Open mike reveals N.J. senators’ contempt for gun owners, confiscation goal

Status
Not open for further replies.
and to think people in this country elect them
Click to expand...

We have to come to terms with the fact that millions of Americans don't like firearms. That's why they elect gun grabbers.

That's why at least one political party needs to field a candidate that is solidly pro gun and pro 2nd amendment. This last election, both candidates were enemies of the Constitution.
 
What is sad is these people feel very comfortable openly talking about confiscation.
 
Hate talking politics here but here goes. Most of us know that liberal Democrat's want to eventually ban all fire arms. The Republican's are being split right now by ultra conservatives who, like ultra liberal's Democrats, will never be a majority in this country. If a split does happen the ultra liberals will get what they want.

In other words if we don't moderate our position we might lose. Gun ownership is very important to me but are other issue more important.
 
I dont like people that lie and say stupid things, but i defend their right to do so because of the 1a. If they dont like guns then dont buy one!!! Leave me and mine the hell alone!!!:fire:
 
In other words if we don't moderate our position we might lose. Gun ownership is very important to me but are other issue more important.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. "Moderating our position" means turning the right into a privilege. Period. "Compromise" ALWAYS means a loss for us and another step toward the destruction of the right. The last 50 years have been exceptionally destructive to rights and the right to keep and bear arms is the last bastion of liberty. As soon as they get universal background checks, it's over. There will be no more private sales in free states and the government will know which law abiding citizens have weapons (they are already 75% there with the current system). Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation and we saw this in action in California with the SKS rifle, New York under the new law, and during Katrina when they went house to house. "Moderating our position" merely postpones the loss of the right.

If you vote for any other issue, then you are diluting our vote. We win because we pull the lever on ONE issue and one only: firearms rights. It is the litmus test for any politician's stance on rights. If they want to turn it into a privilege, then that politician merely views you as a paycheck to be taxed and used as he or she sees fit. That politician sees rights as "in the way" and as something to work around. All those laws serve to turn us into serfs.
 
Last edited:
The United States Constitution was a compromise. It is not dogma. Do you really believe this nation would be less free if we couldn't own an ar? Is New York confiscating guns? NYC has registration for as long as I remember but not confiscation. So why does registration always lead to confiscation IN THIS COUNTRY? They started confiscating ALL guns in California? All guns? In NOL it was local police and national guard not federal troops that held their guns on American citizens and took away their rights. Now after Katrina who's confiscating guns? I was in Baton Rouge recently. I could buy anything I want except a hand gun. I could live with that.

Is it really a socialist tyranny (a contradiction in terms), having or guns confiscated, invaded by aliens from the south, ammunition conspiracy blinded by solar storms, hit by an asteroid's, global warming, gay marriage, and dogs sleeping with cats or the economy.

To me the economy and social security trumps everything. Do you realize your offering yourself to scam artists. Where is that town in California you know the one where they thought voted for a stand up group and they robbed the city blind.
 
Last edited:
To me the economy trumps everything. I can't believe anyone could vote just for one issue. Do you realize your offering yourself to scam artist who have no interest in you.
Click to expand...


Twice in my long lifetime i have been forced to defend my family and myself from gun armed home invaders. My Second Amendment rights are the most precious rights on this planet.

Your mileage may vary.
 
Gun ownership is very important to me but are other issue more important.
Click to expand...

Kind of a silly statement to make on a gun forum.

Sorry. You don't have any credibility here.
 
GambJoe said:
In other words if we don't moderate our position we might lose.
Click to expand...

Moderate how, exactly? And if you really have an answer to that, how long before the anti-gunners (and you, apparently) will be demanding we "moderate" our gun rights even further?
 
Last edited:
To me the economy and social security trumps everything.
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't going to do anything about the economy OR social security no matter what they say. Most of them are liars.

There is no comprimise, they are never happy. Give them something now, they'll be back next year for something more. They are nothing but extortionist.
You think if you give them something they will go away. They will never go away. They will be back again and again and again, until there's no more to take.
 
Simple with pre purchase background checks it can be written into the law that those records cannot be used or further investigations.

They are doing something with social security and medicare they are cutting it.
 
I guess the anti-gun side can never tell the lie "We don't want to take away your guns" ever again. Sounds like an agenda to me.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they can and they will. How many people do you think will see this article? How many of those will even remember about it the next time the anti's say "We don't want to take your guns away"? How many prime time news channels will this information be aired on? I'm afraid it's going tot take alot more than an Examiner article to cut through their layer of BS.

