• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Pro-Gun Control ,but now Im Pro-Gun

Did Swtich sides?


  • Total voters
    32
You misunderstand me, I think. It is not that the gov't will try to go on the offensive, it is that they fear not being able to be defended from the rath of those dads, moms, brothers and sisters that they had promised all manner of good things to and yet had become unable to deliver them. ;)
It's possible I guess.
 
The beauty of the federal republic system is that the federal would lose most of it's leverage and the states would simply reassert their powers, you would actually see the whole thing simply reset itself, not that it would be a whole lot of fun mind you but I think that politicians would have more to be worried about than the people.

Exactly. The U.S. will become a very different place without massive federal forced income redistribution on credit.
 
That's not enough for most citizens to worry about in my opinion.
You're right, at that point there is no more discussion, which is one thing I am always concerned about, we have a bunch of arrogant and frankly stupid people in D.C. who underestimate their employers, us. It would only take a hard enough push against the U.S. citizenry to create a chaotic situation that won't end well for anyone.
 
The problem is one of precedence, the NRA has not had the opportunity to have NFA, or GCA legislation heard because the court is too weak to revisit the precedence set by those FAR unconstitutional bills. It's not for lack of trying, we have a SCOTUS that isn't really worth a damn historically.
Well hopefully they will get around to this sooner or later and the public can get a more in depth definition to the Second Amendment.
 
Well hopefully they will get around to this sooner or later and the public can get a more in depth definition to the Second Amendment.
Not going to happen anytime soon, remember the "conservative" Justice Roberts in maybe one of the dumbest rulings in U.S. history let the Obamacare decision fall under tax powers after the law called it a penalty. SCOTUS justices are politicians with ideological weaknesses as well, and they don't want to overturn precedence because it would further endanger the court's already suspect credibility.
 
See, that I believe. And, imo, no one will bother.

But those who think they're "going to war" with the government would be, I think, very surprised. When the government controls the news . . . the infrastructure . . . media . . . communications . . . et al? It'd be too tough a row to hoe.

" ....don't stand shoulder to shoulder against the redcoats"... that was sage advice once upon a time...successful advice too....and it still is.

I wouldn't relish such an unlikely event .. and it surely wouldn't be easy... but they would lose and lose big in the end... of that I am 100% confident.
 
Well LA, why is it that for example we do not see organizations such as the NRA take up these so called atrocities against the Constitution with SCOTUS? They could if they really wanted to. That just baffles me. I mean why is it that a person needs to get a permit to carry a concealed gun when the Constitution says, in your definition, that it doesn't? Why doesn't the NRA take that to SCOTUS and challenge that idea? :shrug:

Follow the money. The NRA gets its madatory training classes, that they just happen to offer for $100/student, included in these "reasonable" gun control bills (CHL/CCW permits). Joining the gov't gun club is forcing you to take their classes, exposing you to their own sales pitch in the process. ;)
 
Follow the money. The NRA gets its madatory training classes, that they just happen to offer for $100/student, included in these "reasonable" gun control bills (CHL/CCW permits). Joining the gov't gun club is forcing you to take their classes, exposing you to their own sales pitch in the process. ;)
The only reason I respect the NRA is because they have the most pull, but they are weak compared to GOA and NAGR which are solid no compromise groups that should have the influence the NRA enjoys.
 
The only reason I respect the NRA is because they have the most pull, but they are weak compared to GOA and NAGR which are solid no compromise groups that should have the influence the NRA enjoys.

Exactly. Ask the NRA why they support CHL/CCW permits (constitutional rights rental agreements). I will bet that they have no good answer. I have tried but got no reply at all. I imagine that if you are willing to join the Texas "CHL club" for $240/four years then the NRA dues look pretty good by comparison. ;)
 
The only reason I respect the NRA is because they have the most pull, but they are weak compared to GOA and NAGR which are solid no compromise groups that should have the influence the NRA enjoys.

I do give money to the NRA from time to time .but I don't really care for there stance on Open Carry ( that they don't like) that's why Im a yearly member of GOA.
 
Exactly. Ask the NRA why they support CHL/CCW permits (constitutional rights rental agreements). I will bet that they have no good answer. I have tried but got no reply at all. I imagine that if you are willing to join the Texas "CHL club" for $240/four years then the NRA dues look pretty good by comparison. ;)

I still find it funny that my Liberal state of Washington has better gun laws than Texas. I hate the idea of CPL ( that's what my state calls it) since I believe in Constitutional carry, but here in WA it's 50 bucks for the permit and that is good for 5 years and to renew it (shall issue, none of this may issue BS that some states have), it only cost 30 bucks. Also we can OC hand and long guns. :mrgreen:
 
" ....don't stand shoulder to shoulder against the redcoats"... that was sage advice once upon a time...successful advice too....and it still is.

