now ole Billary wants gun confiscation...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Thinks Australia program would be a good model. They want our guns to be able to have a weak and impotent electorate they can lord over...

[Turd_Ferguson]

They'll get the business end of it first.

[olevetonahill]

Aus. had 12 to 13 Million citizens when they did that, Bot or Stole less than a million guns . That aint gonna happen here where we have over 300 Mil Citizens and over a million LEGAL firearms.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

There are WAY more than a million legal firearms in the USA, right?(I know, one can look it up)

[olevetonahill]

There are WAY more than a million legal firearms in the USA, right?(I know, one can look it up)

Meant to say 100 million Owners there.
There are about 320 Million Firearms with well over a 150 or so Million owners

[Serenity Now]

A. She said that it would be worth looking into in response to a question about Australia's program. Hardly a "policy" that the echo chamber is spinning about.
2. http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/09/media-conservatives-fearmongering-obama-will-ta/149054 Rinse. Repeat. http://www.wnd.com/files/Focusletter.pdf (Page 8) Rinse. Repeat. Fear mongering. Nothing more.
III. She is an advocate of closing the legal loopholes. 90% of the US is. 76% of the NRA is. Like everyone in office except those who are scared of the NRA.

[FaninAma]

A. She said that it would be worth looking into in response to a question about Australia's program. Hardly a "policy" that the echo chamber is spinning about.
2. http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/09/media-conservatives-fearmongering-obama-will-ta/149054 Rinse. Repeat. http://www.wnd.com/files/Focusletter.pdf (Page 8) Rinse. Repeat. Fear mongering. Nothing more.
III. She is an advocate of closing the legal loopholes. 90% of the US is. 76% of the NRA is. Like everyone in office except those who are scared of the NRA.

What are the legal loopholes?

[Serenity Now]

What are the legal loopholes?

The kind where seller's have to perform background checks to validate that buyer's are not forbidden to purchase a firearm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/us...-gun-laws.html

It's really more of a private seller loophole. An estimated 40% of all firearm sales are done in this manner.

http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gu...olicy-summary/

A 2013 New England JAMA survey found that 90% of Americans, 84% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members supported universal background checks. It's an issue that we, generally, all agree on. I'd call that low hanging fruit.

[Turd_Ferguson]

The kind where seller's have to perform background checks to validate that buyer's are not forbidden to purchase a firearm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/us...-gun-laws.html

It's really more of a private seller loophole. An estimated 40% of all firearm sales are done in this manner.

http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gu...olicy-summary/

A 2013 New England JAMA survey found that 90% of Americans, 84% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members supported universal background checks. It's an issue that we, generally, all agree on. I'd call that low hanging fruit.

Hmmm...there's a background check done on me every time I buy a firearm whether I'm at a gun dealer or at a gun show. You can't sell any firearms through Ebay/Craigslist/etc...and any website you can purchase a firearm from has to go through a licensed gun dealer, that will do a back ground check on you before you can pick it up. So tell me, what NEW laws should be enacted?

[olevetonahill]

Hmmm...there's a background check done on me every time I buy a firearm whether I'm at a gun dealer or at a gun show. You can't sell any firearms through Ebay/Craigslist/etc...and any website you can purchase a firearm from has to go through a licensed gun dealer, that will do a back ground check on you before you can pick it up. So tell me, what NEW laws should be enacted?

Libs got this " Loop Hole ****" on the brain! What they trying to say Is Olevet cant sell Turd one of his weapons with out You being checked out.

[Skysooner]

Every time I have bought a gun (gun show or at a store), I have had a background check run. Private sells outside of a gun show are the only place I could see that being a problem and good luck regulating that.

[Serenity Now]

Every time I have bought a gun (gun show or at a store), I have had a background check run. Private sells outside of a gun show are the only place I could see that being a problem and good luck regulating that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-background-checks.html

I think it would be great if there were required universal background checks. And, if someone violates that law then they are punished. Treat it like vehicular manslaughter or make people personally responsible. If I insult Turd and he purchases a gun from olevet and shoots me in the big toe when he was not supposed to get a gun due to his background check then olevet is criminally liable as well as Turd. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[Soonerjeepman]

Every time I have bought a gun (gun show or at a store), I have had a background check run. Private sells outside of a gun show are the only place I could see that being a problem and good luck regulating that.

exactly...and that will be more ammo for tighter gun laws down the road. Chip away, chip away...eventually the whole thing can come down.

