And yet, accurate. Have you even read some of his posts? He lives in fear, he's basically admitted it. He sees "gun grabbers" behind every door and in every corner. It's entirely accurate.
Actually hes accurate. Registration, in every instance its been used, has been the roadmap for confiscation because officials knew where the legal guns were and later obtained the ability to take them. So to say it cannot happen when it HAS happened in every other instance is more than a little dinsingenuous on your part.
I've already said I would support tax money covering the costs of my ideas of control. So that would make me someone telling the truth, not lying.
After you attempted to not understand what I was talking about. I dont care what YOUR ideas on the subject are, I already know what democrats will do--they will see gun owners as a group they can isolate and tax as much and as hard as they want to, not recognizing this will raise barriers to others to obtain a gun for their self defense.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...te-house-weekly-address-5.html#post1061697800
:lamo
This doesn't even make sense.
It makes complete sense, if you are a gun owner and recognize that gun control states dont respect the rights of gun owners in other states when it comes to gun transport, sale, and registration.
I'll make you a deal. You (and others) don't resort to empty worthless rhetoric and I won't post snarky bull****. Deal?
You are forgetting I read this thread, you cant seem to help yourself.
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about acquiring. You cannot just automatically wish for that to be included in the 2nd Amendment when it's not.
So yes, I'm advocating a system which in no way infringes upon any rights. My system does make it more difficult for you to purchase (but does not prohibit), but does nothing for those who already own.
Aquiring would as a neccessity be part of the keep and bear portion. The fact you are engaging in hair splitting shows how little legal ground you have to tread upon. Infringing upon a right is restricting it, it doesnt have to prohibit it in order to infringe. Thats extremely basic and always ignored by control advocates.
I'm not the aggressor with regards to those who already own a gun. Those people do not change. And we limit what people can purchase all the time. So I guess you could say I'm the aggressor simply because I'm proposing change, but then you'd also have to say the others are being obstinate, for refusing to change.
Im sorry I expect the generations to come after me to have the same freedoms I do. If you feel differently, maybe you shouldnt have the right of assembly or free speech, oh, wait, your grandkids shouldnt. Its an absurd argument when applied to any other right.
You clearly have no idea what people want. For you to continue to claim you do is beyond absurd and, as I said, reeks of paranoia.
Judgement call and yours is clearly impaired---see paragraph immediately above.
Registration with ANY cost attached most definitely will as will your so called grandfather clauses.
To fully understand my previous sentence, please go back and read the posts I've made in which I explain it.
Why bother? You are splitting hairs, denying basic facts and thinking your liberal allies will apply your principles to the legislation when we know from hard experience in so many other areas that they will not. Give a liberal democrat an ability to tax and they will wield it without limit. Give a liberal democrat an ability to restrict and they will five more related items they want to restrict. Trust is something earned, and liberals are deep in the red on this issue.
