doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Red Flag Legislation Alert

nca225,
I can remember when "Separate But Equal" was considered to be a reasonable solution(blessed by Supreme Court).We know now that no infringement of constitutional rights can be "reasonable".
Mike

nca225 and keith are in lock-step on this---backdoor registration---except more than Democrats pushing it. Canada's public broadcaster television last night featured "weaponizing," making "fortresses" of US schools. As nca225 says, left and right are playing the fear game. Another interesting point is that the call for background checks was so strong in Canada that it became more rigid this year by investigating a lifetime, no longer five years before application. And mental health is only part of it.

Mike that really depends on what the powers that be consider to be an "infringment".

OPne4 has to wonder why we so often hear the term "Gun Lobbyist" stated as if it's such a dirty word that the speaker has to go wash his mouth after uttering it.

Does not EVERYONE realize the "Anti-Guin Lobbyists" spend far more dollars & have far more lobbyists than do the Pru-Gun folks?

Be honest! How many times have you heard the term "Anti-Gun Lobbyist" used my our "Impartial (RITFl, LOL) News Media?

Accurate, Miller. Lobbying is a legitimate part of governance. It's an industry; anyone with a mission does it. They pay professionals to use their skills and influence where it counts. We all do it, one way or another.

I would also agree that, all put-together, "the anti-gun lobbyist" is more ubiquitous and spends more than the pro-gun lobby. Which is why I said years ago that that our fraternity will become unrecognizable within our lifetimes.

As Stalin said to Churchill at Yalta: "How many divisions has the Pope?"And Geo: "One federal law and it's over."

"And Geo: "One federal law and it's over."

Not just any federal law, but that one in particular because it not only violates the 2nd, but inverts the burden of proof involved in a government taking. Not much chance of it being passed though...Geo

... we can only hope and pray it won't be...

You are trying a softer approach, but what exactly is your point here? There is absolutely no substance to your comment.

You are calling for gun control based on your feelings and the feelings of like minded people. Where are your facts to prove beyond any 'reasonable' doubt, that putting restrictions on only law abiding US citizens will in any way alleviate your fears?

You mention 'due process' vs. 'legislation'? Huh? Are you saying that one option is the legislative branch doing their job, and the other option is 'due process' by the fear mongering of the left because they're better at fear mongering than the right?

If you believe that citizens are destined to be controlled by fear, then the only relief in sight would the third branch of govenment, the judiciary, that renders decisions that it imposes on law abiding citizens based on facts and not the reason that dems install judges, fear activism.

Last, but certainly not least, when did you or any of your emotional lefty buddies settle for a reasonable solution? Shouldn't we recognize your position today as an increment and subject to 'evolving'?

Did you mean to say 'your' fraternity? Is everyone obligated to be lumped into your fraternity when you want the fraternity to end sooner rather than later?

I meant to say "our" fraternity and wrote it that way, craig. And, no, none is obligated to be lumped into anything. And, no, no one has said they want the fraternity to end sooner than later, certainly not me. Keep cool.