It's not about gun control but is about control! Would like other's opinions.

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!
  • Slapstick

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 29, 2010
    4,221
    149
    It's not about banning firearms. I say this for two reasons. First, you don't put Joe Biden in charge of anything if you want accomplish something. I don't know of thing in he's been put in charge in the last 4 years that has accomplished what it's set out to do and now he's put in charge of championing Dianne Feinstien's assault weapons ban? Fienstien's record of having any bill she has sponsored since she has been in Congress is less than 10 %. (more like 6 or 7 %) Not exactly the people you would put in charge of any legislation you really wanted passed.

    Second, by bringing up the hot button topic of gun control you divert attention away from the things that make the President and the Democrats look bad at the moment.. The Benghazi report is out and it's not favorable towards the State Department or Hillary. The no compromise approach from Obama on the “Fiscal Cliff”. Poor foreign policy and a host of other things that aren't quite going their way.

    No I think real end game is taking control of both House's come the mid-term elections. When the fiscal cliff hits next month Obama will be blaming the Republicans and the evil rich people while taking no responsibility for his own no compromise positions. If by chance he does compromise a little the economy is still going to be bad and may get worse but then again he can blame the Republicans because he was forced to compromise.

    The way things are going there will be another mass shooting sometime in the next two years, (I think the Democratic leadership is betting there will be) then the blame will be placed on the “Obstructionist Republicans” and the people who “cling to their Bibles and guns” for failure to pass a gun control bill in 2013.

    It's a bad time for Republicans and conservatives, a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of time. Give Obama what he wants on the budget and lose votes, hold fast and take the blame for the economy not improving, lose votes. Give into gun control, lose votes, hold fast and when another mass shooting occurs, lose votes.

    No the real end game is getting control of Congress. The Democrats squandered the first 2 years of Obama's presidency when they had a super majority and now are looking for ways to get it back. Imagine what will happen if they get another super majority with a lame duck president and 2 years in which to do damage. That's a thought that should make one shudder.

    No it's not about gun control but it is about control, control of Congress and therefor control of people's everyday lives. The Democratic and liberal leadership aren't stupid but they do count on the short sightedness, greed and stupidity of their constituents. The only counter move is to try and educate people on what their true end game is and hope for the best.
     

    LP1

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 8, 2010
    1,825
    48
    Friday Town
    Both sides are about control.

    When it comes to violence, conservatives are willing to recognize basic human nature and deal with it by promoting the common-sense right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Liberals refuse to accept reality, and look for "solutions" that won't work and will restrict individual rights.

    When it comes to reproductive rights, liberals are willing to recognize basic human nature by promoting common-sense stances on birth control and allowing women to make their own choices about their bodies. Conservatives refuse to accept reality, and look for "solutions" that won't work and will restrict individual rights.

    Neither side has a logically-consistent position on all issues, and nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. It makes no sense that both sides so unwilling to give a little.

    Look at the cost in liberty, money, and inconvenience of the Patriot Act (oh how I hate that name) - all due to one rogue attack that took 3000 lives (vs. 15k each year in auto accidents), and we have no idea whether or not it has actually saved any lives. Where were the "conservatives" when this was implemented? Oh right, they were voting for it.
     

    Trooper

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Look, the feminists have long wanted to control male behavior. What was the first thing that women did once they got the right to vote? Prohibition. During the Victorian Age (first feminist era), the two many issues for women was the right to vote and demonizing alcohol. Little boys were dressed up in Buster Brown suits. It got so bad in England that the upper class men finally had to send their boys away to school to get them free of their mothers. Baden-Powell said that one of the reasons that he formed Boy Scouts was so that Victorian Age men could reclaim their youth that was stolen from them by their mothers. In fact Victorian men used the social clubs as way to have peace away from their wives and mothers.

    Most of you have not reseached this as I have. But remember what we are facing is not new. Even in Victorian times the common phrase among the feminists was that "all men are beasts".

    Collectivism comes from the same era. But what we are facing is radical feminism that wants to emasculate society and create a feminist's utopia.
     
    Top Bottom