Actually, the mystery that I try to understand is why we elect office holders who vote against the will of the people. During the 12 years I spent in elective office, I often voted the opposite of how I personally felt because I believed it was my responsibility to vote the way the people who elected me felt. But that is just my personal moral code.
I do not disagree with any of you that registration is a way to find out who has guns and confiscate them, but my greater concern is that all of us who own weapons are being depicted as unstable because a few of us have set bad examples. Personally, I do not see the need to own an AK47 with a 40 round clip. If you can’t bring a deer or a hog down with one or two shots, you shouldn’t own the weapon in the first place. I’m a southern farm boy and that is how I was brought up.
Folks, we are not in the majority in this country and if our fellow Americans get scared enough about gun ownership, they will vote to restrict it. Not every conservative Republican is a gun owner and not every gun owner is a Republican, conservative or otherwise. The most conservative Republican congressman knows that he or she needs the support of their electorate to get re-elected and if a majority of their electorate is for some type of gun control, only a fool would vote against it, but that fool will only do it once because in less than two years, the people will have elected a candidate who promised to vote for it.
There must be some middle ground, some compromises that we achieve. For example, I am totally in favor of background checks and waiting periods for purchasing weapons. Remember, every right we have has a matching responsibility with it. Your thoughts. . .
Did you ever vote in such a way as to uphold the Constitution that you had sworn to uphold, the will of the people be damned? If not, you should reconsider your personal moral code. There is a right to keep and bear arms, and unless you amend the Constitution to remove that right, it is your duty to protect that right, irrespective of the will of the people.
I do not disagree with any of you that registration is a way to find out who has guns and confiscate them, but my greater concern is that all of us who own weapons are being depicted as unstable because a few of us have set bad examples.
But, that attitude amounts to simple bigotry, the same way that white supremists paint all black people as rapists and murderers, because of the actions of a few of them. Neither attitude deserves any place at the table of public policy formation. Unfortunately, only one of these attitudes gets the scorn they both deserve - the other seems to have found a cozy home in the legislatures of many of the states, and in the federal government.
Personally, I do not see the need to own an AK47 with a 40 round clip.
Personally, I don't care what you think I need. It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Nobody needs a sports car, indoor plumbing, spices, or a home more than 900 square feet, either. That doesn't mean the government should have the power to prohibit these unnecessary items. In a free country, if someone wants something and works to obtain enough money to buy it, that alone should be enough right there. End of discussion.
If you can’t bring a deer or a hog down with one or two shots, you shouldn’t own the weapon in the first place. I’m a southern farm boy and that is how I was brought up.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Gun ownership isn't about hunting only. Self defense against criminals and tyrants is a lot more important than some recreational or sporting use. Hunting has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, except that it's good practice.
Folks, we are not in the majority in this country and if our fellow Americans get scared enough about gun ownership, they will vote to restrict it.
Only because spineless lesgislators like yourself violate your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, which clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Not every conservative Republican is a gun owner and not every gun owner is a Republican, conservative or otherwise. The most conservative Republican congressman knows that he or she needs the support of their electorate to get re-elected and if a majority of their electorate is for some type of gun control, only a fool would vote against it, but that fool will only do it once because in less than two years, the people will have elected a candidate who promised to vote for it.
You clearly have the 'rat talking points memo. Gun rights have scored major victories in several of the last elections. The Republican Revolution in '94 was because of the AWB, Gore lost the presidency because of the NRA, and so did Kerry. They even admit it.
There must be some middle ground, some compromises that we achieve. For example, I am totally in favor of background checks and waiting periods for purchasing weapons. Remember, every right we have has a matching responsibility with it. Your thoughts. . .
Compromise means getting something by giving something else up. You propose giving up firearms transactional privacy and immediacy, by mandating all such transactions are reported to the government, and by forcing a delay. But what do you propose to get in exchange? Nothing. You use the word compromise in the same disingenuous way as do the gun grabbers - you mean "gradual surrender," you don't mean compromise at all. I really resent the way gun grabbers redefine words to suit their ends.
Furthermore, neither such proposal has been shown to have any beneficial effect whatsoever, and both have led to harms. Background checks means officers are checking up on legitimate gun buyers, which means they aren't on the streets catching criminals. It also means they might be stopping a legitimate transaction, because the intended buyer has the same name as a criminal. (Which means, his right is violated because of a paperwork error.) Waiting periods serve no function to people who already own guns (if I wanted to suddenly blow someone away, I could do it with a gun I already own, so delaying a new transaction for 2 weeks accomplishes nothing in the way of safety). Furthermore, there have been several cases of people, primarily women, who suddenly found a need to become armed, such as because an estranged ex-husband has announced his intention to come kill her, and she was denied an immediate purchase thanks to the waiting period, and then she was killed. Her blood, and I say again there have been several such cases, is on your hands.
In some ways, I think you might be worse than Sarah Brady. She is known, identified enemy of civil rights. But you represent yourself as a "conservative Republican" and nevertheless support her AWB, her magazine capacity limits, her intention to register all guns and all transactions, and to impose arbitrary delays on purchases. You are a Fabian wolf in "Republican" clothing.
are you just being contrarian to get a reaction out of people or do you actually believe the things you are saying?