Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson
Own a gun = loss of rights."I don't believe gun owners have rights." Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997
I think they should all have background checks. If a person can't pass a background check to be able to purchase a firearm, they can't run for public office.WildBill wrote:Maybe we should arrest all people who run for public office. Some of them are very likely to commit crimes.
Oh, I don't think that's true at all.....I think most of them are.WildBill wrote:Maybe we should arrest all people who run for public office. Some of them are very likely to commit crimes.
I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.VMI77 wrote:Oh, I don't think that's true at all.....I think most of them are.WildBill wrote:Maybe we should arrest all people who run for public office. Some of them are very likely to commit crimes.
In the first place it doesn't matter which guns they want to take (first) it's remains a fact that those quoted want to take our guns. They still want to confiscate guns even if they only come after "assault rifles." I've had an AR-15 since the early seventies so it's not like in 1994 they were after some new threat to society. Andy recently posted a 1994 letter from Handgun Control and there was no taking it out of context. It was very explicit and said they want to ban ALL guns, including air rifles and BB guns, and including antique firearms, and even civil war reenactments. These quotes you're claiming to be out of context, to the extent they are out of context, merely reflect the fact that the gun grabbers have become cagey enough to hide their true objectives from the masses. Furthermore, since "assault rifles" are not significantly involved with crime, it should be clear to you that they represent an establishment of precedent by harvesting the low hanging fruit. If they can get your AR-15 they can take your 30-30.cb1000rider wrote:To be fair here, we could probably find some examples of some pretty extreme pro-gun views in the last 14 years or so.. Some of these quotes go back to 2001... Perhaps earlier.
How many of you take one sentence quotes, completely out of context, and form an opinion on them? Because that's what this article has quite successfully done... To me, this is nothing but a testament to how well misinformation spreads.. Because this thing has been passed around for over a decade, which a surprising lack of any amount of critical thinking attached....
As near as I can tell most of these were taken out of context and are meant to apply to "assault weapons" - back during that scare-fest. And I certainly don't defend the parties quoted as pro-gun advocates, but there is a HUGE difference (to me) in suggesting that it's time to ban all weapons (which is what we are lead to believe) and suggesting that we ban certain types of assault weapons during a period of public outcry and polit-pandering reaction. Note, I don't support "assault weapon" bans either, but that's not what we're lead to believe is being suggested here.
When people on our side spin and bend the truth, I think that's much more offensive than actually making statements like this - in context. I'm not a sheep. I don't want to choose a side based on misinformation and I'm quite intolerant of this sort of thing... I find is disgusting that both sides use it and I think it reflects on the intelligence of the American people very poorly.
I understand your attempt at fairness, but in all fairness, when someone makes public comment using their position of influence whether it be as an elected official, appointed official, or their perceived importance as a celebrity, in very rare situations are their remarks taken out of context by freedom loving 2A supporters.cb1000rider wrote:To be fair here, SNIP
To quote one of my favorite lines from the movie Ronin: "Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt. That's the first thing they teach you."WildBill wrote:I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.VMI77 wrote:Oh, I don't think that's true at all.....I think most of them are.WildBill wrote:Maybe we should arrest all people who run for public office. Some of them are very likely to commit crimes.
I agree that they mean what they say, but the context is very important... Perhaps more important than a single sentence. That goes for anything that you're going to quote.anygunanywhere wrote: They mean what they say.
I take people at their word. Their word is enough context for me. I don't need amplification, explanation, or clarification.cb1000rider wrote:I agree that they mean what they say, but the context is very important... Perhaps more important than a single sentence. That goes for anything that you're going to quote.anygunanywhere wrote: They mean what they say.
None of these people get kudos for being pro-2nd amendment, but none of them are actively seeking to ban all firearm ownership openly.. We can all guess what's going on behind the scenes, but none of these cases were calls to take all firearms from all persons.
If you think that wanting to ban AR-15s during a period of political pressure - or heck any period - is the same as wanting to confiscate all guns, then we'll have to disagree... We could agree that it's bad.. We could agree that it's a first step toward something more substantial, but I can't call it what it isn't.
They always talk about repealing the 2A. The BOR enumerates rights we have. It does not grant them. God gave us these rights. If they think that removing the 2A changes anything they will be sorely surprise at the unintended consequences.Jaguar wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -Amendment
Nope, they don't want to ban guns.