doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com If We Follow Canada's Lead

I went a gun show this past week end and I was shocked at the attendance level...and most were of African decent.

My buddy said at the previous gun show he made a few hundred bucks all weekend, the first day at this one he'd made eleven hundred dollars and he doesn't do back ground checks.

The falling Canadian dollar has little to do with government and more in relation of the biggest commodity Oil ....... That the World Price has fallen and from 146.00 USD to 30.00 USD fact
Following Canada's lead would be to scrap a registry because it didn't work and has cost the taxpayers 10s of millions but our Liberals felt safer and looking down the same road I'm seeing your Liberals looking for the same safety net ....best of luck you'll need it united you must stand!

Well . . . far better to have decent Africans rather than indecent ones.

Did you READ what Keith wrote? Notice the words "Law Abiding" in HIS statement. Notice the words "Convicted Criminals" in YOUR statement.

These are NOT the same thing. You are equating gun control with something it is not, which is criminal control. IF you are a criminal, no guns, period. If you are law abiding, and not a criminal, no restrictions, period.

Think.


Best,
Ted

the need or desire of society to regulate firearms or any other tangible object, should be a local issue and should not be the bidness of the federal gubmint...

Ed, do you recall frantically trying to bait us into foolish discussions about restricting and giving up entire classes of firearms to appease the Anti-Gunners? Do you recall saying:



The most onerous restrictions, infringements, and outright bans on firearms in the U.S. have occurred at the State and Local level. The 2008 Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases were about restrictions that happened at the LOCAL level in Washington D.C. and Chicago. You are making the argument that free and law abiding U.S. citizens should be able to have their Constitutional and Civil Rights taken away from them simply because they have the misfortune to live in a jurisdiction governed by Anti-Gun Liberal Left Democrats. It makes little difference where infringements upon the 2nd Amendment come from Ed. Free and law abiding people still lose some of their freedom.

Here's something for you all to think about. I don't expect Ed Good, King, or dla (sic) to accept it because they have a demonstrable agenda. King has told us that these anti-gun laws are OK because majorities vote for the representatives who pass the laws. Using that logic, it would be OK for white majorities to elect representatives who would reimpose slavery upon blacks. Obama has repeatedly told us that he doesn't expect that his new Universal Background Checks will stop all of the gun violence. But he has used the old argument of "shouldn't we at least try if it will save even one life?"

Sounds reasonable until you remember that Obama adamantly opposed "Kate's Law" and promised to veto any law that would imprison murderous illegal aliens who repeatedly sneak back into the United States and break our laws and kill innocent citizens like Kate Steinle.

No political debate. Just the facts.

keith: sounds like you wish to assert the power of the federal government to usurp the rights of states and municipalities to regulate firearms...sadly, that is not the topic of this thread...perhaps you should start another thread with federal power vs. states rights as its topic?

hopefully, if we keep it civil, dave will permit it...

Neither Ed. Read the 2nd Amendment. It says that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't grant exemptions to either the states, local government, or the Feds. It sure doesn't say that infringements can be done by sidestepping the Congress via Executive Orders. You keep saying that states and local governments should have the power to usurp a Constitutional right. If anyone is being uncivil, it is you.

Please stop Trolling. We all see what your game is.

If we could get autonomy on this issue shifted back to the states, maybe we could get the federal government to regulate the borders? Would you set up check points only at state lines, or would they help at county and city limits too?

uh keet, the constitution grants certain powers to the federal government... the bill of rights protects certain rights of the states and the people from the federal government usurping power not delegated to it in the constitution. the second amendment does not grant anything to anybody, certainly not exceptions... it protects the states from the federal government infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in the context of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

and keep in mind that the bill of rights purpose is to limit federal power...and the tenth amendment clearly says that powers not deleted to the federal government by the constitution are retained by the states or the people.