05-10-2018, 11:25 AM
I've been told that I'm incorrect when I point to gun laws in deep blue states and explain that the end game for politicans from those states is confiscation. I've been told I "rant" about things that will never happen. I've heard that "no one is trying to take your guns". Well, that's the latest lie from the gun control side that was recently exposed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/questions-answers-lawmaker-who-wants-your-assault-weapons-n871531
Hmm, sounds an awful lot like confiscation to me.
Sounds an awful lot like confiscation to me. Let's ignore the fact that the weapons this congressman wants to confiscate from law abiding citizens are used in a minute fraction of gun crimes. So minute that knives and clubs account for significantly more deaths per year. This guy wants the federal government to take your guns, your legally purchased property because "feelings". The usual suspects here ignored or spun Hillary's comments on looking at the Australia model. Seems this person didn't get the message that she wasn't serious. Please now explain to me that this bill won't pass and how the end game of the gun control side isn't confiscation simply because they don't, yet, have the means to achieve it. Should be interesting.
P.S.
Here's the latest bullshit from the CA legislature. They want background checks for firearms "precursors", meaning barrels, uppers, magazines, speed loaders, etc.
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/california-bill-would-enact-staggering-new-firearms-parts-regulations/#axzz5F6oK3qHH
I tried to find the CA government page on the bill, couldn't find it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/questions-answers-lawmaker-who-wants-your-assault-weapons-n871531
Quote:I thought about the different ways to address it, with a lot of respect for the assault weapons ban that was in place and expired, but once I gave it careful thought and listened to these students I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities. But while recognizing that people bought them when they were legal and there should be compensation during a grace period ideally to buy them back and then a ban on possession.
Hmm, sounds an awful lot like confiscation to me.
Quote:I have great faith that most Americans are law-abiding and care about the rule of law and if they're told a weapon is no longer allowed in their community and they would be compensated they would find a way to do the right thing. If somebody doesn't sell it back and doesn't keep it in a secure place then, yeah, they would be subjected to stiff penalties.
Sounds an awful lot like confiscation to me. Let's ignore the fact that the weapons this congressman wants to confiscate from law abiding citizens are used in a minute fraction of gun crimes. So minute that knives and clubs account for significantly more deaths per year. This guy wants the federal government to take your guns, your legally purchased property because "feelings". The usual suspects here ignored or spun Hillary's comments on looking at the Australia model. Seems this person didn't get the message that she wasn't serious. Please now explain to me that this bill won't pass and how the end game of the gun control side isn't confiscation simply because they don't, yet, have the means to achieve it. Should be interesting.
P.S.
Here's the latest bullshit from the CA legislature. They want background checks for firearms "precursors", meaning barrels, uppers, magazines, speed loaders, etc.
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/california-bill-would-enact-staggering-new-firearms-parts-regulations/#axzz5F6oK3qHH
I tried to find the CA government page on the bill, couldn't find it.
