2nd Amendment

Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!

Join today!

Welcome! You have been invited by Later to join our community. Please click here to register.

blasternaz

Member
AZS Supporter - Bronze
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Messages
519
Location
Phoenix
Second Amendment

Harris would radically target legal gun owners: If you thought Joe Biden was bad on 2A rights, things will only get worse for gun owners under a Kamala Harris administration. As Crime Prevention Research Center President John R. Lott observes, Harris is as radical as they come. She wants not only to ban so-called "assault weapons" but also force law-abiding gun owners to sell any firearm she deems problematic to the government. Furthermore, in order to accomplish this forced confiscation, Harris has vowed to use an executive order to establish a national gun registry if Congress fails to pass legislation doing so. Being radically anti-Second Amendment is nothing new for Harris — back in 2008, she argued in a SCOTUS amicus brief that there is no constitutional right to self-defense. She also wants to "eliminate gun manufacturers' immunity from liability," mandate owners lock up their firearms, and require background checks for all gun transfers. Under a Harris presidency, the Second Amendment would face an assault like never before.

New Jersey AR-15 ban ruled unconstitutional by federal judge (Washington Examiner)
 
blasternaz said:
Second Amendment

Harris would radically target legal gun owners: If you thought Joe Biden was bad on 2A rights, things will only get worse for gun owners under a Kamala Harris administration. As Crime Prevention Research Center President John R. Lott observes, Harris is as radical as they come. She wants not only to ban so-called "assault weapons" but also force law-abiding gun owners to sell any firearm she deems problematic to the government. Furthermore, in order to accomplish this forced confiscation, Harris has vowed to use an executive order to establish a national gun registry if Congress fails to pass legislation doing so. Being radically anti-Second Amendment is nothing new for Harris — back in 2008, she argued in a SCOTUS amicus brief that there is no constitutional right to self-defense. She also wants to "eliminate gun manufacturers' immunity from liability," mandate owners lock up their firearms, and require background checks for all gun transfers. Under a Harris presidency, the Second Amendment would face an assault like never before.

New Jersey AR-15 ban ruled unconstitutional by federal judge (Washington Examiner)

You're posting like we didn't know this already, why? Any democRAT or republicunt wants to take or limit our 2A.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde
 
QuietM4 said:
It's not election season without fear mongering.

However I am not seeing the typical ammo price/demand surge like in the past elections, hopefully it is a sign that fellow firearm hobbyists are tiring of manufacturing their own crisis.
 
NBC_LT said:
QuietM4 said:
It's not election season without fear mongering.

However I am not seeing the typical ammo price/demand surge like in the past elections, hopefully it is a sign that fellow firearm hobbyists are tiring of manufacturing their own crisis.

It's early. The 2016 Trump/Hilary panic didn't start until early October. That's when all the polls started coming out saying she was going to win. As soon as Harris picks a VP, and the polls start showing her with a lead, the panic buying will start.
 
QuietM4 said:
NBC_LT said:
QuietM4 said:
It's not election season without fear mongering.

However I am not seeing the typical ammo price/demand surge like in the past elections, hopefully it is a sign that fellow firearm hobbyists are tiring of manufacturing their own crisis.

It's early. The 2016 Trump/Hilary panic didn't start until early October. That's when all the polls started coming out saying she was going to win. As soon as Harris picks a VP, and the polls start showing her with a lead, the panic buying will start.
I've already seen poles with her in the lead...
 
Azgunlover69 said:
I've already seen poles with her in the lead...

None of those polls matter until after the convention, because we still don't know for sure if they're gonna keep her. Lots of senior Dem strategists are screaming bloody murder that she's a loser and going with her is suicide.

If, however, they stick with her, then there will be another honeymoon period afterwards where the media just fawn all over her do their propaganda thing. So it would take until about mid-September before the polls (assuming they are honest at all) begin to show the public having any real deep thinking about anything.

And the independents are the one's who call the ball on this anyway. Neither side is gonna change their minds in any significant way. It's the people who have no loyalty to any party who are going to decide the fate of us all. The people too distracted with living their lives to have put any thought into a moral code are only about then going start making any sort of decision. And probably not even then, but closer to late October.

Everything now is just song and dance.
 
Suck My Glock said:
Azgunlover69 said:
I've already seen poles with her in the lead...

None of those polls matter until after the convention, because we still don't know for sure if they're gonna keep her. Lots of senior Dem strategists are screaming bloody murder that she's a loser and going with her is suicide.

If, however, they stick with her, then there will be another honeymoon period afterwards where the media just fawn all over her do their propaganda thing. So it would take until about mid-September before the polls (assuming they are honest at all) begin to show the public having any real deep thinking about anything.

And the independents are the one's who call the ball on this anyway. Neither side is gonna change their minds in any significant way. It's the people who have no loyalty to any party who are going to decide the fate of us all. The people too distracted with living their lives to have put any thought into a moral code are only about then going start making any sort of decision. And probably not even then, but closer to late October.

Everything now is just song and dance.


Oh, I'm so distracted without a moral code because I don't belong to either party??? What kind of bullhit is that? Both parties suck, why do I need to choose between them?

Clyde
 
kenpoprofessor said:
Oh, I'm so distracted without a moral code because I don't belong to either party??? What kind of bullhit is that? Both parties suck, why do I need to choose between them?

Clyde

Sorry Clyde. I can see now that I didn't word that clearly enough and you could interpret my point that way. But I was not insisting people should be in either party. I was merely referring to how MOST people not in either major party are of that status because of as I described. There are certainly many people who affirmatively choose to not be a part of any party for well-grounded reasons. And I am one myself, being a Libertarian. So I am truly sorry that my poor phrasing insulted you. My generalization was not meant to be as absolute as that. But generally, in the big wide picture of things, I stand by the intended message.
 
Suck My Glock said:
Sorry Clyde. I can see now that I didn't word that clearly enough and you could interpret my point that way. But I was not insisting people should be in either party. I was merely referring to how MOST people not in either major party are of that status because of as I described. There are certainly many people who affirmatively choose to not be a part of any party for well-grounded reasons. And I am one myself, being a Libertarian. So I am truly sorry that my poor phrasing insulted you. My generalization was not meant to be as absolute as that. But generally, in the big wide picture of things, I stand by the intended message.

I'm a Constitutional Conservative, so, I'm not a part of any "traditional" parties, it's just something I made up. Next up, who sets the morals, you, me, the idiots in office? Seriously, morals are subjective, and for me, to each their own as long as their ideology isn't harmful to me, or mine to them. Now, the screwball lefties think my ideology is harmful "to their rights", but that's their opinion and ignorance of what "rights" really are. So, who's the the moral arbitrator?

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde
 
Back
Top