View Full Version : Whitehouse.gov already calling for gun ban
Plutarch
01-20-2009, 15:09
Well, that didn't take long.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."
I see they didn't have any problems finding the "O" keys.
Interesting that "it" is under the heading of:
"Crime & Law Enforcement"
What a crock of sh**, IMHO.
Long live the, "Gun & Knife Shows!"
Just my .02.
Holly
D9 (RIP)
01-20-2009, 15:37
But.... why will we need guns anymore?
We'll have world peace within the week.
:rolleyes:
They will play hell collecting all the 'assault' and NFA firearms out there.
I have written my reps and told them how I feel about guns.
We can run to the Internet and cry or we can tell the people who can do something about it that we will not allow our rights to be stolen.
I have written my reps and told them how I feel about guns.
We can run to the Internet and cry or we can tell the people who can do something about it that we will not allow our rights to be stolen.
With respect, I disagree with part of your statement. Both activities are important.
I have benefited from the members of this forum and others articulating their views on gun control. By reading their comments and doing my own research I've come to understand better the propriety and necessity of the Second Amendment. This emerging understanding has led to conversations with friends who favor gun control. They, in turn, have begun to refine, if not reconsider, their positions.
This subject has been beat to death and the end result is always that those with evil intent will still have access to firearms and will use them for whatever purpose they desire....despite whatever Do-Gooder LAW is enacted.
On a hunch, I would guess to say that injuries and deaths incurred by negligent firearms use are far less than those incurred by negligent use of automobiles and baseball bats.....and it is much easier to aquire a car or baseball bat than it is a firearm.....That is how stupid gun laws are.
Proper education is the key, not laws.
It might mean jail, but The One and his ilk can KMA.
I'll go back to discussing with my wife the brainwashing my kids received at school today.
The Reaper
01-20-2009, 17:09
Well, all those who believed the bullshit about the Dims not wanting to take your guns, try and get your votes back (again).
The leopard does not change his spots.
They have two years of unrestricted opportunity to issue legislation attacking our 2nd Amendment rights, and the only thing which could stop them is the SCOTUS, which is about evenly divided.
Contact your legislators, probably Dims, and see if they will buck the Pelosi and Reid agenda.
I strongly suspect that in most cases, they will not.
We are not seen as constituents to them, just rednecks clinging to guns and religion.
Change you can believe in indeed.
TR
I'll write to my reps.
I renewed my NRA membership.
I just gave money to the NRA Civil Rights Defense fund.
I agree with Sten--do something.
I'll write to my reps.
I renewed my NRA membership.
I just gave money to the NRA Civil Rights Defense fund.
I agree with Sten--do something.
Joined NRA and Donated.
jasonglh
01-20-2009, 17:34
The AWB is a dead issue as there are plenty out there to be had. Just today the gun shop received 50 stripped uppers and they were gone by lunch as the owner has said has happened every 2-3 days since mid October.
the NRA tool for finding your rep.
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/
Bill Harsey
01-20-2009, 19:07
I see they didn't have any problems finding the "O" keys.
Good one. The "kids" here probably don't get it.
rubberneck
01-20-2009, 19:15
Good one. The "kids" here probably don't get it.
I'd bet you that the White House curator won't have to call the President and the First lady in Crawford and ask for the china and furniture back.
Good one. The "kids" here probably don't get it.
I remember. _ill everyone else?
Plutarch
01-20-2009, 20:33
I have written my reps and told them how I feel about guns.
We can run to the Internet and cry or we can tell the people who can do something about it that we will not allow our rights to be stolen.
Did I say not to contact your representatives?
You're probably right though, none of us should pass along any pertinent information. I mean, we have the media for that, right? :rolleyes:
LongWire
01-21-2009, 01:14
I remember. _ill everyone else?
Not that he should have had to, but President Bush informed his staff during the changeover "No Monkey Business" or something to that effect.
Team Sergeant
01-21-2009, 16:39
It's looking like we are currently being fed.....
TS
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
(Norman Thomas, 1936 presidential candidate on the Socialist ticket)
perdurabo
01-21-2009, 17:58
The AWB is a dead issue as there are plenty out there to be had. Just today the gun shop received 50 stripped uppers and they were gone by lunch as the owner has said has happened every 2-3 days since mid October.
