APOD Firearms

Hmmm, looks like they really were lying about wanting to take the guns

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Not the first time this has come up and I doubt very much that even the majority of democrats are for repeal of the second amendment. They will push for 'sensible' gunlaws. Total prohibition I think not. But devil is always in the details of the laws they wish to enact. No one here is talking about getting rid of the ubiquitous 12 ga pump shotgun that when loaded with say number 1 buck is a most deadly weapon and it does not take a lot of skill to use one. In Australia they did outlaw the pump gun and I think that is the case in the UK too.
    UK
    Shotguns are legal at long as they can't hold more than three shotgun shells - including the one in the chamber if it's a pump-action or semiautomatic shotgun.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/guns-you-can-legally-buy-in-the-uk-2016-4
     

    moron1

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages
    357
    Points
    43
    Location
    navarre
    “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government “

    -Author Unknown
     
    Last edited:

    Ric-san

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages
    2,864
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton FL
    This doesn’t worry me personally. It would take 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate OR 2/3 of the states. Either way, I’m sure if we ever got to that point without triggering some sort of rebellion, the Supreme Court would chime in. Let the clowns in Hawaii have thier little tantrum.
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,416
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    It is concerning, because it shows that these traitors still exist, are in elected positions, and have no qualms about trying.

    If you're the nice-guy 6-ft linebacker in high school, and a 4-foot scrawny punk keeps trying to pick a fight, when does it become "concerning"? You block/absorb a punch and push him hard to end it, one day. You block a punch, and gut punch him (not even your hardest), to end it another day. At what point does the punk have to escalate before you demolish his face and teach him to back off permanently?
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can. Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can. Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can. Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can. Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can.

    How long before there's nothing to take? As long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime.....
     

    General Snafu

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages
    233
    Points
    63
    Location
    Florida
    Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can. Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can. Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can. Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can. Go for broke, accept concessions and take what you can.

    How long before there's nothing to take? As long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime.....

    I think you should have been a bit more explicit about the context in which Trump made the comment. He was referring to the nut case who shot up the school at Parkland and prefaced the comment by saying that, in a situation like Parkland, he was all for taking the kid's guns first and then go through the courts. Would you let the kid hang onto his guns while you ran him through the courts to obtain permission to take them?

    I have a brother who I don't believe is quite all there. Many years ago he got into an altercation and drew a gun on someone. He was arrested because the officer who responded, concluded he was the aggressor based on information from witnesses to the altercation. His guns were impounded and, it became his responsibility to convince the court that he should be able to keep them. He was subjected to a mental evaluation which was inconclusive. The court was not convinced. It took him over a year to change the judges mind. He was then allowed to retrieve his guns. I believe the delay had something to do with a previous run-in he had with a police officer and while in court on that case, he made some smart a$$ remark to the judge.

    Personally, I think both the officer that arrested him and the judge that didn't allow him to get his guns back at that time, absolutely did the right thing. I have no idea if he's ever gotten his head straight or not as, I haven't spoken to him in over a dozen years.
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    I think you should have been a bit more explicit about the context in which Trump made the comment. He was referring to the nut case who shot up the school at Parkland and prefaced the comment by saying that, in a situation like Parkland, he was all for taking the kid's guns first and then go through the courts. Would you let the kid hang onto his guns while you ran him through the courts to obtain permission to take them?

    I'm all about people not having anything they are truly not mentally competent to have, whether that is guns, cars, power tools, whatever. But there needs to be a fair and competent determination on mental competency.

    Trump's was an emotional statement revealing his anti-gun past, made on national television. When his Vice President spoke up in defense of due process, he was shouted down with this line, on national television. IMO, this one statement fanned the flames for the Florida red-flag law that was implemented so fast the State AJ still can't fully explain it.

    The more "Presidential" statement would have been along the lines of, "This is a tragedy. We need to help Parkland get through this and heal. Everyone is emotional right now, myself included. I have never experienced anything like this in my life; it's heart-breaking. What I owe you as your President is solid leadership, and to not act or speak out of emotion, but according to our great Constitution. We're going to get to the bottom of this in a systematic and Constitutional manner, and take appropriate action where it is necessary. God bless Parkland, and God bless the United States of America."

    There has also been plenty of time to walk-back/clarify this statement/outburst, apologize to Pence for slamming him, and maybe even offer a little support for law-abiding gun owners who had absolutely nothing to do with this, but will suffer the repercussions, again. Nope, sorry, we'll just have to disagree and press on. Trump lived for decades as a New York democrat, and anti-gun at that. I want to believe he's the republican he says, but I can't. And yeah, I proudly voted for him, so that makes it even worse.
     
    Rating - 100%
    50   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages
    3,934
    Points
    113
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    For the past 25 years, many members of the federal government, state governments, and local governments have been trying to take away guns and/or banning them. Every piece of legislation, regulation, and resolutions regarding legal purchasing and possession of firearms are unconstitutional as they violate the part of the 2nd Amendment where it states, ...the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that gives anyone the right to regulate firearm ownership or the types of firearms we can possess. The only part of the 2nd Amendment where it talks about anything being "regulated" is the militia. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

    It is the responsibility of the people to enforce their rights under the Constitution and hold these governments accountable. Unfortunately, we have a multitude of citizens that believe as many politicians do and they are the ones that are fighting to rid this nation of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens without realizing the very reason for which the 2nd Amendment was written and how it was intended to be used.

