-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms October Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson S&W M&P9 M2.COMP***
Manchin and Toomey at it again
- Thread starter copterdoctor
- Start date
It's becoming more clear each day that there is a political, social and global movement in this country to disarm the American people. It is not about safety, gun control or for lawful reasons. The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed, it is the 2nd of ten rights we the people own that govt is restricted by and the only one that specifically identifies our right to enforce those restrictions lawfully and Constitutionally against any enemy either within or outside of this nation regardless of who they may be. That is why they want us disarmed and the only reason. They fear our might and power over them and would make us all slaves, if allowed, to remove that threat to their treason.
Don't fear those who fear your power..
Don't fear those who fear your power..
**** all of that shit. No more "compromises". You should know by now that the anti-liberty crowd will never be satisfied. It will never be enough. Anything you give up is nearly impossible to get back.
Ive said it before and Ill say it again. A compromise goes both ways. Nix the hughes amendment and strike supressors, SBSs and SBRs from the NFA and Ill be ok with a NICS booth at gun shows.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
GM-GUY
NES Member
This, a compromise isn't giving them everything and claiming compromise - I don't think congress knows this - or they think we don't.
It is also true that 0bama is very dangerous - especially now - congress will never hold him accountable or say no. If he did an EO on background checks or banning MSRs - the congress might have a hearing or two.
Last edited:
GM-GUY
NES Member
Background checks will do almost nothing towards their stated goals. If they wanted to prevent crime; you lock up criminals, you treat the mentally ill - in a locked facility if need be, and you focus on real crime - where someone is harmed.
But that isn't their goal, their goal is the same as it has always been, to establish a list and hang another law around the law abiding citizens neck. This law will not and cannot effect criminals as their is court precedent against self incrimination, performing a background check when you are prohibited would cover it.
But that isn't their goal, their goal is the same as it has always been, to establish a list and hang another law around the law abiding citizens neck. This law will not and cannot effect criminals as their is court precedent against self incrimination, performing a background check when you are prohibited would cover it.
Republicans never compromise, they only capitulate.
Glockster30
NES Member
The word "compromise" and the Hughes Amendment should not be used in the same discussion, especially since Congress (the House) did not legally vote to approve the Hughes Amendment.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...y4HABQ&usg=AFQjCNHaxt2OiHqkR3lWWaw0kDh_RDpM-A
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...y4HABQ&usg=AFQjCNHaxt2OiHqkR3lWWaw0kDh_RDpM-A
Isn't NICS instant and can be done over the phone or computer? I just wish that the DOJ would prosecute those charged with crimes, then we could talk about expanded background checks.
I hope they at least vote on it though, just so I can see and laugh about the dejected looks on their smug
faces again...
Looks like they are facing a firing squad (which they probably should be for treason against the US Constitution which they all swore to uphold)
Whutmeworry
NES Member
FIFY
Whutmeworry
NES Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Background checks are the single most anti-2A thing that has ever been done.
1. It allows the government to adbicate it's responsibility to keep violent people removed from society and has shifted that burden to FFL holders and law-abiding gun owners.
2. It has allowed the government to systematically exclude more and more people from gun ownership who have every right as free Americans to defend themselves and their loved ones. After all, they are FREE AMERICANS. If they are not to be trusted with firearms then the .gov has a responsibility TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT FREE!!!
No one in FREE AMERICA (i.e. outside of prison or a mental institution) should EVER have to submit to a background check before purchasing a firearm. Period. Until we make this the prevailing argument for our side, we will continue to lose ground. Though I am an NRA life member, I have to say they failed us big time when they accepted the idea of background checks as a way of avoiding a national 7 day waiting period. The waiting period would have been MUCH easier to repeal.
1. It allows the government to adbicate it's responsibility to keep violent people removed from society and has shifted that burden to FFL holders and law-abiding gun owners.
2. It has allowed the government to systematically exclude more and more people from gun ownership who have every right as free Americans to defend themselves and their loved ones. After all, they are FREE AMERICANS. If they are not to be trusted with firearms then the .gov has a responsibility TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT FREE!!!
No one in FREE AMERICA (i.e. outside of prison or a mental institution) should EVER have to submit to a background check before purchasing a firearm. Period. Until we make this the prevailing argument for our side, we will continue to lose ground. Though I am an NRA life member, I have to say they failed us big time when they accepted the idea of background checks as a way of avoiding a national 7 day waiting period. The waiting period would have been MUCH easier to repeal.
Dadstoys
NES Member
In another time in this country, most of them would have been eligible for a firing squad.
Giving up the Rhineland worked well....
chindogg
NES Member
Oh boy do you have an extra pair of rose colored glasses or two gallons of milk to fill my half full 8 ounce glass? I'm sure if we give them what they want they will finally stop the infringement upon our rights
![[puke2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/031.gif "Puke2 [puke2]")
.- - - Updated - - -
Oh boy do you have an extra pair of rose colored glasses or two gallons of milk to fill my half full 8 ounce glass? I'm sure if we give them what they want they will finally stop the infringement upon our rights
.not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 37,711
- Likes
- 58,763
Oh boy do you have an extra pair of rose colored glasses or two gallons of milk to fill my half full 8 ounce glass? I'm sure if we give them what they want they will finally stop the infringement upon our rights
This is the guy who posted:
Don't expect much.
chindogg
NES Member
Thanks for the info my friend. I just crapped myself laughing. Is that the guy that loves mountain dew but hates sugar? Just kidding.
