Republican introduces Federal gun control legislation....

Yeah, sucks...always kinda like Rubio. But come on, the "You voted for these people" is kinda pushing it...none of the representatives mentioned in that article have ever been on a ballot I could have voted for.
 
B00ger said:
...none of the representatives mentioned in that article have ever been on a ballot I could have voted for.
Click to expand...

Neither was Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They get a bye, too?

But the GOP, the pro-gun, NRA approved party? The party that it's absolutely critical be given/stay in power to protect our Second Amendment Rights?

It may be harsh - but party men eventually get ground under the heel of the Party.
 
SPM said:
Neither was Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They get a bye, too?

But the GOP, the pro-gun, NRA approved party? The party that it's absolutely critical be given/stay in power to protect our Second Amendment Rights?

It may be harsh - but party men eventually get ground under the heel of the Party.
Click to expand...

Easy bro, just think you are throwing shade where it really isn't called for. None of those socialists have been on the ballot around here either, so, not sure how anyone here is responsible for them. Now, if Budd, Fox, and some of the other NC/SC reps start some mess, then we can talk culpability.
 
Last edited:
What did you expect from Pretty Boy and Rino Collins?
 
Collins is a C+ on NRA. Unfortunately Rubio is a B+, which may change. Or may not. Neither exactly stalwarts of the 2A.

You do realize it's a bit disingenuous to lump them in with supporters, right? And we primaryed Rubio out of the race in 2016. But hey, whatever it takes to take a swipe at your political opposition I guess.
 
Rubio is a globalist, who is quite happy to have unfettered immigration. Fix the GOP by replacing globalists with nationalists every chance you get in the primaries.

If someone more nationalist than quasi-nationalist Trump challenges him in the GOP primary, I'll vote for the nationalist. But if Trump wins the primary, then I'll vote for him over whoever the Dems put up.
 
Last edited:
The House is lost and has already promised they will be pushing gun control. All 47 D's in the Senate will vote against us. All the gun grabbers need is four Senate R's to vote with the commies. And here we see they already have two. It's not looking good.
 
JimB said:
You are misusing that saying, if you don’t vote you don’t have a reason to complain, but if you voted you did your part and can complain about whatever you want, including if the person you voted for flips on the issue that you most care about.
Click to expand...

No, the saying is more often misused than not, and how I have stated it here is correct. George Carlin has more to say on the subject, but this is the open forum. It is available on YouTube.

Your vote is your consent. And many folks here have been warning for years about the harvest of sowing lesser of two evil seeds.

Soon the crops will be ripe, and those who forego principle will be responsible for it.
 
"Because it is always better if a family member, co-worker, or neighbor that has a beef with you can get your guns taken away with no due process…"

I guess I'm in the clear on this one, the only "family member" I have is LJ and since I'm self employed and a one man show, no coworkers and the neighbors are scared shitless of me as it is.
 
Sure, okay, somebody else’s fault, I understand.
 
B00ger said:
Easy bro, just think you are throwing shade where it really isn't called for. None of those socialists have been on the ballot around here either, so, not sure how anyone here is responsible for them. Now, if Budd, Fox, and some of the other NC/SC reps start some mess, then we can talk culpability.
Click to expand...
Eh. Every time someone said they didn’t like Republicans because they have pushed more gun control than the Democrats you get the screaming that lumps you in with Pelosi and the Democrats. His point is valid. I understand that you didn’t vote for any representatives that are pushing it, but he is right when he says that you get lumped in with the enemy if you even suggest voting for your morals.

Edit: And I’m sure plenty of Republicans will say this is a “good compromise” like the bump stock ban was even if there is nothing given in return.
 
Last edited:
STFU Rubio
State issue and most apparently don’t need your encouragement including your anti 2A state of Florida
 
concepthomes1 said:
That’s a fair timeline.

Probably 5 or less of actual, affordable items that should be bought and stored, like ammo and guns.

I’d go as far as saying if you’re not comfortable where you’re living, you have 2 yrs to change that.
Click to expand...




This needed to be said again.
 
