Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[Trigger Time]

We need to stop being so polite to those that wish to destroy our republic. Call them out. Embarrass them

 

[bmbutch]

Sometimes while perusing these threads, I'm amazed at how different some of you think than I. I can't fathom voting for Killary as POTUS, her list of wrong doings is a testament to how twisted we've become. I loathe that beast!

 

[bwframe]

Why would someone come on to a gun forum and go out of their way to post such egregious crap?
Not everything needs to be shared. It says a lot about a "member" that does such a thing.

 

[dieselrealtor]

Hillary for Prison

 

[churchmouse]

If someone disagreeing with you causes this much discomfort, then why did you ask?

Because I really hoped beyond hope no one would step up. You did. Good on you.

Oh, we are actually a republic.

 

[ATM]

...Oh, we are actually a republic.

No, we are actually an oligarchy.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If someone disagreeing with you causes this much discomfort, then why did you ask?

It isn't the matter of disagreeing with him per se. It is lacking the small modicum of understanding, along with something approaching half of the voters, to understand that supporting those domestic enemies our founders warned us about is a self-destructive proposition.

 

[rhino]

No, we are actually an oligarchy.

Well, I learned from a bumper sticker (on the vehicle of an exceptionally unpleasant contract employee who was formerly employed where I work), that we live in a plutocracy and that only solution is to elect more Democrats.

 

[Expat]

Or a not so benevolent dictatorship...

 

[churchmouse]

No, we are actually an oligarchy.

OK.....now we are pressing my simple public school education.......

 

[Lowe0]

Why would someone come on to a gun forum and go out of their way to post such egregious crap?
Not everything needs to be shared. It says a lot about a "member" that does such a thing.

I wish I had the link handy, because I was reading an article a couple of days ago that addressed your question. It's shifting demographics: as shooting sports pick up millenials, urban dwellers, women, racial minorities, etc., it's going to be harder for traditional gun rights candidates to connect with and engage those individuals.

Even though I agree with the Republican Party's practical arguments on gun control (only disarms law abiding citizens, guns will still get in via border smuggling, rounding up guns w/o violence is impossible), they still don't have a candidate that I could vote for (though I do like Paul's views on the role of the military outside the U.S., or at least his views from before they shifted for the primary). Eventually, gun rights PACs may take notice of "gun culture 2.0" and start developing candidates that people like me can vote for. Until then, I'm stuck picking the lesser of two evils.

 

[cobber]

I wish I had the link handy, because I was reading an article a couple of days ago that addressed your question. It's shifting demographics: as shooting sports pick up millenials, urban dwellers, women, racial minorities, etc., it's going to be harder for traditional gun rights candidates to connect with and engage those individuals.

They may not have that right much longer if they keep voting the same people into office. Thinking Dianne F., Chuck S., Harry R., and Nancy P. These four are on point with all of your expressed interests, save one. If 'democracy' keeps inserting more like them, you'll have one less right to enjoy. But you will get more expensive energy prices, more 'progressive' policies, and a minimum wage that knows no limit.

And we'll see how long that can continue, with an $18 trillion debt...

 

[jamil]

Because guns weren't the only issue on my mind when I voted? I'll be honest; I expect that I'll be voting for Hillary next year. I'm not just thinking about guns, but also science (climate change, evolution in education), gay rights, and overseas military action. I can't, in good conscience, say "I got mine, you're on your own."

Then don't.

I haven't had time to read all the posts yet. Enough has been said, I'm sure, about forms of government, and socialism and whatnot. But this is the most utterly ridiculous, pompous, faux morality, crock of bull**** I think I've ever read on INGO. And we have Alpo and fzz!

First, this statement reeks of assumption. So people who don't support pro-wealth redistribution regimes are somehow less moral than you? Dude, if "good conscience" is voting to be charitable with other people's money, holy ****!! Newsflash! I can only be charitable with MY OWN MONEY. I can't be charitable with yours. I don't need government to take mine away and give it to people I don't think really need it most. It's my damn conscience. Let me decide who needs it.

Second, let me point out an important fact. Your conscience may feel relieved, feeling that you've voted for people to take money away from OTHER people to give to people who didn't earn it. But you don't get to claim morality for that. You don't get to be charitable with other people's money. If you want to help the poor, I encourage that, I commend that. But then YOU help them. YOU! DO! IT! Breaking open other people's piggy banks instead of your own is not commendable and if that satisfies the liberal conscience, then liberals should rethink their standards of morality.

Said again for emphasis, YOU can't be charitable with OTHER people's money.

 

[Lowe0]

Then don't.

I haven't had time to read all the posts yet. Enough has been said, I'm sure, about forms of government, and socialism and whatnot. But this is the most utterly ridiculous, pompous, faux morality, crock of bull**** I think I've ever read on INGO. And we have Alpo and fzz!

