Why You Should Question the Feds

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

hey bro, protip: if you're getting the majority of your info on a topic from a youtube video, it's probably not actually true.

Everything on the internet is true or they wouldn't put it there.

[errand]

[errand]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

hey bro, protip: if you're getting the majority of your info on a topic from a youtube video, it's probably not actually true.

Really? so you're claiming his speech where he says we need a civillian security force that is as well armed, equipped and funded as our military is a fake?

[errand]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

Everything on the internet is true or they wouldn't put it there.

They were his exact words...I didn't say them....your fearless leader did

[broncosteven]

3 1/2 years before we get a brand new President. He might be a democrat or Republican or maybe some new NRA type party. So maybe we can hold off on the Gun War for a couple years? This way you can stock up on ammo and after some lame republican with ties to Saudi Kings and oil gets voted in you can just shoot all your stock piled Ammo into the air after the new guy gets voted in.

[errand]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

3 1/2 years before we get a brand new President. He might be a democrat or Republican or maybe some new NRA type party. So maybe we can hold off on the Gun War for a couple years? This way you can stock up on ammo and after some lame republican with ties to Saudi Kings and oil gets voted in you can just shoot all your stock piled Ammo into the air after the new guy gets voted in.

...funny **** man.

Think of it like this dude....if that does happen, you're gonna have the Republicans running your healthcare. Careful what you wish for.....

[driver]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

hey bro, protip: if you're getting the majority of your info on a topic from a youtube video, it's probably not actually true.

I never do!
Check it out for yourself.
FBO.GOV
FBO stands for Federal business Office all solicitation for purchases "must be listed there".

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by driver

I never do!
Check it out for yourself.
FBO.GOV
FBO stands for Federal business Office all solicitation for purchases "must be listed there".

Architect of the capitol?

[errand]

nothing to worry about huh broncosteven?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...become-felons/

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-d...al-from-public

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by errand

nothing to worry about huh broncosteven?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...become-felons/

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-d...al-from-public

McLaughlin posted a list of Democratic proposals that were rejected:

Confiscation of "assault weapons."
Confiscation of ten round clips.
Statewide database for all guns.
Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public.
Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than five rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons.”
Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to five and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines.
Limit possession to no more than two magazines.
Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month.
Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners.
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years.
State issued pistol permits.
Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State.
Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers.
Mandatory locking of guns at home.
Fee for licensing, registering weapons.\\




Considering I don't have a gun I am good with all of this. I think this is fair. If You need to shoot an automatic machine gun then join the armed forces or join up the National guard and then you guys can play a live drill of CApture the Flag.

[driver]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

Architect of the capitol?

They take bids for toilet paper, condoms too and bullets.

[Inkana7]

Originally Posted by errand

Really? so you're claiming his speech where he says we need a civillian security force that is as well armed, equipped and funded as our military is a fake?

doop doop doop

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/oba...ecurity-force/

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

Know what else I hate!

When they have pepsi on sale and there is a limit to how many cases I can buy and I have to have my kid follow behind me with another couple cases or I have to go back in and get in a different line. It is not everyday you can get 4 cases of Pepsi for $4.99 each.

The man is keeping me down!

Know what I hate?

When the federal government passes a law that says if I buy a firearm from my neighbor I must pass a background check. So I have to have my wife or her sister go down and pass the background check and buy the gun for me. What a hassle!

The man ain't keeping me down.

[errand]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

McLaughlin posted a list of Democratic proposals that were rejected:

Confiscation of "assault weapons."
Confiscation of ten round clips.
Statewide database for all guns.
Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public.
Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than five rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons.”
Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to five and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines.
Limit possession to no more than two magazines.
Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month.
Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners.
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years.
State issued pistol permits.
Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State.
Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers.
Mandatory locking of guns at home.
Fee for licensing, registering weapons.\\




Considering I don't have a gun I am good with all of this. I think this is fair. If You need to shoot an automatic machine gun then join the armed forces or join up the National guard and then you guys can play a live drill of CApture the Flag.

Yeah, they got rejected....so the fact that it is even being suggested or submitted doesn't give you cause to ponder the long term implications?

I highlighted the key words.....typical words used when the government is trying to control you and take away your freedoms.....forget that they're talking about guns.....what if they were talking about free speech?

I don't own a newspaper, a radio station, write a blog, or own a TV station so I should be OK with that? GTFO of here!


What if they were talking about any other rights listed in the Bill of Rights?

[errand]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

doop doop doop

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/oba...ecurity-force/

So, your internet source is telling the truth, and mine is lying....OK, got it.

your source says that Obama wasn't talking about an armed security force...but yet he says in the speech he wants us to have a civilian security force that is just as strong, just as powerful, and as well funded as our military

sorry, but his words are his words......

[Endy]

I think its funny that anybody would ever believe that our military, which is composed of many people who really don't like Obama, would ever follow his orders to take over the entire country.

If you really believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you and this stock you really need to buy, which is totally can't miss.

