In the previous (now locked) discussion, Arthur Kill made the statement:

 

 

 

""Confiscate?"  Show me where any sitting governmental authority legitimately expressed a desire to confiscate America's firearms?  Any?  And yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm telling you -- if the NRA "just sat down" in a genuine way, we the people, would have less of our second amendment rights eroded today."

 

 

 

In NJ, it already has.  Loretta Wienberg was caught on open mic saying exactly what you believe won't happen.

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/10/anti-gun-dems-shocking-hot-mic-comments-confiscate-confiscate-confiscate/

 

 

The problem, IMHO, is that EVERY "compromise" proposed begins with our side giving up something, and their side giving up nothing.  And, for a long time, the firearm owners crowd went along with it...until they started to notice that their rights were being whittled-away, while nothing was being done or given-up by the other side.  Sounds a lot like the Israelii--Palestine "Land for Peace"....Israel gave up a lot of land for absolutely no peace.  Didnt take THEM long to say "screw this!"

 

No wonder the NRA wont give an inch anymore... 

 

How about this one

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-looking-at

 

"Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

 

You know...that involuntary "buy back" i.e. confiscation.

IBTL

Just block him like I did its not even worth responding to any of his posts. He is just a troll working this forum. If everyone blocks him he will go away.

Why not just drop the ban hammer ?

Why not just drop the ban hammer ?

Honestly, we shouldn't. I don't think it helps our image if we ban people who we disagree with. Besides, his attitude gives this forum relevance and importance... He really does allow us to show exactly why we don't give an inch... exactly why that mentality doesn't and cant exist here.

Can't kick the guy out just because most members completely disagree with him on everything.That would be wrong. However if no one responds to anything he posts it will get boring for him really quick and he will leave on his own.

Long before Loretta Weinberg we had Dianne Feinstein

" If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

Honestly, we shouldn't. I don't think it helps our image if we ban people who we disagree with. Besides, his attitude gives this forum relevance and importance... He really does allow us to show exactly why we don't give an inch... exactly why that mentality doesn't and cant exist here.

^^^^ 2 to the 23rd power. Did I do that right?

Can't kick the guy out just because most members completely disagree with him on everything.That would be wrong. However if no one responds to anything he posts it will get boring for him really quick and he will leave on his own.

you're pretty spot on.

 

We are free to discuss, and ignore.

This is a forum for discussion.  If we all agreed on everything, it would be pretty boring.  Right, Newtonian?

Why not just drop the ban hammer ?

 

I will not ban him for having an opinion..... 

 

But we do need to act like adults on BOTH sides......  So either gain some tolerance ..... not everyone communicates the same way..... if you cannot deal with a members, block him, or walk away from the keyboard for a bit, and come back later....LOL

 

I hope we can all come to terms here..... 

Lol. It's a neck tie, ya, I hate wearing them

Honestly banning him is not my idea or preference, I could care less and never complained about him once. However I've read numerous posts of members complaining about him so the last one prompted me to finally say if it annoys everyone so much then drop the hammer and ban him....

 

If everyone is so opposed then hopefully you all will stop complaining about his rants ?

Honestly banning him is not my idea or preference, I could care less and never complained about him once. However I've read numerous posts of members complaining about him so the last one prompted me to finally say if it annoys everyone so much then drop the hammer and ban him....

 

If everyone is so opposed then hopefully you all will stop complaining about his rants ?

Binary life equates to this. Part of the solution, or part of the problem.

 

Take it for what it is, entertainment

I think the worst part is, he's supposedly a cop.  Based on his attitude he's Shaneen Allen any of us at a moment's notice.

Just block him like I did its not even worth responding to any of his posts. He is just a troll working this forum. If everyone blocks him he will go away.

 

how do you block someone. ?

if using pc its under your name in drop down up top right corner, under manage ignore preferences

Since "compromise" was mentioned..... the problem with Republicans and compromise is this...

 

DEM: "Hey Repub..... Give me $500!"

 

REPUB: "No way way Dem... Go away!"

 

DEM: "Alright, let's compromise... Give me $250."

 

REPUB: "Umm..ok. That sounds like a reasonable compromise."

 

 

Seriously... This is how they think. They are idiots.

Since "compromise" was mentioned..... the problem with Republicans and compromise is this...

 

DEM: "Hey Repub..... Give me $500!"

 

REPUB: "No way way Dem... Go away!"

 

DEM: "Alright, let's compromise... Give me $250."

 

REPUB: "Umm..ok. That sounds like a reasonable compromise."

 

 

Seriously... This is how they think. They are idiots.

They're only idiots if it doesn't work.

I will not ban him for having an opinion..... 

 

But we do need to act like adults on BOTH sides......  So either gain some tolerance ..... not everyone communicates the same way..... if you cannot deal with a members, block him, or walk away from the keyboard for a bit, and come back later....LOL

 

I hope we can all come to terms here..... 

Lot of people have strong opinions here and they debate in good spirit most of the time. Then there are those intent on stirring the pot, with no provocation, to the point of getting otherwise useful threads into 1A pit or get them locked.  

 

In my opinion, Mr. Arthur Kill falls into second category.  Sure, we can all block him and wish he comes to a productive debate than unrelenting name calling of organizations, accuse others of being against LEOs etc. But something tells me he is smarter than that. 

 

I know why I dont visit some other forums on firearms & laws and hoping this site doesnt become one of them. 

every time there's compromise on the subject of guns rights, we give, they take. that's their version of compromise. i'm all for compromising with us taking stuff back, and them thanking us for taking it back.

There is no compromising when it comes to the bill of rights. Two things:

 

#1--Progressives prefer to make law after law eroding the bill of rights because---

#2 That would force them to acknowledge the Constitution.

 

They know it would be next to impossible to overturn the 1A, 2A, 4A,5A, etc so they simply come up with new laws and talking points "in the name of safety" as we slowly drown our rights in the background.

 

There's over 4,000 plus gun laws and criminals/nut cases STILL get guns. Look at CT, NJ, CA ,NY and MD---the end game is law after law until they're finally confiscated through a "court of law"---guilty until proven innocent. Prohibitions never work....NEVER!

 

But I contend this is the last firewall progressives need to erode before they move onto the final step. 150 million gun owners (even if only 10% protect freedom) that's 15 MILLION people the takeover has to deal with----so in progressive type fashion, they'll take their time, indoctrinate and confiscate under the rule of "law". No compromise on our end on any of the amendments or Bill of inalienable rights, that is....they're NON-negotiable!

i'm still waiting for aurthor to chime in

No need to ban him. Wish last thread wasn't locked before many could respond to his ridiculous statements. My guess is the guy was a cop relegated to Staten Island who left job early on some kind of Disability Claim. If he was even a cop.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

my guess is he is/was just an anti, checking out the enemy....and to them we are the enemy

Well as long as we're guessing I think he or she is an anti reporter trying to rattle the cages of us gun owners looking for inflammatory responses to use to further their agenda.

Or he is a guy with a different take on things..... and sometimes a weird way of communicating ....... 

 

I have had a chance to PM back and forth with him over the past few days.... and he is not a bad guy.....  maybe you guys can relax......