This is frankly, just not true. Re-enactment of the AWB is plain and simply infringement of our second amendment rights. It should not be dismissed.
The way I'm understanding your point, it's analogous to "The first amendment is a dead issue, as there's plenty of time to speak your piece before speech is banned".
Currently, my upper is back ordered 16 weeks or more. I don't really call that "plenty".
With respect,
Jake
Not that he should have had to, but President Bush informed his staff during the changeover "No Monkey Business" or something to that effect.
It seemed to me from an outsider's perspective to be one of the more professional/friendly changeovers. I expected nothing less, to be honest.
I wonder how long it will be before the gub-mint finally gets the NRA added to the list of extremist organizations.......
jasonglh
01-22-2009, 03:02
I just don't see Obama signing another AWB he wants a second term but he might sign one in the second if he doesn't want to help the next candidate.
I just don't see Obama signing another AWB he wants a second term but he might sign one in the second if he doesn't want to help the next candidate.
$20 says he gets it done within 12 months....probably sooner.
Defender968
01-22-2009, 08:40
I just don't see Obama signing another AWB he wants a second term but he might sign one in the second if he doesn't want to help the next candidate.
Jason have you seen the electoral map from the election, I'm sure you have but take another look, http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08 those blue states, with the exception of NC they're not interested in your right to bear arms, he got elected without them. Don't be fooled, he is no friend to the 2nd amendment. Look into his history, he pushed a bill in Illinois to make a home owner whose house was broken into and whose gun was stolen a felon. Just let that soak in for a second.
So some scumbag breaks into your house and takes your property in your castle, and you didn't have your gun locked up, so now you get convicted of a felony and your right to own a gun is gone, along with your ability to get a good job, because some thieving POS broke into YOUR house, you the VICTIM get punished, that’s how anti gun he is.:eek: No matter how many commercials or statements he made during the election, he is anti gun period. :mad:
The Reaper
01-22-2009, 08:59
$20 says he gets it done within 12 months....probably sooner.
I say in the first 100 days.
The big miscalculation is that the margins in some states were significant enough that a 90% flip by angry gun owners could turn the color of the state. That could reverse the coattails that carried a lot of the Dims in close races.
NC, FL, PA, and OH have a LOT of gun owners and hunters, some of who voted for change, and hopefully, they will remember come election time.
TR
jasonglh
01-22-2009, 14:35
Another AWB may be the only way we get rid of him before 2016 as we still don't seem to have a viable candidate at the moment.
:(
I live in a red state in a city where a paraplegic was indicted for excessive force for shooting a burglar twice with a .22 rifle. If I have a burglar I will be screwed because the .22 would be the last weapon of choice in my arsenal.
Don't worry about policy statements, look at what is knocking at the doorstep right now.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45
6.8SPC_DUMP
01-23-2009, 23:32
They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Definitely a step in the total gun ban direction. But I'm not so sure Obama will be the one to try to execute a total gun ban. I'm sure he will limit gun/ammo options and add bureaucracy. I DO think he is serious about trying to "bring people together" and knows he will lose all credibility with sceptics if he tries to end the 2nd amendment. It's pretty much the best case scenario with a cabinet staff of Hilldog who would probably want to join the UN global gun ban and Emanuel who was a key writer in the '94 AWB.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -Patrick Henry
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms....." Thomas Jefferson
( I haven't independently verified the accuracy of these quotes )
Defender968
01-24-2009, 09:34
Don't worry about policy statements, look at what is knocking at the doorstep right now.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45
Yet another lightly veiled attack on the 2nd amendment. This crap does nothing to fix the issues. Criminals do not care what laws you put in place, they don't register their stolen weapons, and they sure as hell aren't going to register to own a weapon as it's yet another felony for a felon to own a weapon, so this crap is just about punishing/making the life of the law abiding gun owner difficult, but more importantly as others have said registration is the first step to taking our guns, first they have to know who has them. :mad:
rubberneck
01-24-2009, 09:41
I say in the first 100 days.
The big miscalculation is that the margins in some states were significant enough that a 90% flip by angry gun owners could turn the color of the state. That could reverse the coattails that carried a lot of the Dims in close races.
NC, FL, PA, and OH have a LOT of gun owners and hunters, some of who voted for change, and hopefully, they will remember come election time.
