapsible bipod to the holster itself.
Haha.. You my friend, are not one of those "tactical" guys.. You know who I'm talking about.
I actually have found myself carrying a gun, a spare mag, a flashlight, and a sharp knife with a serrated edge.
These "executive actions" are total proof that the goal is expansion of govt, infringement of liberty, as they have NOTHING to do with crime at all. It is a big F U to law abiding Americans. Another Barry hissy fit because he didn't get his way.
Calm down Francis. A few additional background checks to make it more difficult for felons and terrorists to obtain weapons won't be the end of the second amendment. You can still keep your arsenal.
My favorite thing was the crying part. THERE IS NO CRYING IN DICTATORLAND.
"In 2011, ATF agents were watching at a gun show in Conroe as Chad "Polar Bear" Folmsbee, a convicted felon and lieutenant in the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas prison gang, made his way to a booth called "Zombie Killers," and handed a wad of cash to a private seller.
Not long after he walked away with four variants of AK-47 and M-16 rifles,Folmsbee was arrested. He was later convicted and sent to prison for his role in a larger crime conspiracy."
Unless you are either:
1. A felon who wishes to purchase guns without a background check, or
2. A private seller who wishes to sell to felons
you should have no problem with this clarification of an existing law.
Not long after he walked away with four variants of AK-47 and M-16 rifles,Folmsbee was arrested. He was later convicted and sent to prison for his role in a larger crime conspiracy."
Unless you are either:
1. A felon who wishes to purchase guns without a background check, or
2. A private seller who wishes to sell to felons
you should have no problem with this clarification of an existing law.
It is already illegal to sell a firearm to a felon. It is already illegal for a felon to purchase or own a firearm. Your argument is invalid.
Obama's tears moved me. To buy this.
You and millions of others....Obama has been the greatest gun salesman ever.
It is funny though watching all these Obama bootlickers cheering his executive actions....they don't even consider his power grab will mean when there is a POTUS they don't slobber all over in office, unilaterally taking executive actions they don't like.
More useless laws as far as violent is concerned.....but a lot more potential infringement.
They want to take HIPAA information about mental illness....huge violation of privacy, and of course no due process.
They want to prohibit people who have been accused of domestic violence...again, due process much?
They may even prohibit people on SS due to financial issues...really, you lefties are OK with this?
And as for the dealers and licenses issue, well, this these are all the hobbyists and collectors that under Clinton's gun control schemes they DIDN'T want to get licenses, because they only wanted more serious dealers to get FFLs.
One more, adding more useless restrictions to NFA items, which of course are practically never used in crimes.
But the boot lickers will still praise Dear Leader, and say "we had to do SOMETHING"...and ignore the reality of guns, crime, violence, and of course freedom. By the way, since these executive actions are so brilliant and wonderful, why didn't do them in Jan 2009?
Apparently our Constitutional Scholar in Chief doesn't read the latest SCOTUS rulings:
CLIFFORD CHARLES TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILLSDALE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., Dec 18th, 2014
Federal court overturned the ban on gun possession by anyone that has ever been committed to a mental institution as unconstitutional.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf
Last edited:
Incorrect. It's illegal to sell to a known felon. Without a background check, how would you know? It also helps with prosecution since the seller can no longer claim ignorance. In the above example, the seller did not face charges.
It's not a difficult concept. I don't know how any reasonable person could be against this.
Only they rarely prosecute for this. And Obama's administration does so 8% less than Dubya, and rising. I fail to see the point of new rules when the old ones aren't enforced.
Maybe because the second amendment doesn't say anywhere in there "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you did time in prison or the nuthouse."
How hard is it really to understand that terrorists and criminals aren't going somewhere where they have to undergo a background check? Our muslim pals in San Bernardino had a friend buy their rifles even though they would have passed one on their own. Our Aryan buddy in Texas found a guy who would take his money and not ask a lot of questions. I'd be willing to bet this private seller has done this before.
If I want a Glock 19 with no serial number on it I can drive nine miles north of where I'm sitting and buy one for 300 dollars cash. A background check isn't going to do any more than it already does, which is catch 400 people or so a year who didn't realize they'd had their 2nd amendment rights taken from them, like Mr Tyler up there.
Last edited:
I agree with your first point, but that's a problem with enforcement, not the law. Are you really saying there should be NO restrictions on who should be able to buy a firearm?
Restrictions on any enumerated right in the Bill of Rights should be HIGHLY examined. I fail to see why you should lose your 2nd amendment rights permanently because you broke into someones house or sold a little dope. Would you be ok with someone losing their first amendment rights for the same reason? In the case I mentioned before, the gentleman in question went thru a bad divorce and a judge felt it was necessary to admit him to a mental institution for his own protection. He was evaluated by a psychiatrist and is in no danger to himself anymore. And this new business if you can't manage your own finances you can't own a gun? You can't tell me that's not government overreach. I know guys right now that can build an ar-15 from parts in half an hour that struggle with long division.
I am an extremist where the 2nd amendment is concerned. Were it up to me, the only way your 2nd amendment rights could be stripped from you is if a panel of judges reviewed your criminal history and found it likely that you would commit criminal acts or a panel of psychiatrists found you mentally unfit to possess a weapon. And every single case would be appealable. This is America and we do not punish people or abrogate their rights without evidence and due process.
