Hickenlooper to Gunowners: "I will take your guns"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

there are no two sides to the story. it is plain and simple, written in the constitution that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. where in that do you read anything about a second side, compromise, having to register, having to run a background check or any other bullshit.
I should be able to walk into a gun shop, tell them i want to buy "that" gun, pay, and walk out...none of the other nonsense that goes on.

Your constitutional rights are being stepped on and YOU want to look at the other side. grow a pair.

---

+1,000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAnd

Moviestar says "yes there is a middle ground".

The big problem with the "middle ground" or compromise is assumes that the opposition will honor a compromise. The words incrementalism, progressive and slippery slope come to mind.

I compromised in 1934 with the National Firearms Act .

I compromised in 1968 with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I compromised in1986 with the Firearms Owner's Protection Act.

I compromised in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

I compromised in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban which fortunately self repealed in 2004.

I'm not inclined to compromise and meet someone half way when they come back and want to take more time after time after time. They keep moving the middle ground.

No more. You want them come and get them.

From my Cold Dead Hands.
Steve A.

---

I agree! Any more into the "middle ground", and we will be rolling downhill towards total gun control. [Bang]

@funkfool Comprehension is seeing both sides of the story, and taking it all into account. All the links you posted were from the NRA-ILA. Thats not both sides, thats a 1 sided argument aka a logical fallacy which makes it invalid as well as unsound.

@sniper7 My constitutional rights were stepped on when the patriot act was signed in to power. that was a direct violation of them, this isn't, you will still be able to own guns.

@SAnd of all those acts you posted the only one specifically designed to "take away guns" was the AWB and even that didn't take away guns. The rest of them just set up guidelines on who can own a pistol and various firearms, as well as the requirements to owning a pistol. Would you want someone who has been to jail for violent crimes owning a pistol? That is the whole purpose of background checks, and criteria for owning. IT WASN'T AT ALL DESIGNED TO STEAL YOUR GUNS. Need I remind you it is still legal to own a fully automatic weapon, so long as you can afford the tax stamp and other fees? How can you say they took your guns away if you can still own full autos?


I seriously can't believe all of you think this means our guns are going to be taken away. It's seriously disturbing how uneducated you sound. You are all aboard the bandwagon that everyone wants to steal your guns. Look at the history of gun rights. When has anyone, ever, tried to steal all of your guns? Never.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moviestar

Would you want someone who has been to jail for violent crimes owning a pistol?

---

Yes. If you are no longer in jail, then you should have full rights. If you can't be trusted to live in society with full rights, then you can't be trusted to live in society at all and should either be locked up for life or killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moviestar

When has anyone, ever, tried to steal all of your guns? Never.

---

Katrina ring a bell?

maybe you should become more educated before you stick your foot in your mouth. read up on hurricane katrina and how the residents of mew orleans had their guns stolen by police...entire collections that were taken from law abiding citizens when they were keeping their property and families safe from looters. thousand of guns were never found/returned and a lot that were returned looked as if they had been thrown down a driveway. you better start listening before i think you are a troll liberal. you can apologize now and admit you are wrong.

Have we been trolled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.man

Have we been trolled?

---

i am starting to think so...that or we have a college kid who thinks he knows everything and needs to learn a lesson, admit he doesnt and apologize for it. when you have 2 grand master know it all members posting info, it should be listened to.

Zactly Master, the grasshopper is to young to appreciate the wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moviestar

@SAnd of all those acts you posted the only one specifically designed to "take away guns" was the AWB and even that didn't take away guns. The rest of them just set up guidelines on who can own a pistol and various firearms, as well as the requirements to owning a pistol. Would you want someone who has been to jail for violent crimes owning a pistol? That is the whole purpose of background checks, and criteria for owning. IT WASN'T AT ALL DESIGNED TO STEAL YOUR GUNS. Need I remind you it is still legal to own a fully automatic weapon, so long as you can afford the tax stamp and other fees? How can you say they took your guns away if you can still own full autos?


I seriously can't believe all of you think this means our guns are going to be taken away. It's seriously disturbing how uneducated you sound. You are all aboard the bandwagon that everyone wants to steal your guns. Look at the history of gun rights. When has anyone, ever, tried to steal all of your guns? Never.

---

I'm sorry Moviestar, but what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?! I did a search, and anytime someone says we should stand up to someone/something that could take away any of our gun rights, you have posted that we should all take off our tin foil hats, etc. I'm here to tell you that I would much rather be in the overly cautious, tin foil hat wearing, crazies that are worried about losing any part of our rights than an Obama arm band wearing, Hickenlooper pom-pom carrying, closet liberal that is stuck in the "middle ground" and willing to give up some of our rights, which in turn jeopardizes all of our rights over time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moviestar

1st: yes there is a middle ground a good example is scott brown. He supports CCW but makes you register the pistol as well as carry a license to own it. Another good example is pro choice, they support the right for people to choose for themselves. They aren't going to tell you what to do, and it doesn't mean they are telling people to abort babies. Concession is not synonymous with infringe, mainly because this wouldn't be infringing. Illegal guns does not mean Legal guns, and illegal guns are clearly defined.



2nd: you can get a ccw in new york, to get one in NYC you have to plead your case. do get one in an upstate county you have to apply but can't take it into NYC. So you can still get it.

3rd: They don't need a mayors against illegal rape, or illegal kidnapping because those aren't major issues used to get votes. You join an Illegal gun organizations to get votes from undecided anti-gun people. That doesn't mean it is on your agenda. Obama is another example as previously stated.

Use your head, and learn to comprehend the reading material, and do outside research to prove your point. You clearly need to open up your mind, take off the tin foil, and realize there is such thing as a middle ground. There isn't only an extreme right or extreme left, there is also a thing called centrist. You honestly sound ridiculous to me, you sound uneducated at anything involving politics, and like a cranky old man who thinks everyone is out to steal his gun. I probably sound like a wide-eyed college kid, but at least i'm wise enough to open my head and look at both sides of the subject.




Besides this is the only post the OP has...
http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/s...us_trollin.jpg

---

The point is;
IF A CITZEN HAS TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT PERMISION TO EXERSIZE A RIGHT, IT IS NO LONGER A RIGHT BUT A PRIVLIGE.