Gun Control promise

[Wicked]

No. Its the main reason I will never move to California.

 

[T.A.Sharps]

Other people seem to speak better than I tend to...

”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! "~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

 

[ns66]

why do we want CA laws lol

 

[230RN]

The only compromise I want to see is if they "compromise" back to the point where the sales, ownership, transfer and carrying of arms is no longer.. what's the word I'm looking for... oh, yeah.. "infringed."

Yeah, that's it, "infringed."

Terry, 230RN

 

[Alaska444]

This is too light to put on Activism or Legal. Fits here. Please.

If the heavy hitters of GUN CONTROL would forever promise to leave us alone IF we would accept the laws of California, would you agree?

Wow, I am trying to get out of CA right now in part because they deny me the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, I have no rights OUTSIDE Of CA either. I live half of the time in Idaho right now and I cannot buy any firearm no matter how much I want to be able to do that. I have been looking for months in CA for a .22 LR revolver for my wife and have not been able to find a single one. Up here in ID, I have found several but cannot buy at all.

CA gun laws, no not a chance. Give us constitutional gun laws throughout this entire nation as the constitution promises. I can't even enter MA with a gun at all and spend the night. There can be no compromise of our remaining rights if you wish to keep any of them.

 

[12131]

Politicians and promises. Need I say more?

 

[12131]

Yeah, CA laws? Who the heck wants CA laws, anyway?

 

[Charleo0192]

No.

Gun-control solves nothing. I'm usually a levelheaded guy when it comes to these discussions. Over the past few days though I've become pissed. Not at you, or other members of this forum. Rather at all the articles and comments (from others sites) that call for gun-control. I feel as though no matter how much I point out the flaws in their logic, nothing will come of it.

/Rant

 

[Carl N. Brown]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8299048

Maryland goes shall-issue right-to-carry

Let them compromise in our favor for a change.

 

[jbrown50]

Here's a press release from the Brady Campaign website.

Jul 20, 2012
We Don't Want Sympathy From The President Or Other Elected Officials; We Invite Americans To Join Our Campaign To Hold Politicians Accountable To Act

Statement from Brady Campaign President Dan Gross in response to the massacre in Aurora, Colorado: “On behalf of the Brady Campaign, I send our deepest sympathies to the families of the victims and survivors of the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado. This tragedy is another grim reminder that guns are the enablers of mass killers and that our nation pays an unacceptable price for our failure to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

"guns are the enablers of mass killers"?????

Did the 9/11 mass killers use guns?
Did the Pan Am Flight 103 mass killers use guns?
Didn't the mass killer Ted Bundy strangle his victims?
How about the recent bus bombing in Bulgaria?

I could go on and on but the point is that mass killers will kill with whatever means is available to them........not just guns. The ridiculous statement "guns are the enablers of mass killers" is a dead give away to the anti's true intentions. They couldn't care less about mass murders or murders in general.

Why would you trust them to honor any type of deal that hasn't reached their goal of the total disarmament of all law abiding citizens?

 

[Deus Machina]

No. That is the exact promise they have used before.
They used that promise on the GCA and NFA. They used that promise for the Brady Bill. They used that promise for the AWD.

Heck they used that promise in California, and then they still infringed more and confiscated certain weapons.

A compromise is never a compromise. It's still a loss for us, and only a smaller win for them.

 

[Texan Scott]

No. If you give a mouse a cookie...

 

[hso]

How 'bout you volunteer to be thrown to the zombies in hopes they'll leave us alone?
They may not tear you to pieces in spite of the expectation borne of experience.
Even if they do tear you to pieces they might just be satisfied with you and your sacrifice will be appreciated by all.
Or that might not be enough for them and we'd have sacrificed our ability to fight them off.

Make no mistake, the Antis are hungry zombies and there will always be more to come after you until there's nothing of value to come after.

 

[Claymore1500]

I vote NO.

I also will pose this Thought, The people at the brady bunch offices think anyone "Not" thinking like them are fools, I say this because they think that no rational person can see that these mass shootings always take place at venues with restrictive gun policies, When anyone from the "Gun control" side of the tracks can answer this question truthfully, and make sense of the reason, maybe, Just maybe, I will listen to what they have to say.

The question, "If guns are the enablers, why are there no mass shootings at gun shows or gun ranges"?

In fact, to my recollection, there has never been an attempt to pull this off.

The people that perpetrate these shootings and then try to claim insanity are also liars, they plan these acts, they get the guns, and they ALWAYS pick out somewhere that they are confident that they will meet little or no opposition, In my opinion, if they are "sane" enough to figure that out they are "sane" enough to pay for what they have done.