[olevetonahill]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-background-checks.html

I think it would be great if there were required universal background checks. And, if someone violates that law then they are punished. Treat it like vehicular manslaughter or make people personally responsible. If I insult Turd and he purchases a gun from olevet and shoots me in the big toe when he was not supposed to get a gun due to his background check then olevet is criminally liable as well as Turd. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Turd would shoot you in the brain! Oh wait you said that dint you.

[Serenity Now]

Turd would shoot you in the brain! Oh wait you said that dint you.

With Turd's avatar, I know he'd shoot me in the head. He's tough!

[champions77]

The kind where seller's have to perform background checks to validate that buyer's are not forbidden to purchase a firearm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/us...-gun-laws.html

It's really more of a private seller loophole. An estimated 40% of all firearm sales are done in this manner.

http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gu...olicy-summary/

A 2013 New England JAMA survey found that 90% of Americans, 84% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members supported universal background checks. It's an issue that we, generally, all agree on. I'd call that low hanging fruit.

Serenity I think most Americans do not trust the Government. Any additional gun laws will be a slippery slope and involve additional laws. I wish the left would be more honest with what their goals really are, and that is firearm confiscation. Give the National Civilian Security Force something to do right? I know that is ultimately their goal.
Most all of the mass shootings you see would not be affected by most all of the new gun legislation they want to impose.

I am not going to blame the deaths on the school administrators that refuse to post armed security personnel in the schools, that is for the "left" to do, blame a gunman's actions on the gun itself, but if you want to stop the gun violence in schools or theaters or any other public place, you let folks know that their are armed guards stationed nearby. For the most part, besides being wackos, these folks are cowards too. And the thought of them being shot while they carry on their dastardly deed, is not what they want. They want to control the environment, not someone else with a gun wrecking their plans.

[Serenity Now]

Give the National Civilian Security Force something to do right?
Nice touch. Worthy of a good old fashioned LOL.

[olevetonahill]

With Turd's avatar, I know he'd shoot me in the head. He's tough!

No, You were right, It be the toe, Like I said yer Brain :drunk:

[WA. Sooner]

I thought it was already illegal to kill and steal.No need for more laws that criminals will ignore and hinder honest people. Feel good laws cause more problems than they fix!

[olevetonahill]

I thought it was already illegal to kill and steal.No need for more laws that criminals will ignore and hinder honest people. Feel good laws cause more problems than they fix!

Only if your NOT the Gubment!

[champions77]

Nice touch. Worthy of a good old fashioned LOL.

Well aren't you s bit curious as to what that "force's" mission is exactly? You know your buddies in the media do a tremendous Disservice to the American people by their lousy, bias media reporting. Heck yes he should have been asked what the security force would be doing? Obviously their mission would be extensive and ubiquitous if they would be better funded than all of the U.S. Military. The defense budget is what 600 billion?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I thought it was already illegal to kill and steal.No need for more laws that criminals will ignore and hinder honest people. Feel good laws cause more problems than they fix!The Left is about power and control, not actually solving problems.

[TAFBSooner]

Well aren't you s bit curious as to what that "force's" mission is exactly? You know your buddies in the media do a tremendous Disservice to the American people by their lousy, bias media reporting. Heck yes he should have been asked what the security force would be doing? Obviously their mission would be extensive and ubiquitous if they would be better funded than all of the U.S. Military. The defense budget is what 600 billion?

And yet, here they aren't. Now, POTUS could be trying to create the equivalent of the Civilian Defense Force by arming civilian police forces across the land with military gear and mindset. But, remember that is a policy established by several POTUSes before him. If the powers that be want to fund police departments to register and confiscate privately owned guns, they'll either need more tax money or dial up the asset confiscation, err, forfeiture rate. All of this started before Obama and will go on after Obama, until we take back our country.

If ever.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The Left is about power and control, not actually solving problems.
Bingo! I will add the democrat lite party that runs Congress at the time as well...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

SO , SN, would you approve of a law or series of laws to make sure we check your opinion prior to announcing it or saying it publicly on this forum, any forum or vocally? Let's say you need to send your opinion to a monitor prior to posting it on SF. Would this be okay with you? How about you have to call in to a toll free number and tell them what you are going to say today at a meeting of your friends. You know, the board needs to check and ensure you don't say anything offensive or that might make some one feel bad... This as I described to the 1st Amendment is exactly what you are suggesting for the 2nd...