We thought that after Fast and Furious the antis could never again claim that we are responsible for Mexico's violence problems. That was a situation that got a federal agent killed, countless numbers of Mexican citizens killed, resulted in a Senate hearing, and was covered on atleast some major news networks. Guess where Obama was on May 3rd and guess what he was saying?

Simple with pre purchase background checks it can be written into the law that those records cannot be used or further investigations.
Click to expand...

And then next year they will come back and say that the UBC system isn't working properly because they can't keep a complete record of all transactions "The law tied our hands" and you'll be here saying we need to moderate our position and allow them to create a registry or we might lose. Listen, I would rather go with "might lose". By moderating our position we DEFINITELY lose.

The reason we won't compromise with them is not because we are a bunch of mean *******s who just want to spite them. It's because we have compromised many times before. We always did all the giving and they did all the taking. AND EVERY SINGLE TIME, without fail, they come back later asking for more and complaining that we don't compromise. What exactly have we gained in any of these compromises over the years? At best all they can do is simply give us back what was originally ours to begin with. And they won't even do that without the court forcing them to kicking and screaming.

If defending our rights means we lose, then so be it. I honestly don't care what further gun restrictions are passed because I have long since decided I will not abide by any of them. They can pass all the laws they want. I will still get the guns I please, and they can shove their laws where the sun don't shine.
 
Last edited:
I will never sell my 2nd amendments rights for 20 pieces of silver. Never.
 
If you compromise with them once, you'll compromise with them again and again. Remember, their ultimate goal is to confiscate all firearms, and every compromise you make moves them closer to their goal. Look at California. First compromise for registration, then steadily chip away at what's allowed to be owned while "preserving hunting traditions" or whatever that load of BS is. Now, what was legal to own before (SKS) is now suddenly an evil baby killing machine gun that must be turned in. I'm sure they'll try to write other laws that outlaw more and more firearms until only the politically connected can have the privilege of owning one.
 
Sauer Grapes: Quite true.

When Anglo-Saxon England was heavily besieged by the Great Heathen Army, regional kings sometimes gave way to extortion and paid them to leave a certain area alone. The heathen Danish army then demanded more.

Modern politicians are no different. As soon as they gain power, they become conditioned to it and de-sensitized (as with millionaires' thrills after First striking it rich) and must acquire more power or money, in order to feel the same thrill.

What have law-abiding citizens gained in the past by yielding?
My wife feels that more compromise is necessary, in order for the %^@ Party to win back seats in the mid-term elections, but I told her that appeasement is a sign of weakness. Opponents see this very clearly.
 
Ignition Override said:
Sauer Grapes: Quite true.

When Anglo-Saxon England was heavily besieged by the Great Heathen Army, regional kings sometimes gave way to extortion and paid them to leave a certain area alone. The heathen Danish army then demanded more.

Modern politicians are no different. As soon as they gain power, they become conditioned to it and de-sensitized (as with millionaires' thrills after First striking it rich) and must acquire more power or money, in order to feel the same thrill.

What have law-abiding citizens gained in the past by yielding?
My wife feels that more compromise is necessary, in order for the %^@ Party to win back seats in the mid-term elections, but I told her that appeasement is a sign of weakness. Opponents see this very clearly.
Click to expand...
"heathen"? What do you mean by this?
 
It is the litmus test for any politician's stance on rights.
Click to expand...

^^This is the crux of the whole thing.

If a politician does not trust citizens to have a 'certain type of firearm', then I don't want such an elitist 'wanna be ruler' to have any influence on my life.

If a politician does not want to have 'assault weapons', or 'weapons of war' in the hands of 'civilians', the he or she is one who denies reality, because just pushing such silly proposals insults intelligence, and shows contempt for the rest of us.

It's not a fallacy that a politician who does not trust 'normal citizens', and who does not face reality for what it is (in this case, crowing about 'assault weapons', or registration, or whatever) will carry those flaws into other things as well. It's just that they're stopped by those who understand their idiocy, and are not allowed to completely get their way.

The economy and social security is all fine and good, but when taken to the extreme, if the politicians who want to 'rule' are allowed to have their way, and disarm citizens, then eventually, they will become oppressors. That's not some theory. It's what happens, because that's human nature.

Then the economy and social security won't mean much.

Phasers and Socialism only work in Star Trek.
 
I do not compromise on any part of the Bill of Rights.

Note: The economy and social security are not part of the Bill of Rights.

I support the politicians that support the Constitution and oppose all who oppose it. The economy and social security will be fixed by Pro-Constitutionalist and destroyed by all others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top