Rubio is auditioning for Establishment Republican support for the 2020 election. Establishment Republicans have always said it is "smart" to offer "compromises" to the raving lunatics on the left.
 
MostWanted said:
The House is lost and has already promised they will be pushing gun control. All 47 D's in the Senate will vote against us. All the gun grabbers need is four Senate R's to vote with the commies. And here we see they already have two. It's not looking good.
Click to expand...

Check your math. Bills for laws still require 60 votes to pass in the Senate.
 
gc70 said:
Check your math. Bills for laws still require 60 votes to pass in the Senate.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

Filibustered bills require a three-fifths majority to overcome the cloture vote (which usually means 60 votes) and get to the normal vote where a simple majority (usually 51 votes) approves the bill. This has caused some news media to confuse the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster with the 51 votes needed to approve a bill, with for example USA Today erroneously stating "The vote was 58-39 in favor of the provision establishing concealed carry permit reciprocity in the 48 states that have concealed weapons laws. That fell two votes short of the 60 needed to approve the measure".[43]
 
dmarbell said:
From Wikipedia:

Filibustered bills require a three-fifths majority to overcome the cloture vote (which usually means 60 votes) and get to the normal vote where a simple majority (usually 51 votes) approves the bill. This has caused some news media to confuse the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster with the 51 votes needed to approve a bill, with for example USA Today erroneously stating "The vote was 58-39 in favor of the provision establishing concealed carry permit reciprocity in the 48 states that have concealed weapons laws. That fell two votes short of the 60 needed to approve the measure".[43]
Click to expand...

After the Newtown shooting, when it looked like Obama was going to get the gun control he wanted, they had seven Republican Senators, including NC's own Richard Burr, vote to open discussion on a gun control bill. That's not the same as a cloture vote, but it still required 60 votes and moved the bill forward. Without those defections, the bill would have died right there, but Burr kept it alive because he felt that there was nothing wrong with talking about it. And he's an NRA darling, too.
 
I am sure y’all know this but I need to vent so I’ll write anyway:
Make no mistake, red flag bills are nothing less than confiscation schemes - turning a brother on a brother, a wife on a husband, kids on their parents will allow the government to achieve the confiscation that they have been dreaming of.
 
@B00ger and @SPM are both correct. While our particular reps may no support the gun grabbbing the party as a whole won’t stop it. I think it’s debatable whether the party can be saved via primaries. They talk enough about gays and abortion to keep the “values voters” coming back to the trough while continuing to extract more and more monetary wealth from the people and give it to their corporate pimps.
 
JimB said:
You are misusing that saying, if you don’t vote you don’t have a reason to complain, but if you voted you did your part and can complain about whatever you want, including if the person you voted for flips on the issue that you most care about.
Click to expand...

I've never bought that. If your tax dollars pay these POS's salary, whether you voted or not, you get the right to gripe.
 
premise said:
I've never bought that. If your tax dollars pay these POS's salary, whether you voted or not, you get the right to gripe.
Click to expand...
I think the message is that if you didn’t even try to affect the outcome then your whining is just that and you must not really care much because you didn’t do the easiest thing you could have done.
 
JimB said:
I think the message is that if you didn’t even try to affect the outcome then your whining is just that and you must not really care much because you didn’t do the easiest thing you could have done.
Click to expand...
So to get a say when you don’t like any candidates means you must pick which evil is the best for you?
 
ChickenHawk said:
So to get a say when you don’t like any candidates means you must pick which evil is the best for you?
Click to expand...
It’s just a saying, don’t read too much into it. That said, in our form of government, not voting is an obviously unproductive form of protest.
 
JimB said:
It’s just a saying, don’t read too much into it. That said, in our form of government, not voting is an obviously unproductive form of protest.
Click to expand...
But what is a better form of protest? You condemn without offering an alternative.
 
B00ger said:
Write in. At least then you show up as a vote. We start pushing up the “other” category maybe it will get noticed more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
And I am all for that. It just bothers me when someone runs something down without offering an alternative.
 