    My advice to many is to not be paranoid over all of this legislation to ban guns and the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. It is advisable to be concerned over what will have to happen when these governments become too tyrannical and the patriotic citizens of this nation will have to rise to the call and put a stop to the actions of our respective governments and institute new governing bodies that truly represent the will of the people and not the lunatic liberals.
     
    Last edited:

    General Snafu

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages
    233
    Points
    63
    Location
    Florida
    I'm all about people not having anything they are truly not mentally competent to have, whether that is guns, cars, power tools, whatever. But there needs to be a fair and competent determination on mental competency.

    Trump's was an emotional statement revealing his anti-gun past, made on national television. When his Vice President spoke up in defense of due process, he was shouted down with this line, on national television. IMO, this one statement fanned the flames for the Florida red-flag law that was implemented so fast the State AJ still can't fully explain it.

    The more "Presidential" statement would have been along the lines of, "This is a tragedy. We need to help Parkland get through this and heal. Everyone is emotional right now, myself included. I have never experienced anything like this in my life; it's heart-breaking. What I owe you as your President is solid leadership, and to not act or speak out of emotion, but according to our great Constitution. We're going to get to the bottom of this in a systematic and Constitutional manner, and take appropriate action where it is necessary. God bless Parkland, and God bless the United States of America."

    There has also been plenty of time to walk-back/clarify this statement/outburst, apologize to Pence for slamming him, and maybe even offer a little support for law-abiding gun owners who had absolutely nothing to do with this, but will suffer the repercussions, again. Nope, sorry, we'll just have to disagree and press on. Trump lived for decades as a New York democrat, and anti-gun at that. I want to believe he's the republican he says, but I can't. And yeah, I proudly voted for him, so that makes it even worse.

    I can't disagree with you. Trump is certainly no diplomat and simply tries to respond too quickly before thinking. I think someone like you, should apply to be the one to give him some direction so, he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth quite as often. I really liked what you said should have been his response. Maybe you could send him some advice about his views on McCain. It doesn't matter how he feels about McCain, this is not a time for him to be making an issue about it as it won't win him any points in 2020. The problem in 2016 was the same as it always is. We were faced with a choice of the lesser evil. In my case, it wouldn't have mattered who was running against Hillary. I would have even voted for the devil before I would vote for Hillary.

    I'm just loving watching the Democrats today, now that Mueller's report is done. It's almost a replay of the day Trump won the election. It proves the Democrats have learned nothing. They still won't accept that they lost the election on their own. Nobody stole it from them. To watch them today is simply a replay of 2016.
     

    Attachments

    • Nothing Burger.jpg
      Nothing Burger.jpg
      55.8 KB · Views: 331

    SystemTTB

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2019
    Messages
    87
    Points
    8
    Location
    Gulf Breeze
    What worries me is the fact that it's even a conversation, the fact we're talking about it means that eventually it WILL happen, maybe in my life time, maybe the next, maybe 200 years from now, but they WILL come for the guns. Just a matter of when.
     

    SystemTTB

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2019
    Messages
    87
    Points
    8
    Location
    Gulf Breeze
    haha good point, before that ever happened tho they'ed probably already have some sort of ban. As long as it isn't an Ar-Phaser. Maybe they'll let us have them.
     

    MauserLarry

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages
    1,405
    Points
    113
    Location
    Crestview Florida
    What worries me is the fact that it's even a conversation, the fact we're talking about it means that eventually it WILL happen, maybe in my life time, maybe the next, maybe 200 years from now, but they WILL come for the guns. Just a matter of when.

    They will not "come" for the guns. These people aren't stupid despite the fact they seem to be. The govt has a pretty good idea of who owns what because they have all the paperwork we fill out to buy a weapon. Of course we all have "gifts", "war trophies", "inherited guns" and guns bought in a private sale that they don't know about. But they have a record of a huge amount of sales going way back. Notice that every body uses a card now instead of money. Some stores have stopped taking cash and the govt wants cash gone where all private transactions can be taxed. As soon as everything is electronic and everything you possess is in the electronic world..............you're ass is toast. They'll send you a letter with the guns they think you have demanding they be turned over to the local national guard armory within X number of days. If you do not bring them in they will press a button and your bank account will be locked and probably your lights gas and water also. If you have any kind of public service job that will disappear although if your not getting paid that won't matter much. How many people, especially if they have children, can make it through something like this. You'll lose everything you have. People will be bringing guns in and saying "where do you all want us to pile these"? People that live off grid in remote places won't be safe either. They're the people they'll use to make examples of to bring other hold outs in line. A few infantry and an APC at a remote dwelling and if the residents resist they will be quickly and efficiently done away with and then on to the next. I know all this shit sounds preposterous but if you had told me 50 years ago that the stuff going on today was in the future, I'd have had you put in the nut house.
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    Thanks for that General Snafu. Sadly I'm finished trying to talk to anyone that doesn't want t listen. After years of it, I'm done writing, e-mailing, trying to talk to my politicians, present included. The best I can do is talk to everyday that vote, and some who don't, that have a desire to question and research facts for themselves. I helped elect Trump, might just do it again, but damn sure won't condone his anti-gun past or sentiment. And that right there is my main concern. I really do feel if any anti-gun legislation ever relies solely on him siding with law-abiding gun owners, that will not happen. I get that hurts feelings, but that's what I see through my lens, and it don't think it's my job to change what or how I perceive the view, it's Trump's.
     
    Top Bottom