Gun control is one thing, but what about bullets?

[The_Patriot21]

3 hours ago, shoes_untied said:

Well, I'm not a fan of that logic either but I'm not sure speeding is completely analogous because people don't view speeding as a common method of assaulting another person that can only be countered by also speeding.  I don't like it because it uses a slight of hand to avoid the fact that the illegal gun supply rides on the backs of the legal gun trade.  The more legal guns around the more opportunity for those guns to get into the hands of a someone illegally.  Legal and illegal gun ownership do not use mutually exclusive supply chains.

What I find absurd is that in a few minutes the same people that view the slightest change in gun laws to be huge attack on their protection against the tyranny of their government will be cheering loudly for someone who wants the same government to completely wall off the entire southern border of our country.

nothing absurd about that in the slightest. Its smart to take away our guns one little step at a time-if they went for an all out gun ban right now, wed probably have rioting in the streets that make ferguson look like a sunday dinner. If you remove them one step at a time over a long period of time, and make them so absurdly difficult to get, that when they do finally outright ban them, no one notices, or really has the ability to really do anything.

As far as the wall, thats about as ridiculous an argument as comparing it to speeding. Why do we want to keep our guns? Protection is one of those reasons-both from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Why do we want a wall? pretty much the same thing-we want to protect our country from many things, like flooding our country with migrant workers, many of whom will receive government benefits that are better served going to our vets, and those that do work, work for a fraction of the cost of american workers-taking jobs from those same american workers-and probably a good portion of these immigrants are criminals, smuggling drugs and guns across the border. So theres nothing absurd about it-the two ideas-stopping illegal immigration-and stopping gun control-are not mutally exclusive, and are, more often then not fueled by the same rational. 

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Faulty logic is still faulty logic, even if it is to stop the great liberal horde from descending on the country

It's not faulty logic at all.  If the argument was that we should not have gun laws at all, you might have a point, but that isn't the case.  The point is that there are enough laws on the books already.  We don't need more gun laws.  More gun laws will not stop gun violence.   The only people who it would effect would be people who are law- abiding.

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Except that the only place that anyone wants to take away all guns from everyone is in the collective paranoid mind of the far right.  Nobody is coming for your guns or mine, that is just a scare tactic used by people to get you to vote for them.

Actually Hillary Clinton some time back, a year ago, or so admitted that she admired Australia's mandatory buy back of guns.    Matt Damon recently also expressed his admiration of that wishing it could be implemented in this country.

I don't think they could be successful at this point, but there is a climate on the Left with its anti-second amendment proponents who envision a time when guns will be banned, altogether.

There are still too many people alive who know what freedom looks like.  It's like everything else, they have to work their ideas into the minds of young people and children.   It's far easier to let the freedom generation die off, as they indoctrinate the generations who are still in grade school with liberal values.  

[Running Gator]

6 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

nothing absurd about that in the slightest. Its smart to take away our guns one little step at a time-if they went for an all out gun ban right now, wed probably have rioting in the streets that make ferguson look like a sunday dinner. If you remove them one step at a time over a long period of time, and make them so absurdly difficult to get, that when they do finally outright ban them, no one notices, or really has the ability to really do anything.

 

We (as a country) have been warned about this happening every time there is a Dem in the white house, and yet it has never happened.   In fact, in the time that Obama has been in office he has signed two gun laws, both made life easier for gun owners.   Nobody is coming for your guns, this is a lie that the GOP has been telling you to get you to vote for them.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said:

We (as a country) have been warned about this happening every time there is a Dem in the white house, and yet it has never happened.   In fact, in the time that Obama has been in office he has signed two gun laws, both made life easier for gun owners.   Nobody is coming for your guns, this is a lie that the GOP has been telling you to get you to vote for them.

Which gun laws did Obama sign?

[Running Gator]

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Which gun laws did Obama sign?

The right to carry a gun on federal park land, overriding a Reagan law saying they must be locked in a glove compartment or trunk prior to entering. And the right to have a gun in a checked bag on AmTrack, replacing an Bush II law that forbid it. 

[shoes_untied]

8 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

nothing absurd about that in the slightest. Its smart to take away our guns one little step at a time-if they went for an all out gun ban right now, wed probably have rioting in the streets that make ferguson look like a sunday dinner. If you remove them one step at a time over a long period of time, and make them so absurdly difficult to get, that when they do finally outright ban them, no one notices, or really has the ability to really do anything.

