Joe Biden on Memorial Day: ‘The Constitution, the Second Amendment Was Never Absolute’
- Thread starter RugersGR8
- Start Date
You can only poke a bear for so long before it kicks your ass!
The frightening thing is that it’s true for a large portion of the country.
Agreed, but that ain't saying much since even AOC makes that moron look, at least a little bit, intelligent.
By design. The U.S. has been dumbed down by the education system and stripped of its right to worship God wherever they choose by the courts.
Funny how Canada is close to cracking down hard on hand guns, and at the same time Biden is saying 9mm bullets blow lungs out of bodies...
Maybe the script is changing to go after handguns.
Maybe the script is changing to go after handguns.
It used to be handguns. Now it's "assault rifles". I don't remember if there was something in between or not, if there was I forgot.
They go after whatever they think frightens the most people, that they can build the most support for. If/when they get that, they go after the next thing. They won't stop, because each incremental "solution" won't solve the problem.
If you’re suggesting some kind of insurrection by the citizens, it ain’t ever going to happen. This country as a whole is just too apathetic, and the only way it might work is if it was highly organized and done en mass. That definitely ain’t happening.
If the supreme court can’t meet without someone leaking what they’re doing, there ain’t no way an insurrection could be organized without someone spilling the beans to the media.
Agreed.
One more thing: gun-control (gun ban) advocates will tell us that we engage in a logical fallacy here called the 'camel's nose' argument which works like this: 'A' is proposed, and is opposed on the basis that if we allow 'A', then 'B' will follow and then 'C'. Before you know it, we are at 'Z', which for sure and for certain is a place that we don't want to be.
A common example is DUI checkpoints. Opponents warn us that this is only the first step towards giving the police more power, then warrantless, mandatory auto searches are next, and eventually, they can search our homes on a whim.
The reason that this is a logical fallacy is that 'B' and then 'C', etc., do not necessarily have to follow 'A'. 'A' could very well be where it ends.
However, care must be taken because sometimes, those who advocate for one thing have something further in mind. I give you gentle people the following:
"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."
Nelson P. 'Pete' Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. The New Yorker, July 26, 1976
Who is to say that handguns are not just the first step? Will the restrictions end after military-style rifles? After handguns? Who knows what they will think of then? Varmint guns as 'sniper rifles', perhaps?
I don't want to take the first step. Does anybody here? I hope not.
Similar threads