I agree 100% except for the panel. No oNE has tI'm for that.
. By implication. I assume you agree that firearms should not be sold to convicted armed felons. That is what background checks are intended to prevent.
I think when we are talking about something as important as the 2nd amendment, we better make time. It would be up to a panel of judges to decide. Remember, we have mandatory minimums in Florida for guns used in crime, ten for possessing one, twenty for firing one and life for injuring or killing someone. I would think carrying a gun during a crime would be a judgement call, intentionally firing, whether one hits someone or not, would be non negotiable. And as I said, people who know they won't pass a background check are unlikely to buy a firearm legally. And since there is currently no national firearms registry, the "gunshow loophole" is fairly impossible to prosecute. I happen to keep records of private sales since it would be a hassle otherwise dealing with law enforcement if something I sold ended up in a crime. But I don't have to, and as long as I have an alibi it's really not my problem.
Unless King Obama has some way to force background checks before one can buy a gun on the black market, this is totally meaningless.
Ok. So I take it that you are in favor of no background checks at all. Wise move. While we're at it, let's go ahead and make all drugs legal since you can buy those on the black market as well. Great, no more need for prescriptions. Oh, and let's make child porn readily available for the same reason.
Congratulations, you are in the 10% of people who share the same opinion on this subject.
Most of what he announced is already law anyways, and he is trying to look effective and appease the radical left that is "doing something." Of course it won't do anything about crime....but that is not the intent....the intent of gun control laws is more govt and to turn regular law-abiding citizens into criminals.
We continue to have more and more guns, but less and less crime. Facts also show that criminals are rarely getting guns from guns shows, most guns will never be used in crime, and a very small percentage of society commits almost all of the violent crime. If the intent really was to reduce violent crime, the focus would be on those violent criminals, not law-abiding Americans.
Also important to note that in his DNC election ad, also known as SOTU, Dear Leader pretty much avoided guns, as he knows it is a losing issue for his Dem comrades in the upcoming election.
Yes, lets. It is none of the government's business what I put into my body, be it tobacco, weed or ecstasy. If I do something stupid while under the influence, punish me for whatever it is. You do realize failed drug policy is responsible for the majority of gun violence in this country, yes? Incidentally, there are approximately 230,000 stolen guns out there, none of which will be affected by background checks.
I've never heard anyone say that a change in the rules will immediately affect the number of guns in circulation. I would imagine most people's goals are to reduce the glut of guns available for crime over time.
And once again that punishes law abiding citizens for the future crime of "maybe your gun will get stolen."
Last edited:
We can't just do anything we want....there are regulations regarding dangerous things. We can't drive 100 mph because 'maybe' something will happen.
No one is suggesting that if there were less cars on the road there would be fewer accidents, now are they. Regardless, you can't punish people for things that haven't happened yet, especially when there's a nice amendment on it containing the words "Shall Not Be Infringed." Anytime you impede my access to get a firearm, you are infringing. Making an arbitrary rule, like that one guy on here was suggesting banning all new firearms, in addition to being unconstitutional and impossible to enforce, isn't going to put so much as a dent in the black market pool. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.
You might as well resign yourself to the fact that there are some 310,000,000 guns in the US, with 8,000,000 being added yearly and most of those guns are not being used to commit crimes. The number of gun deaths as compared to the population as a whole is statistically insignificant. The operative word in gun control is control. One only had to watch the armed presence at the Golden Globes to come to the conclusion that gun control folks have no problem in having guns, or having them used on their behalf. They just don't think the rest of us are as important as they are.
You might as well resign yourself to the fact that there are some 310,000,000 guns in the US, with 8,000,000 being added yearly and most of those guns are not being used to commit crimes. The number of gun deaths as compared to the population as a whole is statistically insignificant. The operative word in gun control is control. One only had to watch the armed presence at the Golden Globes to come to the conclusion that gun control folks have no problem in having guns, or having them used on their behalf. They just don't think the rest of us are as important as they are.
If there were fewer cars, there WOULD be fewer accidents. Surely you don't disagree with that.
We 'punish' people all the time for things that haven't happened. You can't drive 75 thru an active school zone.
The 2nd amendment is a centuries old law (think of laws that say you can't cohabitate or that women couldn't vote). Way back then, they didn't have bands of armed animals roaming the ghettos shooting people. Things change.
complete bull crap. Its not a "law" its a frigging RIGHT held by the PEOPLE. ...which frogs out statists like you.
The RIGHTS to assemble, speak your mind, bear arms and due process are what are minimum to prevent government oppression. ALL of these are key.....please take the time to review how the German Republic transitioned to fascist Nazism, and which freedoms and rights were systematically taken away by fiat in the name of order and to combat "violent internal troublemakers" (read Communists)....Oppressive governments ALWAYS attempt to act in the name of the good of the people when they 'modify" the peoples rights to try to "fix" an apparent evil "more easily".....
Damn, it'll be a wonder if this republic even remotely looks like a free nation in 50 years with this rationale.....