And the "Civilian Security Force"? If you are afraid of the Peace Corp then you've got bigger problems than the President.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/oba...ecurity-force/

Ironic how the internet is the world's largest cache of information, yet also the world's largest cache of ignorant people.

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by errand

Yeah, they got rejected....so the fact that it is even being suggested or submitted doesn't give you cause to ponder the long term implications?

I highlighted the key words.....typical words used when the government is trying to control you and take away your freedoms.....forget that they're talking about guns.....what if they were talking about free speech?

I don't own a newspaper, a radio station, write a blog, or own a TV station so I should be OK with that? GTFO of here!


What if they were talking about any other rights listed in the Bill of Rights?

You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.

If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.

Just like the banking system. The government is not trying to control the banks through regulation, they are stepping in because the banks could not regulate themselves.

I would bet more than not that anywhere there is regulation, there was an abuse of power that led to the regulation being inacted.

Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.

[mkporter]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

With the war on terror and the US Military, that 10-12 billion rounds gets soaked up quickly. The US Federal government is supposed to have it's own ammo producing facility but they have that thing maxed out already. So now they are absorbing up all the other ammo producers with this bogus purchase of 1.6 billion rounds JUST FOR THE FEDS.

That 10-12 billion number was for non gov't sources. With 300 Million guns in this country, that comes out to 40 bullets per gun per year. I hope most of you gun owners use a lot more than that each year to stay proficient with your fire arms, and ensure that they are in proper working order.

The reason there has been such a mad rush by the average US citizen to buy guns and ammo if because people are scared of the current administration and rightly so. Just look at this DHS BS buying up 1.6 billion rounds of ammo just for the Feds. Add in the fact that there's already legislation being written to limit magazine capacity and types of guns you can own and that is why people are buying everything is sight. People are paranoid and BO is not helping the situation.

You hit the nail on the head here. People are paranoid. But what has BO really done to warrant this type of paranoia? Pretty much nothing in the way of gun legislation in his first term, even though he had a democratic senate and congress for a couple of years. It clearly wasn't one of his priorities. The only reason there is legislation now is that the general public wants it because of the horrific gun incidents recently. But here, he's just responding to public pressure. And the DHS contracts (note that they have not purchased all of this ammo, they just have contract with manufacturers that allow them to purchase this much) have come well after the general public's gun's and ammo surge, and are for a 5 year duration which limits the market impact. The problem is the cost of copper. Go yell at the Chinese.

This is a power play by the feds. It's nothing more than limiting the ability of the average citizen to buy ammo. Not only that, it limits local law enforcement too although I'm sure they will get priority over the average joe. The next thing that will happen is the feds will limit the amount of ammo you can buy at one time (they are already trying to stop online ammo purchases) and they will then slap a 50% tax on all ammo purchases.

The feds don't care about the states. They don't care about the people in Wyoming. They don't care about the local police who really are the FIRST RESPONDERS to an attack or a problem. Nope, the feds only car about Big Brother.

I just don't see why anyone thinks that this administration gives a rat's ass about private gun ownership. Find me some legislation that Obama put any effort into passing during his first term. What happened after Ft Hood? What happened after Giffords was shot? What happened after Virginia Tech? "We need to have a serious discussion about guns!" End of story. What happened after Aurora? "We need to have a serious discussion about guns!" Nothing happened. Then Sandy Hook happened, and for those of us who are not nut jobs who think it was faked, it was pretty much one of the most horrific things you can imagine. The build up of all these events has created significant pressure from a majority of the general public (You know, the citizens of the united states) to do something to address gun control. Politicians being who they are, follow suit with proposed legislation.

Even after all this, despite many conservatives beliefs otherwise, most liberals, myself and pretty much everyone I know included, still support the right to own firearms. We just think it's reasonable to discuss what the bounds of these rights should be. All rights have bounds, because if extended without bounds, your rights will begin to infringe on mine. Even the most revered right in our amended constitution, the freedom of speech, has it's limits. The 2nd amendment is no different.

Remember, that while we disagree on many issues, liberal's are not the opposites of conservatives. Lower taxes might always be the answer for the right, but that doesn't mean higher taxes are always the answer for the left. Unrestricted firearm ownership may be the goal of the right, but that doesn't mean that the left wants to eliminate firearm ownership. That's just a fantasy.

I'm 1000x more likely to get intentionally or accidentally shot by a private, previously law abiding citizen, than I am to suffer from a tyrannical government takeover, not even to mention non-law abiding citizens. You'll have to pardon me for playing the odds and being more concerned about how we regulate guns. Same reason why I'm glad we've put so much emphasis on regulating car ownership and usage. Gotta play the odds.

[Inkana7]

Originally Posted by errand

So, your internet source is telling the truth, and mine is lying....OK, got it.

your source says that Obama wasn't talking about an armed security force...but yet he says in the speech he wants us to have a civilian security force that is just as strong, just as powerful, and as well funded as our military

sorry, but his words are his words......

Dude, my internet source actually uses all of Obama's speech, in which he was talking about the goddamn Peace Corps.

[rugbythug]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.

If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.

