[MarlinManCB45/70]

Mnay years ago I owned and shot self loading rifles here in the UK. What I saw happen over here was the antis used shooting incidents as a springboard to push for more restrictive legislation. The self loading rifle ban here followed a mass shooting in our west country and the handgun ban followed a worse one, in Scotland.

I dont need to tell you these bans did not reduce gun crime at all. However, the antis dont need logic and common sense on their side. They just want to restrict or eliminate gun ownership. I see the incident on your Capital as a potential springboard the antis will use. I think those who attacked the capital issued a golden ticket to those who would restrict or ban ownership of firearms. You dont need to tell me there is no connecton, but be sure they will try.

Personally I believe our democrats are somehow linked/orchestrate/are responsible in some ,manner/somehow for the "mass shootings" that have occurred here in the US, and then they use them to pass more anti gun legislation. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but then so has everything else them dems actually have done the last 10+ yrs, that were later proved true.

 

[tranteruk]

Personally I believe our democrats are somehow linked/orchestrate/are responsible in some ,manner/somehow for the "mass shootings" that have occurred here in the US, and then they use them to pass more anti gun legislation. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but then so has everything else them dems actually have done the last 10+ yrs, that were later proved true.

Interstesting. I am in no position to judge what goes on the the US, but do have an opinion on such theories generally. That opinion is based on time spent in various parts of the world over many years and close to conflict. I have seen the truth twisted, biast reporting and downright fakery. A hospital reported attacked by aircraft, but no mention of the SAM site in the hospital grounds. Protesters shot by government troops, but recovered bullets were 7.62x39, while the troops were firing M16s and more.

The bottom line is that so called false flag events are almost impossible to keep secret. Too many people know, and chins wag. The few that are real seem mosty covered by warfare around them, not isolated in an otherwise stable environment. Take the 'attacks' by Polish soldiers on Germany in '39 that triggered invasion by the Nazis. Germans in Polish uniforms. An investigation would have easilly uncovered the ruse, but there was no time or opportunity. Not the case with the sort your refering to.

Again, I cant and wont judge US shootings, but find the idea anyone is responsible beyond the group or individual who takes the action difficult to believe. I would also strongly suspect those who push such 'false flag' theories of having a dangerous agenda. That being to divide and sow doubt and suspicion.

Use your own judgement, use common sense and be as realisitic as possible. The internet, wonderful though it is has given us no shortage of trouble makers. Willing to spread any lie they fancy, quickly and around the world.

 

[OLSKOOL]

here is a classic, a brilliant orator on the demorat side. just brilliant,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Cowboy23*]

Biden is really pushing the limits here:

Joe Biden Wants a Huge New Tax on Gun Owners | Mark Thornton

Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article. Joe Biden’s gun policy platform offers support for almost all conceivable forms of government restrictions on the Second Amendment.

mises.org

 

[Pereira]

I would just like to know how they can buy "back" something they have never owned?

They may want to buy it, but it won't be buying it back.

RP

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

 

[Cowboy23*]

I would just like to know how they can buy "back" something they have never owned?

They may want to buy it, but it won't be buying it back.

RP

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

I thought it was illegal to use public tax dollars to fund a political gun buyback (fund an anti-gun program)? Why would anyone sell his AR at 1\5th the price he bought it for and get paid with your own money the Fed Gubberment taxed from you ???? That has to be the biggest scam in history !

 

[boxedquad]

What they want is that $200 permit fee from hundreds of millions of Americans, and a list of names of all those folks that own high capacity weapons.

amazing how these worthless, slimy, lying, stealing, corrupt, no good, brown nosing, trashy slugs, will "buy back" your possessions you worked and sweated to have as if you bought it from there sorry butts in the first place! that sounds just like political logic and justification these worms will use to try to make you feel good while they rape you!

 

[boxedquad]

When they ( the Obiden crowd) say $200 fee per gun, they know many will not pay, so they can now call you a Felon, and take all your firearms {FREE} and ban your gun ownership for life. Even if the constitution says words to affect that they can't, look out they lie, cheat and steal, as usual.

 

[boxedquad]

Being as since he is not really the president he can tak that and shove it

he will SOON quit and leave use with HARRIS AND PELOISE

 

[MarlinManCB45/70]

How can they buy back something that wasn't theirs to begin with!

And while using the tax dollars they collected from Americans...........so we'd be paying them to buy our own guns from us. Typical democrat logic I'd say..........

 

[MarlinManCB45/70]

I dont even know how to start a conversation about the topics in here because everything has become so complicated and convoluted. It shouldnt be that you can attack a problem by firing in literally any direction and hit something. Thats wrong. How do we narrow down the field of view so that what we all see through the scope IS the target and its not somewhere else out of view?