TR
Sadly some gun owners couldn't care less about the second amendment. It was those voters who carried the day for Obama. Regrettably My father is a gun owner who can't stand the NRA and doesn't understand why I own evil black rifles and handguns.
x SF med
01-24-2009, 12:26
"The control of firearms is very important in the control of the population, and to counter or prevent any form of armed resistance..." - to paraphrase a multitude of fascist, socialist, communist and tyranist writers.
An unarmed and cowed populace is what has created multiple overthrows of regimes - Krystallnacht, Prague, Beijing, Krakow come to mind over the past 100 or so years. As a society, America has forgotten that the ownership of firearms is protected by the Consititution to protect the abililty of the citizenry to form militias to protect the country should our government or a foreign entity threaten the country. Our own citizenry has allowed a 'domestic threat' to arise, by their own hand, in the guise of a 'protection of rights of the unarmed'.
The revolution will come - slowly, quietly, and insidiously, and as TS signature relates - nobody will know how it happened.
The removal of some rights - to obstensibly protect other rights - is a bad idea. We as a nation have to be self reliant, responsible, and stop thinking that we are entiltled to anything other than the rights protected by the Constituion, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence - and the right to work our asses off to get everything else desired - whether we achieve those goals or not. The Pursuit of happiness is guaranteed, actual happiness is not.
Gun ownership is protected, but a felon's rights are abridged by the fact a crime has been commited - this has been upheld by the government at State and Federal levels - therefore felons should be prosecuted, not law abiding gun owners - who happen to be the great majority of this population (gun owners).
rant over - back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Defender968
01-24-2009, 15:20
I vehemently agree x SF med, so much so that I just tried to send an email to every member of the Judiciary committee where this stinking bill currently resides, unfortunately they don't make that easy to do.
Of the 40 members of the Judiciary committee I only got email addresses to 3 when clicking on the contact me link on each of their websites. On the judiciary committee website there is no way to contact all (not that it surprises me). So I started going down their list one by one, on most I had to guess at their address as the vast majority of them asked for your name and address and had a zip code authenticator that basically blocked you if you are not in their district. So I punched in their first and last name with the mail.hous.gov domain and hit send, 12 went through, 28 bounced.
Trent Franks,Steven King, Maxine Waters, Randy Forbes, Jackson Lee, Darrell Issa, Zoe Lofgren, Dan Lungren, Robert Scott, Elton Gallegly, James Sensenbrenner, Lamar Smith, Dan Maffei, Debbie Schultz, Linda Sanchez, Adam Schiff, Charles Gonzalez, Tammy Baldwin Gregg Harper Brad Sherman Tom Rooney, Luis Gutierrez, Jason Chaffetz, Pedro Pierluisi Ted Poe, Hank Johnson, Jim Jordan, and Robert Wexler all bounced, if any of these are your rep please shoot them an email, or if you can get their email PM me and I'll more than happy to email them myself. I tried to google them but just kept getting their websites. Maybe I should file a FOIA for the congressional email roster, of course on one of the ones that went through I got this response
Thank you for your message to Congressman Howard L. Berman. Due to Congressional courtesy, we will only respond to email from constituents of the 28th Congressional District. Therefore, to ensure delivery, if you did not
include your name and complete mailing address in the email, please resend the message with this information and then, Congressman Berman will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
So maybe it wouldn't even matter if I got their email addresses correct.
Here is the email I've sent already,
My name is XXXX XXXXXX and I have just become aware of a House bill that has been sent to your committee: H.R. 45, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. First let me give you a little history on me, I am a current member of the Army National Guard and am formerly a member of the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. I spent more than two of the first four years of my marriage deployed to the Middle East or TDY helping to protect our freedom. The past four years I have been a South Carolina certified Law Enforcement Officer serving with the XXXXXX Police Department. I have personally seen both sides of the coin with regard to gun violence: I have seen law abiding citizens protect themselves, their families and their possessions from criminals with a firearm, and I have seen criminals assault and even kill others with illegal guns.
I have read H.R. 45 and am adamantly opposed to this regulation and I will explain why. It will do nothing to stop gun crimes period. All this bill will do is punish law abiding citizens who own firearms.