Just like the banking system. The government is not trying to control the banks through regulation, they are stepping in because the banks could not regulate themselves.

I would bet more than not that anywhere there is regulation, there was an abuse of power that led to the regulation being inacted.

Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.

Let me get this straight the Public can't help themselves they need the Gov't to control them? Really?

Just put me down for the opposite of that.

The Gov't can't control themselves and require the people to control them.

[rugbythug]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.

If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.

Just like the banking system. The government is not trying to control the banks through regulation, they are stepping in because the banks could not regulate themselves.

I would bet more than not that anywhere there is regulation, there was an abuse of power that led to the regulation being inacted.

Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.

Let me get this straight the Public can't help themselves they need the Gov't to control them? Really?

Just put me down for the opposite of that.

The Gov't can't control themselves and require the people to control them.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by mkporter

That 10-12 billion number was for non gov't sources. With 300 Million guns in this country, that comes out to 40 bullets per gun per year. I hope most of you gun owners use a lot more than that each year to stay proficient with your fire arms, and ensure that they are in proper working order.



You hit the nail on the head here. People are paranoid. But what has BO really done to warrant this type of paranoia? Pretty much nothing in the way of gun legislation in his first term, even though he had a democratic senate and congress for a couple of years. It clearly wasn't one of his priorities. The only reason there is legislation now is that the general public wants it because of the horrific gun incidents recently. But here, he's just responding to public pressure. And the DHS contracts (note that they have not purchased all of this ammo, they just have contract with manufacturers that allow them to purchase this much) have come well after the general public's gun's and ammo surge, and are for a 5 year duration which limits the market impact. The problem is the cost of copper. Go yell at the Chinese.



I just don't see why anyone thinks that this administration gives a rat's ass about private gun ownership. Find me some legislation that Obama put any effort into passing during his first term. 1.What happened after Ft Hood? What happened after Giffords was shot? What happened after Virginia Tech? "We need to have a serious discussion about guns!" End of story. What happened after Aurora? "We need to have a serious discussion about guns!" Nothing happened. Then Sandy Hook happened, and for those of us who are not nut jobs who think it was faked, it was pretty much one of the most horrific things you can imagine. The build up of all these events has created significant pressure from a majority of the general public (You know, the citizens of the united states) to do something to address gun control. Politicians being who they are, follow suit with proposed legislation.

Even after all this, despite many conservatives beliefs otherwise, most liberals, myself and pretty much everyone I know included, still support the right to own firearms. We just think it's reasonable to discuss what the bounds of these rights should be. All rights have bounds, because if extended without bounds, your rights will begin to infringe on mine. Even the most revered right in our amended constitution, the freedom of speech, has it's limits. 2.The 2nd amendment is no different.

Remember, that while we disagree on many issues, liberal's are not the opposites of conservatives. Lower taxes might always be the answer for the right, but that doesn't mean higher taxes are always the answer for the left. 3.Unrestricted firearm ownership may be the goal of the right, but that doesn't mean that the left wants to eliminate firearm ownership. That's just a fantasy.

4.I'm 1000x more likely to get intentionally or accidentally shot by a private, previously law abiding citizen, than I am to suffer from a tyrannical government takeover, not even to mention non-law abiding citizens. You'll have to pardon me for playing the odds and being more concerned about how we regulate guns. Same reason why I'm glad we've put so much emphasis on regulating car ownership and usage. Gotta play the odds.

1. All those incidents involved people who already broke the laws on the books. Again, you are talking about people who broke laws to carry out killings and crimes and again, you are now punishing all law abiding citizens for the acts of a few. We live in a country of 300m people and you just pointed out what, 5 incidents where some crazy nuts went ballistic on innocent people? Again, over and over and again, this is the act of insane people that broke multiple laws to perpetrate crimes.

If you are going to restrict gun rights for everyone based on the sick actions of a few sick people, then you better also put laws in the books about the violence Hollywood and the video game industry pump out to the masses. If you want to blame the violent incidents on the availability of guns and NOT on the individual's responsible for these horrific crimes then you have to point the finger at the entertainment and gaming industry for spewing out violent movies and games over the last 40 years that coincide with these incidents.

Yes?? You cannot argue with me on this point. I will only accept a YES from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

2. There are already restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I can't own a fully automatic gun. I can't own a rocket launcher. I can't own plastic explosives and such. I can't own an armed tank nor an armed jet. I can't own an armed helicopter, etc., etc., etc.

3. See point 2. Nobody is asking for "unrestricted right to bear 'arms'".

4. You simply cannot predict the future. Just because the feds up to this point and time haveing invaded your home and put a gun to your head and forced you to do something you didn't want to do does not mean this won't happen in the future, even in the immediate future. You are banking on the past which limited government much more than today and the foreseeable future. I'll take my chances with an armed law abiding citizen any day of the week over trusting the federal government with my safety.

[jerseyboiler120]

The 2nd amendment was created to enable civilians to protect themselves from the government should it get out of control. So, now that the government is trying to take this defense away, what does that tell you?

[Requiem]

Move this **** to WRP.