That half already has their guns illegally............
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Anyone else watching Obama address the nation? Say goodbye to your gun rights..
- Thread starter lucky4034
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That half already has their guns illegally............
Originally Posted by TWS
"No more children should pay the price for some of our freedoms" ~ President Obama 12/16/2012
Not trying to sound crass but.....
If I died and my son who is 11 died in a car crash as a result of negligence
and my wife filed a lawsuit against the other driver, insurance company etc.
who do you think would garner a higher monetary amount during a settlement? Me or my son?
Say good bye to our gun rights? Only if We the People say so. Each of us have to ask, what are we going to do, what are we willing to do to save our Country from the Socialist trying to disarm us? Since I am one of the We the People and I must say no!
Goldbomb79
Plinker
I seen his speech as the stepping stone for his executive order to reenact the assault weapon ban. If they try to take away all americans guns I think the outcome will have a lot higher death toll then this tragedy.
Thatguythere
Plinker
The conspiracy theorist in me says "manchurian candidate". How else better to move your agenda then to set up the perfect senario. America seems to looks for the easiest solution.
We (on this forum) all know guns arent the problem.
We (on this forum) all know guns arent the problem.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I would say that they are equally bad only in different ways.
He sends thousands of troops to die for our freedoms but asks if a couple of sickos make such freedoms worthy?
He is not fit to be Commander in Chief.
I'm not really sure our freedoms are why troops have been sent to various countries in the past decade or so. I believe it has had more to do with a political agenda (from both the Rs and the Ds).
I have always been middle of the road when it comes to politics, I always vote on the issues rather than the party, but He is starting to scare the $&*% out of me.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them. Our second amendment has been broken already with the 1934 nfa and all subsequent gun control. They are convincing the sheeple of America that they need protecting from themselves. Don't let it happen!
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them. Our second amendment has been broken already with the 1934 nfa and all subsequent gun control. They are convincing the sheeple of America that they need protecting from themselves. Don't let it happen!
Last edited:
Everyone keep your wigs on.
There is going to be (already is!) a good deal of playing on emotions during this "initiative" on their part. Do not be surprised or upset by this. Give those who would play on emotion no consideration whatsoever. This is about your liberty and the liberty of millions of others.
People who want to control other people -- whether it is an abusive spouse or the leader of an organization who wants to enhance their control of said organization -- will play the emotion card first, next and last. Don't even blink at it. "Nuts!" should be your first response to their utopian musings and demands.
If these people want to be "safe" they should move to North Korea. No school shootings there, are there? None in Saudi Arabia, either? Let them go...in fact, we should say, "Adios, statists!"
I would gladly see the Federal deficit rise to pay for these people to move anywhere they want to be "safe". Hell, let's get the Treasury's presses rolling and give everyone who wants to be "safe" $10,000 cash -- we'll start a "Passport Buy Back" program! See an immigrations agent at your point of departure!
Bottom line: you as a gun owner -- not the other gun owners or the NRA/GOA -- have to be prepared to be (more) unpopular and possibly even say some damn unpopular things to people in your sphere of influence who believe that restrictions on firearms and/or ammunition are the right thing to do.
There is going to be (already is!) a good deal of playing on emotions during this "initiative" on their part. Do not be surprised or upset by this. Give those who would play on emotion no consideration whatsoever. This is about your liberty and the liberty of millions of others.
People who want to control other people -- whether it is an abusive spouse or the leader of an organization who wants to enhance their control of said organization -- will play the emotion card first, next and last. Don't even blink at it. "Nuts!" should be your first response to their utopian musings and demands.
If these people want to be "safe" they should move to North Korea. No school shootings there, are there? None in Saudi Arabia, either? Let them go...in fact, we should say, "Adios, statists!"
I would gladly see the Federal deficit rise to pay for these people to move anywhere they want to be "safe". Hell, let's get the Treasury's presses rolling and give everyone who wants to be "safe" $10,000 cash -- we'll start a "Passport Buy Back" program! See an immigrations agent at your point of departure!
Bottom line: you as a gun owner -- not the other gun owners or the NRA/GOA -- have to be prepared to be (more) unpopular and possibly even say some damn unpopular things to people in your sphere of influence who believe that restrictions on firearms and/or ammunition are the right thing to do.
To clarify, my comment is framed on what BHO has openly said before and now.
It is within his legal powers to REGULATE the sale of firearms.
Look for a new form to fill out and EXTENSIVE background checks that will make it nearly impossible to buy a new weapon.
To extend the same thing to private sales will require new legislation, which probably won't get any pushback from anyone.
That's the way I'd run it anyway.
Look for a new form to fill out and EXTENSIVE background checks that will make it nearly impossible to buy a new weapon.
To extend the same thing to private sales will require new legislation, which probably won't get any pushback from anyone.
That's the way I'd run it anyway.
.