[Serenity Now]

SO , SN, would you approve of a law or series of laws to make sure we check your opinion prior to announcing it or saying it publicly on this forum, any forum or vocally? Let's say you need to send your opinion to a monitor prior to posting it on SF. Would this be okay with you? How about you have to call in to a toll free number and tell them what you are going to say today at a meeting of your friends. You know, the board needs to check and ensure you don't say anything offensive or that might make some one feel bad... This as I described to the 1st Amendment is exactly what you are suggesting for the 2nd...

Poor analogy.

...well regulated....

mic drop

[olevetonahill]

Poor analogy.

...well regulated....

mic drop

...The RIGHT of the American People to Keep and Bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;

Please continue !

[champions77]

And yet, here they aren't. Now, POTUS could be trying to create the equivalent of the Civilian Defense Force by arming civilian police forces across the land with military gear and mindset. But, remember that is a policy established by several POTUSes before him. If the powers that be want to fund police departments to register and confiscate privately owned guns, they'll either need more tax money or dial up the asset confiscation, err, forfeiture rate. All of this started before Obama and will go on after Obama, until we take back our country.

If ever.




" until we take back our country" ? Interesting statement coming from a liberal. Begs the question, take it back from who? I don't see how you can be for more power, control and dominion in the Federal Government and then speak of taking something back. The Federal government takes, they take additional authority, power, money and control once vesting in the States and individuals.

[Serenity Now]

http://memecrunch.com/meme/SPDN/a-well-regulated-militia

[olevetonahill]

Yer so clever you cant even post a meme LOL

[Serenity Now]

I don't waste time with that crap. You get the point, no?

I just go to google images. Anything more is too much work.

[olevetonahill]

I don't waste time with that crap. You get the point, no?

I just go to google images. Anything more is too much work.

Idiot!

[Serenity Now]

Idiot!

Fvck off you wrinkled old fart.

[olevetonahill]

Fvck off you wrinkled old fart.

I aint wrinkled Ya Idiot!@

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Poor analogy.

...well regulated....

mic drop

Here is the text:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
your "well regulated militia" is a descriptor to the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." NO WHERE does a militia play in this Right. It truly says that people's right to own and use weapons is needed in order to have a militia in order to protect the state's right.

SO who's dropping the mic? And the analogy is spot on...

[TAFBSooner]

" until we take back our country" ? Interesting statement coming from a liberal. Begs the question, take it back from who? I don't see how you can be for more power, control and dominion in the Federal Government and then speak of taking something back. The Federal government takes, they take additional authority, power, money and control once vesting in the States and individuals.

Liberals aren't fans of the Deep State. By definition the Deep State is independent of and impervious to the political process and any inputs from citizens.

As to your statement about liberals and government power: It's a question of, power to do what?

Power to harass, imprison, or eliminate people in violation of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, just by playing the "national security" card? Against.

Power to prevent or eliminate cartels and monopolies? In favor.

Power to confiscate innocent people's property (asset forfeiture)? Against.
Ditto on gun confiscation, by the way. Against.
Power to shoot people for mouthing off at the police? Against. (Not that I encourage anyone to mouth off at the police) And if you think that's just the rogue 1% of police, consider that policy and police have the same root.
Power to collect everybody's computer and communication content and/or metadata, without proof or even accusation of any wrongdoing? Against.
Power (in the hands of the private prison lobby) to create more laws and therefore more crimes and therefore more criminal and therefore more income for the private prisons? Against.

* Power to manipulate the economy so that everyone has an opportunity to provide for themselves? In favor.
* Power to provide for those that legitimately can't provide for themselves? In favor.
Power (in the hands of the corporate shills writing our "free trade" agreements) to eliminate good paying jobs for Americans? Against.

* Power to prevent fossil fuel companies from overheating the atmosphere and melting the glaciers. In favor.

* Power to prevent employers from enforcing their sex role, oh sorry, religious beliefs on their employees? In favor.

* I'm pretty sure you disagree with my premises, conclusions, or both for items marked with *. I'd like to hear your opinion on some of the others.