 

[MikeG]

The anti-gun crowd has a long record of lies, deceit and demagoging on emotions. I wouldn't trust them any further than I could throw them. And which California laws? They haven't slowed down much on proposing new and unreasonable restrictions when the mood strikes them.

Another vote for ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 

[leadcounsel]

No Way, No How, NEVER!!!!

Gun control is incremental and will never end. Look at other nations as an example.

Their argument is that XYZ is dangerous because someone used it to kill/maim. Well XYZ is the flavor of the day. In the early 1900s it was full auto, BAR, and short shotguns and Tommy Guns. Then it was Assault Weapons. Then it was Glocks. Then it was hi-cap mags. It will NEVER end.

Their argument can be crafted for any gun.
Handguns. Designed only to kill people and conceal. No 'sporting purpose' and no need. Illegal.
Short barrelled shotguns. No effective military use. Illegal.
Military style rifles. No sporting purpose. Who NEEDS these scary dangerous things that can kill 30 children with 30 pulls of the trigger 500 feet away?
Hunting rifles. No need to hunt anymore. Just go to the butcher. It's too dangerous that someone can shoot and kill a person from a 1/4 mile away with a high powered rifle! The Constution doesn't guarantee hunting.

Blah blah blah blah. It never ends. And their victories fuel their fires.

When there are successful bans, and predictably crime doesn't go down, then their answer is "we didn't go far enough in closing the loophole, or banning things or blah blah blah..."

 

[Tim the student]

No.

 

[danez71]

Other people seem to speak better than I tend to...

”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! "~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

Thats a fraudulent Nazi quote.

http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html

Hitler and Gun Control

In a speech, sometimes said to have been delivered in 1935, Hitler is supposed to have exclaimed: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

This quote has been popular with Americans who defend the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." It's cited to discredit those who support restrictions on firearms ownership and use. It's also cited to support the often-made charge that Hitler and his government curtailed gun ownership in Germany, and confiscated weapons held by private citizens.

The truth is rather different. When Hitler and his National Socialist Party took power in early 1933, they inherited a somewhat restrictive firearms law that the liberal-democratic "Weimar" government had enacted five years earlier. In 1938 Hitler's government revised the earlier law by loosening those restrictions, thereby enhancing the rights of Germans to own weapons. The most thorough confiscation of firearms ever imposed on Germans was carried out at the end of the Second World War by the occupation forces of the United States and other victorious Allied powers.

 

[holdencm9]

NO

Can we make this a poll, I think it would go down in history as most lopsided...

 

[holdencm9]

PS

Thats a fraudulent Nazi quote.

More info here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

Some gun proponents like this quote because it compares current gun control attempts to those of the Nazis. But as the pro-gun FAQ cited above freely concedes, "This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud." Instead of propagating a falsehood, Cramer says he encourages people to read a book by Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership on "the curious parallels between the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 1938 Nazi weapons control law." But that's another issue altogether.

ETA: (from same link)

"That said, and a bit tangential to this question (but I'd hate to leave something out AGAIN), Cramer says the Nazis did benefit significantly from gun control in Eastern Europe in terms of "the inability of their victims to fight back." He cites The Holocaust, a book by Leni Yahil (translated by Ina Friedman and Haya Galai, Oxford University Press, 1990), which has a chapter discussing armed resistance by Jews, including rebellions with just a few firearms and a lot of courage. In addition, he talks about Israel Guttman's book, Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which discusses the difficulty the Jews faced in obtaining weapons.

Cramer believes that "if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust." I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly difficult to have an uprising without weapons. "

 

[LJ-MosinFreak-Buck]

Hell no. The minute we conceded to the concessions they have to offer, they'll push for more. There is no dealing with the Gun Control crowd. They won't relent. They don't want guns at all. Accepting their terms just puts us on the road to giving that right up. Something I'm not going to willingly accept. And something I hope you don't willingly accept, either.

So, my answer, HELL NO. Like stated earlier, let them try and win it at the ballot-box. I don't think they will, at all.

 

[JonathanE]

Our Creator endows rights. Our Government bestows priviliges. It is not our government's pervue to revoke what God Himself endowed.

 

[Mauser lover]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND I LIVE HERE!!!!!!!!!!
(for two more weeks)

 

[lobo9er]

So no more CCW. sounds like a bad plan to me.

 

[Leanwolf]

After living for 36 years in Calif., working assiduously to try and stop the far left wing anti-gun crowd, knowing that they are NEVER, EVER, satisfied .....

Not only NO!, but Hellfire and Damnation NO!

L.W.