I would like some clarification here. Maybe someone can help me out. Candidate Clinton says she has no desire to separate me from my firearms and she espouses a system such as was enacted in Australia. From what I understand you can't own any semi-autos in Australia and you're lucky to get by with a single shot .22 and a double barrel shotgun. So how is that any different than out and out confiscation, because according to what I own now, I'd be left with two double barrel shotguns, and jump through hoops just to keep them.
Help me out here
- Thread starter ronl
- Start date
- Status
If you take the attitude that you're not going to believe the BS that political candidates in the US are legally allowed to espouse (literally according to the US Supreme Court), then there's typically little content in their utterances, possibly other than their name, this is verifiably truthful they can be held to.
First off, we don't do politics here, and if the discussion goes there, it ends.
To answer how a very restrictive system (such as Australia) is different from out and out confiscation, its simple.
Out and out confiscation, they take all the guns, in a restrictive system some people are allowed to retain ownership of SOME guns.
The Anti-gun side believes that as long as we are allowed to posses some kind of firearm, (one only, single shot preferred is what they SAY they would accept) as long as we can own something, then they feel our rights are not violated.
When it comes to which candidate to put your faith and your vote on, ignore what they SAY, and look at what they have DONE.
If a candidate has previous government service, look at what they DID, NOT what they say, and especially not what they say they did. I think its a fairly sure bet that they will continue to do what they did. If that's acceptable to you, vote for them.
If they don't have a record of public service, then its a gamble. Just remember that the devil you know is not ALWAYS the lesser of two evils.
To answer how a very restrictive system (such as Australia) is different from out and out confiscation, its simple.
Out and out confiscation, they take all the guns, in a restrictive system some people are allowed to retain ownership of SOME guns.
The Anti-gun side believes that as long as we are allowed to posses some kind of firearm, (one only, single shot preferred is what they SAY they would accept) as long as we can own something, then they feel our rights are not violated.
When it comes to which candidate to put your faith and your vote on, ignore what they SAY, and look at what they have DONE.
If a candidate has previous government service, look at what they DID, NOT what they say, and especially not what they say they did. I think its a fairly sure bet that they will continue to do what they did. If that's acceptable to you, vote for them.
If they don't have a record of public service, then its a gamble. Just remember that the devil you know is not ALWAYS the lesser of two evils.
Not knowing someone's record of public service is like gambling at a table of sharp and ruthless, but somewhat honest poker players. But, when you gamble with the devil (your word), no matter what hand you are holding, you lose.
I certainly know which table I prefer to be throwing my chips around!
Not about guns; all about our freedoms !!!
Be Safe !!!
As you are already suspecting and speaking of the devil, you will find the devil in the details. The bottom line is that we will lose some of our freedoms. The 2A peaks about a militia and also about it being "Regulated". The 2A won't be repealed but you will see it being "Regulated" to a point of non-existence. Then to add insult to injury, they will boast of how "'they" preserved the 2A and now finally have common sense gun control that Conservatives could not accomplish. ......
Be Safe !!!
357 Python
New member
When it comes to the Clintons, they will tell you what they will do by telling you what they are not going to do. If she says she will not you can bet the farm she will. If she says she didn't you can bet she did. Also she will not be the one to confiscate our guns. She will have the UN do it for her, that way she can say she didn't do it.
kilimanjaro
New member
The Dem party platform is readily available to anyone online. It espouses gun bans, magazine bans, ammo bans, taxation, registration, licensing, and government approvals to own anything they may allow you to own. Clinton has openly stated the 2nd Amendment as we know it is wrong, and has vowed to appoint SCOTUS justices that will agree with her.
Elections have consequences.
Elections have consequences.
Evan Thomas
New member
Welp, this one was probably doomed from the start...
- Status