[olevetonahill]

Screw Yall!
https://scontent.fden3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/46291_10151211741761701_1714857562_n.jpg?oh=717168 eeab281a11ec67ab510f05194c&oe=56CDA095

[Serenity Now]

Screw Yall!
https://scontent.fden3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/46291_10151211741761701_1714857562_n.jpg?oh=717168 eeab281a11ec67ab510f05194c&oe=56CDA095

Godwin sighting.

[Soonerjeepman]

Liberals aren't fans of the Deep State. By definition the Deep State is independent of and impervious to the political process and any inputs from citizens.

As to your statement about liberals and government power: It's a question of, power to do what?

Power to harass, imprison, or eliminate people in violation of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, just by playing the "national security" card? Against.

Power to prevent or eliminate cartels and monopolies? In favor.

Power to confiscate innocent people's property (asset forfeiture)? Against.
Ditto on gun confiscation, by the way. Against.
Power to shoot people for mouthing off at the police? Against. (Not that I encourage anyone to mouth off at the police) And if you think that's just the rogue 1% of police, consider that policy and police have the same root.
Power to collect everybody's computer and communication content and/or metadata, without proof or even accusation of any wrongdoing? Against.
Power (in the hands of the private prison lobby) to create more laws and therefore more crimes and therefore more criminal and therefore more income for the private prisons? Against.

* Power to manipulate the economy so that everyone has an opportunity to provide for themselves? In favor.
* Power to provide for those that legitimately can't provide for themselves? In favor.
Power (in the hands of the corporate shills writing our "free trade" agreements) to eliminate good paying jobs for Americans? Against.

* Power to prevent fossil fuel companies from overheating the atmosphere and melting the glaciers. In favor.

* Power to prevent employers from enforcing their sex role, oh sorry, religious beliefs on their employees? In favor.

* I'm pretty sure you disagree with my premises, conclusions, or both for items marked with *. I'd like to hear your opinion on some of the others.

this one is all in the eye of the beholder...you libs think anyone who says they can't do it need the help. The fact is a large majority of the poor put themselves in this spot by not valuing education, family support, etc. I see it first hand..and have for 25 years. Therefor I disagree about helping them...and the way it's done.

[champions77]

Liberals aren't fans of the Deep State. By definition the Deep State is independent of and impervious to the political process and any inputs from citizens.

As to your statement about liberals and government power: It's a question of, power to do what?

Power to harass, imprison, or eliminate people in violation of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, just by playing the "national security" card? Against.

Power to prevent or eliminate cartels and monopolies? In favor.

Power to confiscate innocent people's property (asset forfeiture)? Against.
Ditto on gun confiscation, by the way. Against.
Power to shoot people for mouthing off at the police? Against. (Not that I encourage anyone to mouth off at the police) And if you think that's just the rogue 1% of police, consider that policy and police have the same root.
Power to collect everybody's computer and communication content and/or metadata, without proof or even accusation of any wrongdoing? Against.
Power (in the hands of the private prison lobby) to create more laws and therefore more crimes and therefore more criminal and therefore more income for the private prisons? Against.

* Power to manipulate the economy so that everyone has an opportunity to provide for themselves? In favor.
* Power to provide for those that legitimately can't provide for themselves? In favor.
Power (in the hands of the corporate shills writing our "free trade" agreements) to eliminate good paying jobs for Americans? Against.

* Power to prevent fossil fuel companies from overheating the atmosphere and melting the glaciers. In favor.

* Power to prevent employers from enforcing their sex role, oh sorry, religious beliefs on their employees? In favor.

* I'm pretty sure you disagree with my premises, conclusions, or both for items marked with *. I'd like to hear your opinion on some of the others.

Wow, you spent some time on these. And I agree with some of them. Suffice to say that I stand for the US Constitution, that most conservatives stand and defend the US Constitution, and that it's the far left, whether or not you identify as being such, that have tried to circumvent, change or reinterpret the US Constitution in so many ways over the years.

BHO is on record as saying that it is a "flawed document" and that it limits the scope and authority too much. I know of no conservatives that have made such as statement. Others from the left feel it is a "living and breathing" document, which them give them cover in their quest to change it to support their agenda. It is the left that prides themselves as being "tolerant" that have been the most intolerant, limiting free speech on college campuses, shouting down and disinviting speakers that they find objectionable.
It is the left that has waged a war on "Freedom of Religion" even going so far as to reinterpret the words of Thomas Jefferson to mean exactly the opposite of his intent with the bogus "Separation of Church and State" Supreme Court ruling. The lefts aggressive agenda in attacking the 2nd Amendment is being waged today. Most far left folks, including our President, would confiscate all firearms tomorrow if they had their way.
I could go on infinitim...