Criminals by far and large get their guns from two sources. The first and by far most prominent is by either stealing a gun or buying a stolen gun on the streets. The second way criminals get guns is through straw purchases, where they get someone else to buy the gun for them. When a criminal steals a gun or buys a stolen gun they are not going to apply for a permit to buy or own, in fact they’re not going to fill out any paperwork, they know they are already breaking the law by simply possessing a firearm as most of them are all ready convicted felons. In XXXXXXX, S.C. we showed that 80% of all crime is committed by less than 10% of the populace, most of which have been through the criminal justice system multiple times and are already convicted felons and as such cannot legally own a firearm. These criminals are the ones who do gun violence and who need to be focused on, not the law abiding citizens. H.R. 45 does absolutely nothing to address these criminals, or to stop these people from acquiring guns, the reality is criminals will always be able to steal firearms, and we already have laws on the books that make straw purchases illegal and which makes possession of a firearm by a convicted felon illegal.
Now I explained I am a veteran, and as such I value our freedom very highly as I have personally sacrificed a great deal for it and I have seen firsthand countries that do not enjoy the freedoms that we do in the U.S. This bill is nothing more than an assault on the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. This bill is not about stopping gun crime, it does nothing more than to add a burden on gun owners with licenses and registrations that will not apply to criminals as they do not follow laws, that’s why they’re called criminals.
I further believe that this bill, H.R. 45 is not intended to protect anyone from illegal guns, what it is intended to do is to be the first step towards making all guns illegal. Our forefathers had the wisdom to put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution for good reason. I’m not going to get into the constitutionality of firearm ownership, what I will tell you is that as a law enforcement officer I know the limitations of the police with regard to protecting citizens from violent criminals. When seconds count during a violent crime, we the police are minutes away. This in and of itself is enough reason to allow law abiding citizens to own firearms in my opinion, and to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only ensures a safe work environment for criminals who will become more brazen if their prey are unarmed. England has found this to be the case as their crime rates have increased 340% since they banned firearms in 1998. There are literally dozens of case studies that prove this exact fact.
This bill is not only a mistake, it is dangerous, and must not be passed.
Thank you,
XXXX XXXXXXX
Folks, you can follow these links and the others related. Every thinking individual must make up their own mind on the subject matter, but make no mistake never before have the stars been aligned for the US Government to decide for you what the concept of liberty and freedom really means for every individual citizen of this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&feature=related
It looks like the fox is trying to take a different route into the henhouse.
Senate Bill 2286 recently died in committee in the state of Mississippi. If passed this bill would have required serial encoding of all ammunition produced or sold in the state. It also would have required disposal of all non encoded ammunition by 1 Jan 2010!
This all apparently falls under the larger umbrella of the Ammunition Accountability Act. On one of their websites, their motto is "saving lives one bullet at a time".
If this ever passes, it will probably make ammunition unafordable by most, not to mention the issues it poses to 2nd ammendment rights ( protection of freedom) and privacy issues.
This is currently underway in other states. I would encourage everyone to check their local legislation and make sure this is not silently making its way onto the books in their area.
Health and safety to all.
TrapLine
01-27-2009, 08:58
It looks like the fox is trying to take a different route into the henhouse.
Senate Bill 2286 recently died in committee in the state of Mississippi. If passed this bill would have required serial encoding of all ammunition produced or sold in the state. It also would have required disposal of all non encoded ammunition by 1 Jan 2010!
This all apparently falls under the larger umbrella of the Ammunition Accountability Act. On one of their websites, their motto is "saving lives one bullet at a time".
If this ever passes, it will probably make ammunition unafordable by most, not to mention the issues it poses to 2nd ammendment rights ( protection of freedom) and privacy issues.
This type of legislation really concerns me. It seems those that oppose the second ammendment are taking action that has worked well for the anti hunting/trapping groups. Rather than pushing for outright bans which meet heavy opposition, these groups have sought to place restictions on rights rather than removing them. It seems that the chisel works better than the axe. Sorry if I have moved off topic.
Don't worry about policy statements, look at what is knocking at the doorstep right now.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45
A law isn't worth the paper it's written on, if there is no one willing to enforce it.
The Reaper
01-27-2009, 16:10
Well, as we have learned, there is always someone willing to violate the Constitution and their fellow citizen's rights for a paycheck.
You think that people in England, Canada, and Australia didn't say they same thing?
How many died by their guns? How many risked their family members' lives by armed resisitance?
You think that after Ruby Ridge and Waco, people will not eventually, gradually give up their guns, by one means, or another?