First, this statement reeks of assumption. So people who don't support pro-wealth redistribution regimes are somehow less moral than you? Dude, if "good conscience" is voting to be charitable with other people's money, holy ****!! Newsflash! I can only be charitable with MY OWN MONEY. I can't be charitable with yours. I don't need government to take mine away and give it to people I don't think really need it most. It's my damn conscience. Let me decide who needs it.

Second, let me point out an important fact. Your conscience may feel relieved, feeling that you've voted for people to take money away from OTHER people to give to people who didn't earn it. But you don't get to claim morality for that. You don't get to be charitable with other people's money. If you want to help the poor, I encourage that, I commend that. But then YOU help them. YOU! DO! IT! Breaking open other people's piggy banks instead of your own is not commendable and if that satisfies the liberal conscience, then liberals should rethink their standards of morality.

Said again for emphasis, YOU can't be charitable with OTHER people's money.

The issues that I denoted as important to me (same-sex marriage, science in education, reducing foreign entanglements) have nothing to do with giving out freebies. Swing and a miss, champ.

 

[Birds Away]

I don't care what you do or who you do it too. So long as they are consenting and of age.
The science is great. Brainwashing them to be good little group-think zombies is not.
Welcome back, America Firsters.

 

[dieselrealtor]

When I was in grade school they were teaching us that we were headed into the next ice age, as a kid I thought we were all going to be wearing parkas all year as an adult.

Science falsely so called.

 

[seedubs1]

Instead, I'm in a t-shirt and shorts in the middle of December.

When I was in grade school they were teaching us that we were headed into the next ice age, as a kid I thought we were all going to be wearing parkas all year as an adult.

Science falsely so called.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I wish I had the link handy, because I was reading an article a couple of days ago that addressed your question. It's shifting demographics: as shooting sports pick up millenials, urban dwellers, women, racial minorities, etc., it's going to be harder for traditional gun rights candidates to connect with and engage those individuals.

Even though I agree with the Republican Party's practical arguments on gun control (only disarms law abiding citizens, guns will still get in via border smuggling, rounding up guns w/o violence is impossible), they still don't have a candidate that I could vote for (though I do like Paul's views on the role of the military outside the U.S., or at least his views from before they shifted for the primary). Eventually, gun rights PACs may take notice of "gun culture 2.0" and start developing candidates that people like me can vote for. Until then, I'm stuck picking the lesser of two evils.

This entire post rests upon a false premise. The point at issue is not the preferences of [insert group] or the practical utility of gun ownership, but rather the fact that the Constitution was established as a binding contract between the government and the governed, and that certain rights which limits the governments's power to that which is specifically granted and removes certain enumerated rights from the political process, neither of which are being honored in practice, AND NEED TO BE. This is not a democracy, but rather a constitution republic. Introducing the warped notion that the United States is a democracy is a deliberate tool fashioned by assorted progressive/socialist/communist elements to foster a political climate in which they could ram through their dystopian future and it would be accepted so long as it came with a 51% vote. These people, at least the ones still among us, need tried, convicted, and executed as traitors.

The issues that I denoted as important to me (same-sex marriage, science in education, reducing foreign entanglements) have nothing to do with giving out freebies. Swing and a miss, champ.

Explain this supposed miss. The invention of 'new' rights from the blank spaces and the compulsory indoctrination of other people's children into something the parents would hate, all while trampling actual rights are among the most evil of giveaways ever conceived.

I don't care what you do or who you do it too. So long as they are consenting and of age.
The science is great. Brainwashing them to be good little group-think zombies is not.
Welcome back, America Firsters.

I couldn't have said it any better, and certainly not as concisely, as evidenced by the length of most of my posts!

When I was in grade school they were teaching us that we were headed into the next ice age, as a kid I thought we were all going to be wearing parkas all year as an adult.

Science falsely so called.

I am not old enough to remember it happening, but I have heard plenty about it from older men I trusted while growing up. At 42, had I been another 10 years or so older, I would have had a front-row seat. That said, it stands in evidence of the folly of trusting the 'settled science' of the day, especially when, as it is today, that science comes with so much political baggage replacing actual science that the steamer trunks would fill the Titanic from the keel to the tops of the funnels.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Instead, I'm in a t-shirt and shorts in the middle of December.

And if you saw the global warming of the 1300s you would probably be scared sh*tless right now.

 

[Lowe0]

Introducing the warped notion that the United States is a democracy is a deliberate tool fashioned by assorted progressive/socialist/communist elements to foster a political climate in which they could ram through their dystopian future and it would be accepted so long as it came with a 51% vote.

Wow. Tinfoil hat much?

Explain this supposed miss. The invention of 'new' rights from the blank spaces and the compulsory indoctrination of other people's children into something the parents would hate, all while trampling actual rights are among the most evil of giveaways ever conceived.

The post I was responding to specifically accused me of spending other people's money to assuage my conscience. So unless you've got a dollar amount to go with your reply, it's not even remotely relevant.