[Serenity Now]

I could go on infinitim...
No shiite.

No poster here would support any gun confiscation.

And, heaven forbid that we separate religion and government.

My "attack" on the second amendment references keeping firearms away from people who shouldn't have them. My stance is not as strict as the NRA's during the 1970's and 1980's.

[olevetonahill]

No shiite.

No poster here would support any gun confiscation.

And, heaven forbid that we separate religion and government.

My "attack" on the second amendment references keeping firearms away from people who shouldn't have them. My stance is not as strict as the NRA's during the 1970's and 1980's.

I kinda agree with ya ya dickwad. Cept WHOS going to be in charge of WHO shouldnt have one?

[champions77]

No shiite.

No poster here would support any gun confiscation.

And, heaven forbid that we separate religion and government.

My "attack" on the second amendment references keeping firearms away from people who shouldn't have them. My stance is not as strict as the NRA's during the 1970's and 1980's.

Maybe not you, but there are legions of leftists that would support it.

[TAFBSooner]

Wow, you spent some time on these. And I agree with some of them. Suffice to say that I stand for the US Constitution, that most conservatives stand and defend the US Constitution, and that it's the far left, whether or not you identify as being such, that have tried to circumvent, change or reinterpret the US Constitution in so many ways over the years.

BHO is on record as saying that it is a "flawed document" and that it limits the scope and authority too much. I know of no conservatives that have made such as statement. Others from the left feel it is a "living and breathing" document, which them give them cover in their quest to change it to support their agenda. It is the left that prides themselves as being "tolerant" that have been the most intolerant, limiting free speech on college campuses, shouting down and disinviting speakers that they find objectionable.
It is the left that has waged a war on "Freedom of Religion" even going so far as to reinterpret the words of Thomas Jefferson to mean exactly the opposite of his intent with the bogus "Separation of Church and State" Supreme Court ruling. The lefts aggressive agenda in attacking the 2nd Amendment is being waged today. Most far left folks, including our President, would confiscate all firearms tomorrow if they had their way.
I could go on infinitim...

The Deep State probably doesn't care about individual firearm ownership. They definitely don't care which political party occupies the elected offices of government. They don't care about gay marriage, except as an issue to keep the rest of us divided. Likewise they don't care about prayer in school (whether organized by the school or performed by students before math tests). Etc.

The Deep State cares about keeping the rest of the planet in turmoil so it doesn't ever pose a threat to us. There are two broad sets of reasons why this is a bad idea: one is that it's immoral on its face. I imagine we disagree about this reason, but we should all be concerned about the other, which is blowback. Keeping the rest of the planet in turmoil generates enemies for us, all of which pose a threat to individual US citizens as well as potentially to the nation as a whole. OBTW, blowback becomes part of a giant feedback loop, giving the Deep State ever-renewing reasons to grow the national security apparatus.

They also care about maintaining their own power. That motivates the NSA spying on the rest of us, and the national security "exceptions" to the Constitution.

The earlier question was "take back our country from who?" The answer is the Deep State. I don't actually foresee us doing so.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk102215dAPR20151021084553.jpg

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk102215dAPR20151021084553.jpg

Haha.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk102215dAPR20151021084553.jpg

[Serenity Now]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk102215dAPR20151021084553.jpg

olevet is going to roast you for this and call you an idget.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

olevet is going to roast you for this and call you an idget.Compared to the Leftists here?...maybe not.

[olevetonahill]

olevet is going to roast you for this and call you an idget.

Naw. I like Rush, You? Not so much!

[Serenity Now]

Naw. I like Rush, You? Not so much!
Shiitbirds of a feather...

[olevetonahill]

Shiitbirds of a feather...

Speaking of such I have noticed you an 5-0 and that there Prophet feller eatin out the same pile of Poop!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Speaking of such I have noticed you(Serenity Now) an 5-0 and that there Prophet feller eatin out the same pile of Poop!Them'r some of the modren, enlightened brand of 'mericans. They represent the Post Americans.