As far as the wall, thats about as ridiculous an argument as comparing it to speeding. Why do we want to keep our guns? Protection is one of those reasons-both from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Why do we want a wall? pretty much the same thing-we want to protect our country from many things, like flooding our country with migrant workers, many of whom will receive government benefits that are better served going to our vets, and those that do work, work for a fraction of the cost of american workers-taking jobs from those same american workers-and probably a good portion of these immigrants are criminals, smuggling drugs and guns across the border. So theres nothing absurd about it-the two ideas-stopping illegal immigration-and stopping gun control-are not mutally exclusive, and are, more often then not fueled by the same rational. 

This is missing the point.  From the gun crowd we often hear the theme “I love my country but fear my government.”  Why does that fear not extend to walling off the whole southern exterior of our country with the Great Wall of the US that can be used to wall people out or, if convenient, wall them in.  Neat.  With guns, the justification acknowledges that we accept some risk in order to protect us from the possibility of a greater risk.  Why not this rationale with a walling off our country.

A just for the sake of posterity, I am not against guns although it is not the centerpiece of my political views.

[Guest shiloh357]

12 minutes ago, shoes_untied said:

This is missing the point.  From the gun crowd we often hear the theme “I love my country but fear my government.”  Why does that fear not extend to walling off the whole southern exterior of our country with the Great Wall of the US that can be used to wall people out or, if convenient, wall them in.  Neat.  With guns, the justification acknowledges that we accept some risk in order to protect us from the possibility of a greater risk.  Why not this rationale with a walling off our country.

 

A just for the sake of posterity, I am not against guns although it is not the centerpiece of my political views.

 

The wall serves a useful purpose.  It prevents a further burden on our country stemming from illegal immigration as well as the danger presented by violent drug cartels who have already killed Americans in border states.

Israel has a strong wall along the West Bank and it has served to save lives on both sides.  In fact, within a year of having built it, they reported a 70% decrease in terrorism stemming from the West Bank and it is holding.   Israel has had a fair degree of success.

We need to stop people from coming into our country illegally, because when we don't enforce that law, they see no reason to spurn our other laws while they are here.  

Illegals are not coming here to be Americans.  They are coming here to be leeches and feed off of the benefits  without having the responsibility to pay into the system.   They don't need to be here.  Mexico needs to take care of their own. 

Mexico doesn't want the wall because any leeches they can offload on to us is less of a burden on them.  And what's worse is that now the Left wants to give these leeches voting rights and drivers' licenses and stuff.    The Left sees political expediency in giving these leeches the benefits of being citizens without the responsibilities that go along with it.   And of course any opposition to that is called "racism"  'cause the Left has no other response when their stupid ideas are challenged on legal and moral grounds.

Anti-wall people only re-enforce why it is a good idea to have one.

[Guest shiloh357]

37 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

The right to carry a gun on federal park land, overriding a Reagan law saying they must be locked in a glove compartment or trunk prior to entering. And the right to have a gun in a checked bag on AmTrack, replacing an Bush II law that forbid it. 

With regard to the parks, it really doesn't make it easier.  National parks defer to the gun laws of individual states.  Park rules are pretty much governed by laws of a particular state.  So if a park is in a state that doesn't allow open carry, you can't open carry in that park.   And if the state doesn't allow concealed carry, it is forbidden in that park.   And some national parks cover more than one state, so if you are hiking and you cross over into another state that has different gun laws, you might be illegal at that point. 

It's not that simple with the  Amtrak thing either.  The rules regarding bringing a firearm aboard are pretty extensive and really make it easier to just not carry one board.  What Obama signed is pretty meaningless.

[Running Gator]

21 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

With regard to the parks, it really doesn't make it easier.  National parks defer to the gun laws of individual states.  Park rules are pretty much governed by laws of a particular state.  So if a park is in a state that doesn't allow open carry, you can't open carry in that park.   And if the state doesn't allow concealed carry, it is forbidden in that park.   And some national parks cover more than one state, so if you are hiking and you cross over into another state that has different gun laws, you might be illegal at that point. 

It's not that simple with the  Amtrak thing either.  The rules regarding bringing a firearm aboard are pretty extensive and really make it easier to just not carry one board.  What Obama signed is pretty meaningless.

Even if it is meaningless, it proves my point...he is not trying to take your guns away, despite the fact we have been fed that line of bunk for 8 year.