Getting tired...

[Bapak2ja]

I might not like or agree with your political views. But, I would die defending your right to have them!

Repped.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Please explain how Dubya or Mittens would have differed?

Both, at the very least, stated a willingness to sign an assault weapons ban.

The time for partisan politics is behind us. If you wish to cling to your dead Party and frolic in the ashes - no one can stop you.

The debate is not about who is worse, but about defending the Constitution. The liberals are determined to destroy the republic to establish their own permanent hold on power. Many of the Republicans have joined them (Lugar, McCain, etc.). Others simply help them for personal political gain. All must be rejected.

The best way to eliminate rot is to eliminate the source of it. Thus, it is best to remove the liberals from office. Then the RINOs will be force to stand on their own and be easier to remove from office as well.

 

[Birds Away]

We Libertarians are a fickle bunch. Are you not a Republican?

You are also are dismissing gun owners that disagree with your skewed view of the world when we need them most.

Pretty sure the Democrats didn't sink the U.S.S. Liberty. Where the hell are YOUR allegiances???

Please enlighten me about how my view of the world is so skewed, oh wise one. You are always good for a chuckle.

 

[Steelman]

I'm merely providing a contrast for the dozens of dogpilers that jumped the OP.

America is becoming a more socially Liberal country. The powdered wigs from the Cult of the Golden Elephant have brought us Obama for two terms.

I'd say the Liberals have done a better job dumping the R's to the curb.

They could have ran Ron Paul. Just saying.

The debate is not about who is worse, but about defending the Constitution. The liberals are determined to destroy the republic to establish their own permanent hold on power. Many of the Republicans have joined them (Lugar, McCain, etc.). Others simply help them for personal political gain. All must be rejected.

The best way to eliminate rot is to eliminate the source of it. Thus, it is best to remove the liberals from office. Then the RINOs will be force to stand on their own and be easier to remove from office as well.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Dianne Feinstein CAN'T dismantle the constitution.. she can't. I'm not sure what you're missing. The AWB went through in '94 by ONE vote... and that was a completely different political environment... With the entire "gun owner" party, which is basically what we've become, especially the rural areas where much of the voting republican party resides, the push back against ANYTHING restricting our rights regarding firearms has been quick and VERY strong. The senators and representative presiding over those sates and districts know that if they screw over their base, this will be their last stint in office. Youve got voices, use em.

Feinstein has empowered Hussein to dismantle the Constitution by Executive Order. If a US Senator does not vigorously defend the Constitution, that senator is committing treason and supporting the dismantling of the Constitution. Alone, no one in Washington can harm the Constitution. United into one party, they can subvert the government and end the republic. At that point, they no longer need seek reelection. They are in office for life—or the duration of the empire. To learn how this is done please read Gibbons' Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, Mein Kampf, and the writings of William Ayers. Then you will understand what the liberals are currently doing—and what you are supporting.

 

[Steelman]

Out of ideas, huh?

Pick up your rifle and fall in - try not to **** off the rest of the platoon. Navy guys know how to use a rifle, right?

Please enlighten me about how my view of the world is so skewed, oh wise one. You are always good for a chuckle.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

There are some folks that frequent INGO that are trolls, folks. Just saying. If the shoe fits.....

 

[Bapak2ja]

While this video focuses on another aspect of the Liberal-Conservatie debate (not about guns), it does demonstrate the infantile moral position of the liberals who are the focus of this thread. Liberals has a serious moral problem that goes far beyond the gun issue.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/rEM4NKXK-iA?feature=player_detailpage

 

[Birds Away]

Out of ideas, huh?

Pick up your rifle and fall in - try not to **** off the rest of the platoon. Navy guys know how to use a rifle, right?

Troll on, brother. If you're looking for someone to rise to the bait and get banned, keep looking.

 

[Steelman]

Troll on, brother. If you're looking for someone to rise to the bait and get banned, keep looking.

Troll?.....oh please..

I tried to extend a hand in solidarity and put the past behind us. Seems like you need to get the sand out of your hoo-hoo. Moneys says you ain't making a pearl up there.

Moving along...

 

[spec4]

Let me get this straight. Your response to something that is already unacceptable is to suggest that it be made even broader? Just because we cannot at the present get rid of that aberration does not imply that it should be made even more sweeping than it already is.

