Now boys...boys....marxist Joe is trying to sway you all back to thinking he ain't gonna take your hunt'n guns. Double barell shotguns are hunt'n guns...them others are assault rifles. So you see, marxist Joe is say'n, "don't want your hunt'n guns.......I'll get THEM a few more years down the road."
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Biden says when SHTF a double barrel shotgun beats an assault weapon
- Thread starter netsecurity
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
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!
Member Benefits:
digitalphoenix
Sharpshooter
A double barreled shotgun is more unpredictable than an AR15. Pretty much like the Liberal legislation.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
DCMoron?
best comment on a news article from a non gun owner i have ever rear from a guy named finn:
"First let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not a 'gun guy'. I do not hunt. I do not target shoot. I do not collect guns. I do not belong to the NRA. I do not live in a 'rough' part of town. I own no guns, nor have I ever needed to have one. The last time I fired a shot in anger was in 1968.
That being said, there are many people today, (myself included), who have a deep, (and a legitimate), distrust of the government.
They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control.
It has always been so. As Lord Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use that power.
Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature of large governments that this occurs.
Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best interest, then those in power use coersion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle.
This concentration of power and increasing coersion can be gradual (like slowly turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into boiling water).
One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again and again and again.
The Second Amendment is *our* garauntee that this loss of individual freedom and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.
One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of a dozen other locations around the globe to see examples of what happens when the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to resist.
Now you may feel that this distrust is not warrented, or that it verges on paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.
The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not have been a Second Amendment in the first instance.
They were *very* distrustful of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards against it by diluting that power into different branches and different levels. They tried to define precisely just who could do what, and what things they could not do. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to be imposed upon us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are enumerated there. They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose it's will upon the citizenry.
The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.
There are those Americans that honestly feel that this point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid, even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to to look around more carefully.
Those of us that support the Second Amendment feel that it's relevence is as valid now as it was when it was first penned."
"First let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not a 'gun guy'. I do not hunt. I do not target shoot. I do not collect guns. I do not belong to the NRA. I do not live in a 'rough' part of town. I own no guns, nor have I ever needed to have one. The last time I fired a shot in anger was in 1968.
That being said, there are many people today, (myself included), who have a deep, (and a legitimate), distrust of the government.
They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control.
It has always been so. As Lord Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use that power.
Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature of large governments that this occurs.
Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best interest, then those in power use coersion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle.
This concentration of power and increasing coersion can be gradual (like slowly turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into boiling water).
One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again and again and again.
The Second Amendment is *our* garauntee that this loss of individual freedom and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.
One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of a dozen other locations around the globe to see examples of what happens when the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to resist.
Now you may feel that this distrust is not warrented, or that it verges on paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.
The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not have been a Second Amendment in the first instance.
They were *very* distrustful of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards against it by diluting that power into different branches and different levels. They tried to define precisely just who could do what, and what things they could not do. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to be imposed upon us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are enumerated there. They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose it's will upon the citizenry.
The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.
There are those Americans that honestly feel that this point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid, even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to to look around more carefully.
Those of us that support the Second Amendment feel that it's relevence is as valid now as it was when it was first penned."
I agree with Joe Biden completely, because you know, every time the SHTF the cops grab their double barrel shotguns.
But that's OK Joe, the Barack Obama is not going to take away your Beretta. (A quote I rmember him saying in the 2008 campaign to prove they were "pro 2A".)
But that's OK Joe, the Barack Obama is not going to take away your Beretta. (A quote I rmember him saying in the 2008 campaign to prove they were "pro 2A".)
I have a confession to make. I love to listen to OL joe speak. I dont know anybody who can lie and say as much stupid **** that makes no sense at all and smile at the same time as ol Joe. He makes Saturday night live look bad!
Last edited by a moderator:
Shoots4Fun
Master
I never understood the phrase "like a grin on a **** eating possum" until I saw Ole Joe speak and try to contain that lyin smile...
Last edited by a moderator:
netsecurity
Shooter
I think we can read between the lines and say that since he specifically said double barrel shotgun, that he would have semi auto shotguns, and maybe pumps, banned too eventually.
Joe Biden must be taken down. Nothing sticks to Obama, but JB has a big target on his back and he gets away unscathed. The key to bringing down Obama may be JB. I take it personal that he wants to take away my guns, and that he should be shown no sympathy.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
The difference is that he chooses to do so. We do not. If you don't want to be perceived as stupid, don't take up stupid causes and say stupid things. It really does help.
Dopey Uncle Joe only said that about shotguns because he is too befuddled to operate a AR15. Besides he has to support his boss or he wont be given candy at the end of the day. Obama has him on a short leash. So forgive poor old slow and not so bright Uncle Joe, he has no clue what he is doing.
.452browning
Master
Rust me. I'm a Rrofessional!
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- bstewrat3
- El Conquistador
- tackdriver
- rkweber
- Dean C.
- snorko
- cobber
- nutys
- DoggyDaddy
- Bassat
- EODFXSTI
- WebSnyper
- jmach
- Mike Grasso
- Indyhd
- ditcherman
- rabbit hunter mab
- jwamplerusa
- rwilcox215
- SEH0521
- bobjones223
- jy951
- tjh88
- jaymark6655
- Limpy88
- brizzad
- Timjoebillybob
- gassprint1
- slipnotz
- Knight Rider
- cubby
- wesnellans
- Mr.Softball
- KMaC
- loudgroove
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- JTScribe
- Smith& W
- E-4 461
- drm-hp
- Wolfhound
- yngfam
- HCRMPD1
- Jvernon
- d.kaufman
- 22LRFan
- chevy2
- Airtevron1
- singlesix
- dweezil