No need to go door to door to collect them. Just make ammo unavailable and have fellow citizens turn in anyone who has the temerity to actually take a gun out and fire it. Just restrict ownership further and further, into narrower categories, till all you can own is an Airsoft gun. Just round up shooters and their guns every time they shoot, and make them convicted felons with no rights till they dry up and die off.
This will be a lot easier than you think, despite the protestations.
TR
Blitzzz (RIP)
01-27-2009, 21:25
You're right Reaper while 40 million hunting rifles could take on a couple of million soldiers with armor and etc, it will not likely be done. We'll all end up sheep and the leftist sheep will rule. If enough resistance flares up in a spot or two there may then be a ground swell of the same and then who knows. I will have to do a lot of thinking. Blitz
PS I've never been a sheep, and resistance is in the blood.
And thus, it starts? "One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
As a former NY Rep. for the 2nd Amendment Sisters, I spent a lot of time discussing the AWB and attending gun shows and meeting with hunters in the upstate region of NY. They didn't think that their weapons were an issue in the matter of "gun control". Their attitude was, "well, all I do is hunt with it so I can feed my family". My arguments on why they should join the cause fell on deaf ears and eventually I just said "well, then I guess you can do your hunting at the local walmart or grocery store with your grocery cart because one day your hunting rifles and shotguns will be dust collectors". They would just shrug and move on. We worked simultaneously with the NRA to educate and get the word out about our 2nd Amendment rights being in jeopardy.
I have read about the encoding on ammo. And it is another form of "gun control" only I think it's a much "slicker" way of going about it. It will get to the point where you won't be able to buy ammo and thusly, they have won their "gun control" issue.
There have been numerous reports on how "gun control" ie, banning weapons in England has caused many a victimized citizen to become a felon for protecting their property and their family with a now "illegal" weapon. And now the good people of England are outraged. Here are two stories that are good examples and possibly where we are headed soon if our governments wish "to protect us" from ourselves becomes a reality:
In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/News/Index/TonyMartin.asp
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html (it's an article from 02, but these stories and ones like them keep surfacing.)
I liked this quote, so I had to share it:
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew
The question for most people is "As what point do I decide to become a law breaker?"
Most every American wishes to live in peace and within the law. They try to follow the local, state and Federal laws the best they can.
The laws for storage, ammunition, license, fees, etc are getting so complex that the average citizen is going to trip up one day.
With the coming laws - the same thing - the more complex the laws the easier to turn someone into a criminal.
Each person will draw the line in a different place.
Death by a thousand cuts.
Each person will draw the line in a different place.
Exactly. And if they are smart, they will not announce when and where they drew the line on a public forum.
PS I've never been a sheep, and resistance is in the blood.
Good, I wouldn't expect you to become one, either.
As I recall, when operations are conducted behind the OPFOR's FLOT, then one usually attempts to remain undetected by the OPFOR, even though you may be creating chaos in their AO. I would suggest this operation is no different. TR has graciously identified the OPFOR (i.e. anyone who would enact and enforce such laws).
Constant
01-28-2009, 10:37
The question for most people is "As what point do I decide to become a law breaker?"
Most every American wishes to live in peace and within the law. They try to follow the local, state and Federal laws the best they can.
The laws for storage, ammunition, license, fees, etc are getting so complex that the average citizen is going to trip up one day.
With the coming laws - the same thing - the more complex the laws the easier to turn someone into a criminal.
Each person will draw the line in a different place.
Death by a thousand cuts.
So to the other members of the armed service, what do we do? When do we say that the enemies of the Constitution are governing us? That document is something I hold dear to my heart. I have a book on my desk that is the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and my troops must read it within the first week they are working for me. So my concern has become one of where do I, as a member of the Armed Forces, draw the line? I have an idea, but what I do after that line is hit, I'm not sure what to do.
-Thin ice here I know, especially on an open forum.
So to the other members of the armed service, what do we do? When do we say that the enemies of the Constitution are governing us? That document is something I hold dear to my heart. I have a book on my desk that is the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and my troops must read it within the first week they are working for me. So my concern has become one of where do I, as a member of the Armed Forces, draw the line? I have an idea, but what I do after that line is hit, I'm not sure what to do.
-Thin ice here I know, especially on an open forum.