I think voting laws should be such that candidates can't be elected if their vote count doesn't represent at least 80% or similar magnitude of the registered voters in their party and in their respective locale they would represent. People wouldn't have to reluctantly vote for the lesser evil in lieu of voting for an actual representative.
 
Matt.Cross said:
I think voting laws should be such that candidates can't be elected if their vote count doesn't represent at least 80% or similar magnitude of the registered voters in their party and in their respective locale they would represent. People wouldn't have to reluctantly vote for the lesser evil in lieu of voting for an actual representative.
Click to expand...

I feel we should be able to cast two votes. Not for the same person, but would give a “best two out of X”.

In practice, it would give a third party a real chance. Nowadays people vote R or D. If each person got 2 voted, they could pick their top pick, then second best. So, if you really like the third party, vote it. Then vote for the next best.

Heck, even when the office is deciding on what to serve at the next luncheon we all pick a few and they take the top few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"Red flag" laws....

Yeah...it'll start with family members determining if someone poses a risk, but just wait. I guarandamntee that eventually, an individual will commit a mass shooting and .gov will step in and claim, "Well, the shooter's family never reported him as a potential risk. It's clear that family members cannot always pick up on the signs."

Now, guess who gets to determine whether or not an individual is a "risk"? You guessed it; .gov. Certain they'll claim with the technology they possess, they'll be able to scour the net/social media and recognize signs that maybe, family members/others don't.

And there ya have it...confiscation.

And don't think for one second the slimy bastards won't do it.
 
Last edited:
wsfiredude said:
"Red flag" laws....

Yeah...it'll start with family members determining if someone poses a risk, but just wait. I guarandamntee that eventually, an individual will commit a mass shooting and .gov will step in and claim, "Well, the shooter's family never reported him as a potential risk. It's clear that family members cannot always pick up on the signs."

Now, guess who gets to determine whether or not an individual is a "risk"? You guessed it; .gov. Certain they'll claim with the technology they possess, they'll be able to scour the net/social media and recognize signs that maybe, family members/others don't.

And there ya have it...confiscation.

And don't think for one second the slimy bastards won't do it.
Click to expand...

I would be more concerned with .gov expanding who could report a person to included so-called friends, neighbors and people who were simply encountered for one reason or another.
 
This Red Flag business took hold when people called the Parkland Sheriff 20+ times to tell them that this kid is dangerous. Sheriff failed to do anything about it and people died. So rather than holding Sheriff accountable, they want to give individuals the ability to do what the authorities didn't. Government never holds itself accountable for anything, it just gets bigger and more powerful after every failure.
 
Last edited:
Goofyfoot2001 said:
Never mind the Trump took a giant squat over the 2nd Amendment a few weeks ago, we already have red flag laws, they just require due process. But, this guy explains it.

Click to expand...


Progressives; Sawing Off The Branch They're Sitting On. SO TRUE!

Sadly,, LMAO

Over the holidays , wife and I were at a party ~ get together in a very Up-Scale neighborhood, $350,000 plus.

Current events , including "The Wall" were gingerly discussed in which the 2A was deemed outdated, 1A ( all of it ) was deemed Hate Speech and the Hell with Freedom to Assemble unless it was for the Progressive cause, etc,,,.

I raised Rational Arguments for a Wall with all being Quietly Dismissed by others citing The UN's stance on "The Human Toll ~ Rights", etc.

I then stated, " So since everyone here is NOT in favor of border security because of "Global Human Rights" , " If several posters were displayed all across our Southern Border the read something like, >>"" Kannapolis, NC or BUST " with this address listed as well as a Safe Destination you all would be Just Fine with that? I mean your New Central American Neighbors could setup camp just over your property line in the adjoining woods and come to think of it I'm sure you wouldn't mind setting up a bathroom rotation in your house to make it easier for your New Neighbors to tend to their hygiene. "

Yup, well, went Down Hill from there as others expressed Outrage and Dismay as that is not what they meant and how would a Sign get posted on the Border to their address,, etc, etc...

My response, "So it's OK if it's in someone else's Backyard, Yes?"

Yup, wife and I left a little early, No Problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom