Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by SharpDog, Aug 9, 2019.
It means 'BS'
It's the Shi'ite Muslim concept of "deception".
Shi'ites have always been a persecuted minority in the Islamic community.
Taqqiya allows them to pretend not to be Shi'ites in order to preserve and spread the doctrine.
Muslim BS ...
I mentioned in another post recently that there is overwhelming antigun sentiment among voters in the region where I live (northern Virginia). That seems to be evident from the antigun stances of all the local politicians, who calibrate their positions based on extensive public and private polling and focus-group testing. Yet I know for a fact that a lot of voters who spout antigun rhetoric are gun owners, even owning AR-15's and other vilified weapons. So what gives? I think a lot of these people, in this affluent area, are simply convinced that the laws won't apply to them, or they will be able to flout them with impunity. It all goes back to a deep prejudice against the gun-loving "deplorables" mentioned by Hillary Clinton. The elites want to punish the "deplorables" through gun control -- and if it adversely affects themselves, they'll deal with that later.
Biden did just the other day.
A good read once you navigate the subscription notice popup. The NYT reader comments are almost more interesting than the article. You get the distinct sense of us/them and people believe the government already knows or should know where/who all the gun owners are, so simply round them up and take away the bad guns or put them in jail. Truly a bizarre point of view from sheltered people who live in big cities where guns and gun owners are scary, dangerous 'others'. That so many put this type of view in writing is disturbing. Gives a better understanding of how pogroms existed, especially since they seem to be focused on how this is only few million gun owners. Like millions of people is just a statistic blip.
Kamala promised, during the first debate, a ban (with implicit confiscation/destruction) with first 100 days after election, and by executive fiat if Congress did not give her a bill to that effect. Warren is on board with confiscation. As is Bernie. Tha latter two have been trying to walk both positions back to prevent further erosion of poll numbers.
There have been calls for another federal AWB from the other aisle as well.
The most likely candidate for a bill will be the one Feinstein's been pushing since 1994. This was the 2013 version. We're looking at a ban on 120 specific weapons, as well as a ban of "certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics."
As for grandfathering, she made remarks that it would have to be done through the NFA registry, and that there would be a ban on any transfers of assault weapons.
Absolutely. Make no mistake, push for gun ban is real.
Time for all supporters of gun rights/2A to set aside differences and come together to win in 2020. 2020 presidential election day will be our "D Day" - Defend gun rights/2A Day, which may protect/determine gun rights/2A not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren.
Vote wisely in 2020.
I've been very carefully parsing the gun statements of all the candidates, and if you analyze them deeply, there's a lot less there than meets the eye. The statements are designed to look radical to the base Democratic primary voters, but to be able to be walked back / clarified for the general election. This is particularly true of Kamala Harris, whose program basically rehashes existing law.
And so what kind of federal district/circuit court judges and SCOTUS justices will they appoint?
Right ... Liberal ones, likely anti-gun/2A.
You are wasting your breath for diplomacy after war broke out.
It's time to fish or cut bait.
It's time to stand up for your gun rights/2A.
Vote for Trump in 2020 to ensure our judicial future or waste your breath on some other forum.
NOTHING is ever truly "walked back" when it comes to racially invidious gun controls. It's all just taqqiya in the ultimate service of an absolute governmental monopoly on the means of armed force. What they want can ONLY be imposed by violence, a LOT of violence.
Voting for this "president" is not the same as supporting the constitution.
But at this point, voting against him is the same as attacking the Constitution, since there is no possible candidiate who will support it.
I think you mean candidate...
"Take the guns first, due process second." --President Trump
Don't know where that "appointment" come from, but using that quote shows you don't know how these things work. In 25 years in law enforcement, I've have never seen due process come before seizing weapons in an emergency, and that's what the president was talking about.
With Democrat candidates, we won't have to worry about that after they confiscate our guns and their appointed judges rule against our remaining gun rights and 2A.
Then what will they go after next? "Assault knives"? You never know ...
Vote wisely in 2020.
Actually, no, he wasn't. He was talking about red flag laws.
Yes, red flag laws as they would apply IN AN EMERGENCY.
You mean there's a non-emergency version of red flag laws? (Hint: no, there's not.) Every red flag law I've read requires a judge to sign off before the swat teams leave.
The entire basis of legitimacy for red flag laws is that they are applied subject to due process. That particular principle has been held as bedrock for more than 200 years: no due process, no legitimacy.
You can ignore what he said if you wish, but what remains true is that we are dealing with a president who has never read the constitution, does not understand the constitution and believes that the office of the presidency is above the constitution, while neither the judiciary nor the congress are equal to the presidency.
25 years in law enforcement, I knew this before you did. Twisting my words does not help your case. Here's a hint, dues process does not have to come before confiscation. Double hint, THAT'S THE EMERGENCY PART! We've been doing in for years, under the mental health provisions. Hell, red flag laws AREN'T necessary if you have good mental health statutes, but that's another debate.
I hold degrees in political science and history, and don't need your smarm to try to explain anything.
Now you know what Donald Trump has and has not read, does and does not understand, does and does not think? You prove more and more YOUR ignorance.
If you say so.
It remains that it isn't necessary to list my qualifications to be in this discussion.
I do say so.
If you had any, you would.
Hey now, let's not get sidetracked.
We were talking about Democrats pushing for gun confiscation. Let's stay on that topic.
And what are we going to do to prevent that from happening?
Separate names with a comma.