TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man

Thomas wrote:
PUCKER wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
AEA wrote:BOTTOM LINE: I am NOT giving mine up, no matter what the law says. They are literally going to have to try and take them, and yes, I WILL fire on an American who is treasonous enough to try and enforce something like that. I've had a good life, and nobody lives forever, and my eternal destiny is a settled matter. Maybe if enough old coots go down fighting, enough young coots will stand up to carry the fight forward. I'm deadly serious about this.
Right next to you...at a "young" 41. This (confiscation of firearms) is the line in the sand that must NOT be crossed!!!
I'm willing to be that a good number people will be making police reports saying that their truck or whatever was broken into and all of their guns were stolen before they had a chance to turn them in.

....or not. There is no requirement to report a theft of your own property, including the theft of a firearm, if I'm not mistaken. It may or may not be wise to do so according to one's conscience, but I don't believe there is any law requiring one to report the theft of a gun.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. My point is that I don't want to bring the gummint into my affairs if it is in any way avoidable. After all, you could be liable to filing a false police report if you weren't telling the truth. Government is never your friend anymore. Might have been at one time, but no longer. If my guns go missing, it's nobody's business but my own.

The Annoyed Man

PUCKER wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:BOTTOM LINE: I am NOT giving mine up, no matter what the law says. They are literally going to have to try and take them, and yes, I WILL fire on an American who is treasonous enough to try and enforce something like that. I've had a good life, and nobody lives forever, and my eternal destiny is a settled matter. Maybe if enough old coots go down fighting, enough young coots will stand up to carry the fight forward. I'm deadly serious about this.
Right next to you...at a "young" 41. This (confiscation of firearms) is the line in the sand that must NOT be crossed!!!

Fixed it for you. Just to be clear, that was my quote, not AEA's.

The Annoyed Man

AEA wrote:Here's another thought.......

If they do end up forcing an AR Ban and it involves a turn in of all existing AR's, we need to get our Congress Critters to force the Govt to pay fair market value to the owner for every one turned in. And we need to make it clear that if our Congress Critters do not get this done, they will be voted out of office at first opportunity.

They think they can just take the guns away without compensation? They think they can offer 50 bux for a 1200+ dollar AR? I don't think so "Timmy".

This needs to be addressed NOW, before it's too late.

I don't wanna give up my AR. And I surely don't want to give it up for nothing considering all the money I have in it.

Why should I? Because of Nut Jobs that propagate the Left's agenda?

And, besides all this, I am willing to bet that MaoBama is behind all of these shootings anyway.

BOTTOM LINE: I am NOT giving mine up, no matter what the law says. They are literally going to have to try and take them, and yes, I WILL fire on an American who is treasonous enough to try and enforce something like that. I've had a good life, and nobody lives forever, and my eternal destiny is a settled matter. Maybe if enough old coots go down fighting, enough young coots will stand up to carry the fight forward. I'm deadly serious about this.

The Annoyed Man

terryg wrote:Actually, I thought it was pretty balanced article overall.

It could have been worse, but I found this part to reveal a sense of the author's views:

Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, are completely frustrated with Congress's unwillingness to strengthen gun laws, despite the mounting body count over the years. For them, an assault-weapons ban is a first step toward bringing some rationality to this country's gun policy.

The implication, of course, is that the author believes the laws are weak. But there isn't a gun-grabber alive that would accept the existing level of restrictions on guns to be applied to their speech rights, and yet, that is what we, the gun-owning public, put up with in order to exercise an enumerated Constitutional right which includes the words "shall not be infringed." That is the ONLY amendment in the entire bill of rights that contains those words, and yet it is already very much infringed, and gun grabbers want to make that infringement downright draconian.
If the author was deliberately without bias, he would have phrased it this way:

Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, are completely frustrated with Congress's unwillingness to make gun laws more restrictive, despite the shooting tragedies over the years. For them, an assault-weapons ban is a first step toward getting guns out of the hands of citizens.

However, a TRUTHFUL author would have written it this way:

Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, are completely frustrated with Congress's unwillingness to trample the 2nd Amendment, even in the face of a complete breakdown of our mental healthcare system over the years. For them, an assault-weapons ban is a first step toward establishing a police state where they can force their policies on a defenseless populace.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 4 matches

Re: Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)

Re: Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)

Re: Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)

Re: Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)