Step back first and separate who is who in Dems. Not all are crazy, radical maniacs but only the crazies make the news which sends us into conniptions. There ARE moderates left who support the Const and they are the ones to be found and talked to about guns. Many of the insane decisions and bills are based on gross misinformation thats wrongly adhered to. Would they change if they accepted the truth? They propose bills based on beliefs like, a muzzle-loading .50 is the same as a .50BMG and can also fire at 35,000 rounds a minute. Would they change their mind if they knew the truth? Nobody ever challenges them, its only WE who react in anger towards such remarks and there it sits, no progress. OR, is it that they know the falsity of the belief and proceed on a deliberate and perpetuated lie? Which is it?

I know you are thinking, whats to talk about ---"shall not be infringed!" Sorry, too late for that. Sooner or later we HAVE to talk about guns, the so-called "national conversation about sensible gun laws and community safety" (meaning, registration and confiscation) because thats where we arrived and its not going away. Can moderate but ill-informed dems be talked to by qualified industry people and then those dems work on the radicals to stop crazy and ill-thought laws? Thats the question.

If the "uneducated about firearms democrats" really wanted to know about firearms, all they have to do is sit down in front of a computer and google it. Or just go on youtube and watch gun videos.
And if they are so ignorant as to not know how, or refuse to learn about guns, then they shouldn't be making laws about firearms , now should they?
The fact that they do not , tells me they're either not interested in the truth, or already know it and are playing on the uninitiated's ignorance. Likely both.
If they're are/were any moderate democrats left, they'd have left their party by now. The fact few/none have speaks volumes about "moderate democrats"...in other words... there are none.
I believe the dems know exactly what they are doing, and are dead set on accomplishing it.

 

[MarlinManCB45/70]

The part that worries me is that the supreme court has already upheld in two cases that Congress has the right to tax whatever they see fit. The NFA was successfully argued before the supreme court that the $200 was a tax aimed at collecting additional funds... The individual mandate and its penalty was successfully argued as not being a penalty but a tax...

The question that is for the Judicial is if this "tax" on popular firearms in common use acts as a significant infringement on the people's right to bear arms. Does it adversely effect the ability of poor people to exercise their right to self defense or are their other choices readily available not covered by this new tax which allows them to continue to exercise their rights? I used to have hope that with conservatives in the majority of the Supreme Court that we would be safe from over arching government restrictions on our right to bear arms. Unfortunately the past couple of cases that have gone before the court on other issues where I thought were a conservative slam dunk... let's just say that the democrat screaming and gnashing of teeth over the last 3 nominations to the court were unfounded.... have led me to question if the Supreme Court would actually take the as written intrepetation of the 2nd Amendment (shall not be infringed) or if they would look at the text as conceptual under the color of politically motivated interpretation of what the founding fathers actually could foresee (i.e. muskets and muzzleloaders)?

See this video for the interpretation question.

(239) The 2nd Amendment: Liberal Edition - YouTube

There were repeating firearms available in the 1700s,(expensive ,yes, but they were available) there were semi auto pistols in 1891.
I read somewhere that in the movie Tombstone when the leader of the Red Sash wearing "Cowboys" grabbed a pistol off the counter and went outside and into the street , but ended up throwing it down that he did so because it was a semi auto and he was unfamiliar with how it worked,and that. that part was historically correct, although unsure if true. I cannot find the article right now to see. First produced semi auto pistol I can find info on was in 1891, so yrs might not match up.
Lewis and Clark carried a semi auto air rifle. Look it up.
The Founding Fathers knew there would be great advances in firearms because they'd already witnessed a few ,as well as in many other things as time went by. After all, they were NOT stupid. Which is a lot more than I can say for modern day democrat politicians.

The Girandoni Air Rifle: The Lewis and Clark Expedition's Secret Weapon

Almost entirely phased out by 1810, it was during the Lewis and Clark expedition that the Girandoni air rifle fully came into its own.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

The Puckle Gun: "Machine Gun" From 300 Years Ago

A 'machine gun' from the 1700s? The Puckle Gun puts a lie to the anti-2nd Amendment narrative that says it was written with only single shot musket in mind.

www.wideopenspaces.com

Multi-Shot Assault Weapons Of The 1700s And The 2nd Amendment

Proponents of stricter gun control have a problem with the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” One of their arguments is that our Founding Fathers could not have...

arizonadailyindependent.com

 

[Insider]

 

[br549arkie]

I got a proposal for Commie biden and all his kind but typing it here would no doubt get me banned! Let's just say the whole damned lot of them can go straight to you know where.