You might also note that being forced to deal with something and willfully accepting it. No, I do not willingly accept background checks. Personally I believe that every legislator who supported it in the first place should face criminal charges for violating their oaths of office. Unfortunately, there isn't much I can do about it.

Indy, can't rep you again, but you are sooo right here.

 

[Mackey]

let me see... Dianne Feinstein got her panties in a bunch about guns period. Some wingnut took semi-auto rifle and gunned down kids which kicked this whole thing off. Considering how much the media ran with the whole "assault weapons" and plastered those kids pictures over the airwaves 24/7, how could you NOT expect a response. Even now, the teeth of the supposed AWB are gone.. they KNOW they won't get the ban through both house and senate. What you're looking at is at most a UBC and magazine limits.. just something to shut the frenzied public up.. and since most of you already OWN mags that hold more than 10 rounds, what are you crying about? Sure, voice your opinions, write your congressmen (I did it through the Ruger site) and protest! by God, I never said you shouldn't. (by the way, you should write down what YOU think liberal means, and then go look it up and be amazed that your definition doesn't match.)

"Since most of YOU already own mags"
You and I both know that you really don't consider yourself a part of this INGO culture. Seems like you see yourself as one of some kind of elite group that knows more than the unwashed masses on this forum.
Liberal
for sure.

The word is incrementalism
You know what that means.

Listen, we're not as dumb as you think we are.
Why don't you start your own forum for people in the gun culture who think like you claim you do.
Oh wait ... there wouldn't be any members, would there?

 

[Shadow8088]

i don't own a weapon that holds more than 10 rounds. why do I need a mag? I wouldn't mind owning an SKS down the road, but I'm not interested in slapping an extended mag on it. Just personal preference.

 

[2cool9031]

If these things offend you...then leave. Those who are not with us are against us.

 

[Steelman]

i don't own a weapon that holds more than 10 rounds. why do I need a mag? I wouldn't mind owning an SKS down the road, but I'm not interested in slapping an extended mag on it. Just personal preference.

Please realize that [STRIKE]the majority[/STRIKE] everyone except you wants to retain the right have an unlimited magazine capacity and not to leave the door open to registration by proxy through background checks.

I'd really like to see you stick around and become one of us. Try to keep an open mind on the subject.

You'll will not change an opinion on the matter - no matter how hard you try. It's well understood that no compromise will be acceptable this time.

 

[1donos]

[QUOTEby the way, most criminals get their firearms through burglaries and unsecured weapons...[/QUOTE]

sounds like we dont need a universal background check.. we should only require burglars to have a background check before they can steal firearms!!!

 

[printcraft]

..............

by the way, most criminals get their firearms through burglaries and unsecured weapons...

HOW in the hell are background checks on law abiding citizens going to stop this?!

You just blew a hole in the bottom of your own logic boat.

Progressive liberals lack common sense. That is the problem.

[QUOTEby the way, most criminals get their firearms through burglaries and unsecured weapons...

sounds like we dont need a universal background check.. we should only require burglars to have a background check before they can steal firearms!!!

[/QUOTE]

QFT

 

[buckstopshere]

HOW in the hell are background checks on law abiding citizens going to stop this?!

You just blew a hole in the bottom of your own logic boat.

Progressive liberals lack common sense. That is the problem.

ahhhh maaaannnn, you sunk my logic boat

 

[Rhoadmar]

I think you should probably re-read what I said. I was talking about having to pay a "reasonable" fee to have a NICS check when selling a gun... and we ALL jump through the NICS hoops when we buy a gun from a LGS... so you're already WILLINGLY accepting the "infringement" of a background check anyway. I'm not sure if you guys read what your stepping in. The UBC stops you from selling to a private party without a criminal background check.

I don't consider anything "willing" that I did not consent to in the first place. We are forced by law and threatened criminal penalties if we do not comply. There is no willing consent on my part because I live and breathe under that which is forced upon me.

 

[Liberty1911]

while I get the slippery slope bit, a background check for a gun purchase and a magazine size limit doesn't infringe your right to bear arms. You get to keep your guns, and shoot them... if you've done something that would disqualify you from owning a firearm, I could understand the background check issue..

Great, then I assume you think that a mandatory ultrasound, 2 week waiting period, and 2 abortion limit doesn't infringe on women's "abortion rights".