‘The Long-Term Strategy of the Democratic Party Is to Eliminate the Second Amendment’
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: ‘The Long-Term Strategy of the Democratic Party Is to Eliminate the Second Amendment’

  1. #1
    Ancient Gaseous Emanation Popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sacramento area, CA
    Posts
    51,503

    Default ‘The Long-Term Strategy of the Democratic Party Is to Eliminate the Second Amendment’

    JEFF POOR
    6 Sep 2019


    Thursday during an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) argued that although House Democrats will likely pass a number of gun control bills that will not make it through the U.S. Senate, the long-term strategy was to get at the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

    Brooks told “The Jeff Poor Show” it was an incremental process Democrats are using to erode support for the right to bear arms.

    “The Democrats, Nancy Pelosi — they believe they have a winning issue here,” Brooks said. “So they’re going to force vote after vote om ultimately repealing the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Now, they’re smart enough not to do it all at once. What they will do is attack the right to bear arms incrementally until such time that the number of people who own arms and who believe in the Second Amendment right of self-defense — they will be in a minority and at that point, you can expect that the Democrats will move for an outright repeal of the Second Amendment.”

    “Now, that’s a gradual thing,” he continued. “It’s not going to happen overnight. In my judgment, it won’t happen this year or next year, four or five or six years from now. But the long-term strategy of the Democratic Party is to eliminate the Second Amendment right to bear arms. And the way that they do that is by eroding the support for the Second Amendment right to bear arms a little bit at a time in their minds, at least, a majority of the American people are opposed to the Second Amendment.”




    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

  2. #2
    Senior Member GeorgeandSugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    218

    Default

    No surprise. It is all about power. The 2A stands in their way. Look at what has happened throughout history when gun confiscation was implemented. The outcome was not good.

    They will have to pry them from my hands. I won’t be giving any of my firearms up EVER!

    Get out and vote! These leftists cannot be trusted with anything.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Levant likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member NGF Addict! Fitasc Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    5,689

    Default

    You just realized this? This was obvious after JFK, MLK, and RFK got killed
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience", George Carlin

    FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    556

    Default

    Our short term strategy should be to eliminate the democrat party

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeandSugar View Post
    No surprise. It is all about power. The 2A stands in their way. Look at what has happened throughout history when gun confiscation was implemented. The outcome was not good.

    They will have to pry them from my hands. I won’t be giving any of my firearms up EVER!

    Get out and vote! These leftists cannot be trusted with anything.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    It's not the 2nd Amendment that stands in their way; it's our right to keep and bear arms that stands in their way.
    GeorgeandSugar likes this.

  7. #6
    Grand Imperial Poobah NGF Addict! Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    17,543

    Default

    For some unknown, insane reason, the Democratic Party believes that if they eliminate the Second Amendment, that we will either voluntary turn in our firearms, or they will command the military/law enforcement community to take our guns and America will then be gun-free.

    I tend to believe that, if the Democratic Party eliminates the Second Amendment, that those of us who believe in a free nation will rise up and eliminate the Democratic Party.
    GeorgeandSugar likes this.
    Hidden Content



    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington, the first President of the United States (1789-1797)

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    897

    Default

    We will not be a bunch of sheep like the Australians were.

  9. #8
    Senior Member up2it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    407

    Default

    gvaldeg1 and GeorgeandSugar like this.

  10. #9
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Southern Kalifornia
    Posts
    16,919

    Default

    The DEMOCRATS have always relied on the "oppositions" (that's Us!) tendency to abide by our laws. be compliant and supportive to the civil contracts and above all, not act like DEMOCRAT scum. Given the GOP candidates observance of the Marquis of Queensbury rules in campaigns (I give you McCain and Romney as examples), why would the DEMOCRATS not assume that we would voluntarily submit to a "New Constitution" that no longer contains the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"?

    I personally would relish bringing quite a few of those Mooks to a "Woke" state of reality. Especially "Beto" and that little mayor "Mary Pete".

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevejet View Post
    Given the GOP candidates observance of the Marquis of Queensbury rules in campaigns (I give you McCain and Romney as examples), why would the DEMOCRATS not assume that we would voluntarily submit to a "New Constitution" that no longer contains the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"?
    The Constitution doesn't contain the right to keep and bear arms today. It forbids government from infringing on a right that exists with or without the Constitution. They'd have to get rid of the 2nd, the 9th, and the 10th - and, in fact, the entire Constitution, in order to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

    The only thing that the government can do is to enact a penalty or threat of a penalty for exercising your rights. But since they don't have that authority, they're not actually doing it as government but, instead, as tyrants. Here's John Locke's definition of tyranny from 1690:

    As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so
    tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to;
    and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good
    of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the
    governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his
    commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of
    his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or
    any other irregular passion.”
    Among the Founders, a similar thing was said, that exceeding the powers granted in the Constitution constitutes tyranny. I can't find the quote I'm looking for but Locke's says it well enough. The government simply has no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, 2nd Amendment or not.
    Last edited by Levant; 09-08-2019 at 10:48 PM. Reason: said government has no power, meant they have no authority. Fixed it.
    GeorgeandSugar likes this.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)