General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Gun Rhethoric
Lorimor:
I'm sorry but I believe the majority of anti-gun politicians actually want to do away with the private ownership of firearms. Some, a few, are using the issue simply to gain more power. Again, I believe the true believers are actually anti-gun, period. And they are in the majority. No if's, and's or but's about it.
Sure gun control divides the populace. And politicians use it to divide the nation and gain more power. A sad number of folk in our country don't understand the intent of the 2A. Nor do they care to understand it. They don't like guns. They don't like the guy down the street who owns guns. The TV tells them they don't like guns. The guy on TV who gives them free stuff tells them they don't like guns.
I'd gladly drop the topic altogether but to do so would be foolhardy. The anti-freedom forces are relentless. They will not quit.
And neither will I.
SS_N_NE:
--- Quote from: depserv on February 22, 2016, 09:19:34 AM ---But I'd like to see the illegals sent home too.
--- End quote ---
Here is an example...illegals.
Gun owners tend to be well versed in the laws. We don't want to get in trouble for some stupid law trip up. For the most part, we follow the laws as we can figure them out. It is not unreasonable to expect other people to follow the law. So why wouldn't we be concerned that people criminally sneak into our country, overstay visas, etc. The politicians saying they will build a fence and kick out the illegal immigrants are very popular with people that believe law should be followed.
When you realize that more people mean more money. Illegals own houses and cars (bank loans). Organizations (whole cities) get money from the government for putting illegals in to their societies and setting them up for more government benefits (that go into the city/state). You realize there is going to be a fight.
It has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. It has to do with the money. It has to do with having a low income group to buy the older houses and used cars so other people can buy new houses and new cars (more people/ greater spending/ more works/ more taxes). It has to do with highly educated people that will work for low wages (think IT in the big cities and Bill Gates on this.).
Sanctuary cities: Don' t mess with their illegals because the city looses cooperation with criminal activity...BS! How about chucking thousands of illegals would result in a lot of abandoned property (with the banks stuck with the worthless properties), lost government funds (welfare brought to the city is spent in the city), loss of cheap manpower and people to absorb the lower scale of the economy (bigger numbers is needed at the bottom).
If you think someone is going to get elected and suddenly throw majors cities into failure, force banks (these guys control the money) into holding the ticket on worthless properties...guess again.
SS_N_NE:
--- Quote from: Lorimor on February 23, 2016, 07:30:34 PM ---I'd gladly drop the topic altogether but to do so would be foolhardy. The anti-freedom forces are relentless. They will not quit.
--- End quote ---
I am not asking anyone to drop the topic. Instead hit it from a different angle. I don' t believe there are many real "anti-gun" politicians. Maybe a few really believe that way and are recruited that way. Instead I believe there is higher power that takes advantage from any division they can create. Division over a Right creates strong division.
Instead, I am suggesting citizens need to unite. Realize we are being played and put a stop to it. Both sides of the issue, stop and recognize why we have been pitted against each other.
Consider the "Affordable Care Act". How did the government manage for force everyone to buy a commercial product? Ever notice what commercials are hammering you on TV....Progressive, Allstate, Gieco...etc.? Could it be that the insurance and medical/pharmaceutical industries (some of the largest money makers in this country) have enough lobby to force a citizen requirement to purchase a product (health insurance)? Maybe some apathy from people already with insurance from work, some political correctness and some genuine need, add in those that got stuck with what they already have and the insurance companies make a killing in a forced market.
m morton:
--- Quote from: Lorimor on February 23, 2016, 07:30:34 PM ---I'm sorry but I believe the majority of anti-gun politicians actually want to do away with the private ownership of firearms. Some, a few, are using the issue simply to gain more power. Again, I believe the true believers are actually anti-gun, period. And they are in the majority. No if's, and's or but's about it.
Sure gun control divides the populace. And politicians use it to divide the nation and gain more power. A sad number of folk in our country don't understand the intent of the 2A. Nor do they care to understand it. They don't like guns. They don't like the guy down the street who owns guns. The TV tells them they don't like guns. The guy on TV who gives them free stuff tells them they don't like guns.
I'd gladly drop the topic altogether but to do so would be foolhardy. The anti-freedom forces are relentless. They will not quit.
And neither will I.
--- End quote ---
the funny thing is those that are ANTI GUN are anti gun because of all the Hood rats , gang bangers and all around POS in this world in citys like Detroit .Chicago.. or our own North O that own guns but use them for violent acts etc.. ... it's not the hard working stiffs that want to carry ccw , or home defense that are the issue . then add to it the revolving door on our jails and the dirt bags are back on the streets doing the same shat ... so our street will never be safe... i say kill off the dirt bags and we get a win win .. safer streets and empty jails lol
ILoveCats:
You guys can keep dreamin' about Cruz and Carson all you want. I really like those guys too. But the only question really remaining in this election is who are Trump and Hillary going to choose as their running mates.
I'm not saying that's all bad. I think a lot of the appeal of Trump is that he eats right through the famous Clinton "Teflon". People complain that he makes a mockery of the presidency, but then he reminds us that Bill was having an intern do *that* in the Oval Office.
Ok so... Who made a mockery, exactly, Hillary? Who's a opportunistic misogynist, Hillary? Oh, I see. Time to change the topic. That's what I thought. :laugh:
Was another huge populist from our history, Andrew Jackson, any more "presidential"?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version