I wouldn't relish such an unlikely event .. and it surely wouldn't be easy... but they would lose and lose big in the end... of that I am 100% confident.

Well, confidence is what it would take, that's for sure. *shrug*
 
Just one reason that I personally believe that the US government will never go door to door demanding people's guns. :shrug:

If they did they might find that an unusual number have been stolen or lost.
 
I'm Pro-gun. But I'm for gun control. Go figure.

I don't think people should be able to buy military grade weapons (guns, rocket launchers, etc., etc.). But I don't know what restrictions need to be "added." The idea that we need guns to protect ourselves from government is ridiculous.

We will never be able to do that. If the government decides to go rogue? We're screwed. No amount of small arms are going to make any difference. They will starve us. Cut off our water supply. Kill whoever they have to kill to get those few rogues out there to go into hiding; and the game will be over.

Those who are looking to fend off the general populace in case of nuclear attack, as an example, will be able to...for a very VERY short time. In that case, you're going to have to find a way to go along to get along. And that's just the truth.

But that's just me. ;)

Any small arms that is good for the Military and Police Forces are good for you and me Maggie. I would love to see you behind an Ma-Duece ;)
 
I'm Pro-gun. But I'm for gun control. Go figure.

I don't think people should be able to buy military grade weapons (guns, rocket launchers, etc., etc.). But I don't know what restrictions need to be "added." The idea that we need guns to protect ourselves from government is ridiculous.

We will never be able to do that. If the government decides to go rogue? We're screwed. No amount of small arms are going to make any difference. They will starve us. Cut off our water supply. Kill whoever they have to kill to get those few rogues out there to go into hiding; and the game will be over.

Those who are looking to fend off the general populace in case of nuclear attack, as an example, will be able to...for a very VERY short time. In that case, you're going to have to find a way to go along to get along. And that's just the truth.

But that's just me. ;)

Tell that to the Syrian rebels.
 
Well, confidence is what it would take, that's for sure. *shrug*

a great deal more that than, I'm afraid

just be wary of thinking folks are going to stand shoulder to shoulder against the redcoats..... if they do, it will be as you have said,

doesn't matter much, it's not gonna happen anytime soon.... thankfully.
 
I was wondering if anybody here was at one point on the gun-control side but then came over to the Pro-Gun side and if so why if you care to share. Or Visa-verse.

For me I have always been Pro-gun.

I've never supported any kind of gun control and never will. It's a fundamental human right.
 
I was wondering if anybody here was at one point on the gun-control side but then came over to the Pro-Gun side and if so why if you care to share. Or Visa-verse.

For me I have always been Pro-gun.

CC admitted that I and a couple others have changed his view on this issue to being more pro rights
 
I'm Pro-gun. But I'm for gun control. Go figure.

I don't think people should be able to buy military grade weapons (guns, rocket launchers, etc., etc.). But I don't know what restrictions need to be "added." The idea that we need guns to protect ourselves from government is ridiculous.

We will never be able to do that. If the government decides to go rogue? We're screwed. No amount of small arms are going to make any difference. They will starve us. Cut off our water supply. Kill whoever they have to kill to get those few rogues out there to go into hiding; and the game will be over.

Those who are looking to fend off the general populace in case of nuclear attack, as an example, will be able to...for a very VERY short time. In that case, you're going to have to find a way to go along to get along. And that's just the truth.

But that's just me. ;)

my grandfathers 100 year old pistol was ONCE military grade.
 
I've never supported any kind of gun control and never will. It's a fundamental human right.
There's no right to life, no right to a gun, but in America we allow such things so you can try to live that way, that is until one negates the other.
 
I have always believed that the public, through the use of it's representatives and senators in Washington DC, have the right to regulate guns and their usage, but not total gun control. (Example: the government has no right to tell the public that it has no rights to all guns.)

the problem is once you think a little gun control helps society you have pretty much committed to believing more gun control helps more.

Anything any civilian Law enforcement agency can use for self defense against civilian criminals in a civilian environment should be readily available to the rest of us civilians
 
Read the constitution, it disagrees with you.

people like him will never say when the constitution is violated or when there is too much control because they really don't believe we have any rights whatsoever
 
Back
Top Bottom