As a member of the Armed Forces myself, I would have to say the time to draw the line would be when they give you orders that defy the constitution. That would not be considered a "lawful" order. The oath we all took had that part "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When that line is crossed you'll know. Revisit the antics of the Gestapo (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/germany/intro/gestapo.htm).
I for one am not going to stand idly by, and watch my rights that my predecessors fought and died for go the way of the dodo. I'm an active NRA member, I instill the knowledge of our rights and freedoms to my son, I vote, and I exercise my first amendment right to my congress critter/local delegates. If everyone did that, someone might listen. The arrogance and ignorance of our fearless leaders astounds me. Back in my lane, out.
A good example of what can happen to individual and collective rights is illustrated in The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. He discusses how the overwhelming majority of people went into decades of forced labor, torture, and death with almost no struggle. This all starts with the erosion of th 1st and 2nd ammendments. Its why they are not the 12th, or 13th amendments.
I would encourage people to read the above book. It is a good example of something to be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, it is a loooooong slow read.
As a member of the Armed Forces myself, I would have to say the time to draw the line would be when they give you orders that defy the constitution. That would not be considered a "lawful" order.
I would caution you on making any decision based on what you believe to be a "lawful order". Whether or not an order is lawful is not your decision, but the decision of your Court Martial board, should you decide not to obey the order given.
I can assure you, that if an order is given with respect to enforcing an enacted law, it is lawful until the SCOTUS decides otherwise, not you.
Your best, first line of defense is to ensure no such law is enacted. After that, if you are not willing to enforce it, then I would highly suggest leaving the military or LE organization in which you belong.
blowfish
01-28-2009, 15:22
In reading the book Get Selected, it was stated (and I am paraphrasing) that the lone wolf dies off, while the pack survives. If people are not willing to band together and wage the political battle against gun control, while the price to be paid is in time, money and effort, why should one think that they will band together to fight when the price to be paid is in blood?
The political left in this country has shown a remarkable ability to organize themselves, rally the media, communicate their position to the populace, and make their will known at the polls. Unless gun owners, and to a greater extent those who oppose a socialist/tyrannical state, begin to effectively fight the political battle, we will lose.
As a member of the Armed Forces myself, I would have to say the time to draw the line would be when they give you orders that defy the constitution. That would not be considered a "lawful" order. The oath we all took had that part "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When that line is crossed you'll know. Revisit the antics of the Gestapo (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/germany/intro/gestapo.htm).
I for one am not going to stand idly by, and watch my rights that my predecessors fought and died for go the way of the dodo. I'm an active NRA member, I instill the knowledge of our rights and freedoms to my son, I vote, and I exercise my first amendment right to my congress critter/local delegates. If everyone did that, someone might listen. The arrogance and ignorance of our fearless leaders astounds me. Back in my lane, out.
While it would be difficult to accomplish, what would you do if they amended the Constitution?
The folly of gun laws banning firearms or ammo is that it is political stunt and if it were put up to a vote of the people the anti-gun nuts would lose hands down.
The Reaper
01-28-2009, 16:02
While it would be difficult to accomplish, what would you do if they amended the Constitution?
The folly of gun laws banning firearms or ammo is that it is political stunt and if it were put up to a vote of the people the anti-gun nuts would lose hands down.
I disagree.
"It is for the children. Who needs military style assault weapons? Who needs a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. Why are there "cop killer" bullets for sale? Close the "gun show loophole". Who needs a .50 caliber weapon anyway? Put an end to Saturday Night Specials. Who needs small, easily concealable handguns? Who needs large, high-powered handguns? Who needs "sniper" type weapons with high powered scopes? Why are gun owners not licensed? Why are bullets not ballistically fingerprinted? Why are they not serial numbered? Why should we allow the sale of automatic weapons? Why allow people to buy ammunition over the counter without a license? Why do people need so many guns? Maybe they should be taxed. Why not ban the sale of small caliber handgun ammo? It is only used by the criminals. Why do you need a shotgun that holds more than three rounds? Why not require a means tested license for firearms owners? How can we allow people to carry guns around concealed? It just leads to more violence? Why does anyone need to buy a gun the same day? A waiting period would be a good way for them to cool off. Why does anyone need to buy more than one gun per month? Why do we allow those dangerous ranges here? A bullet might hit my house. Maybe we should ban them, I hear that they are contaminated with toxic substances, like lead and mercury. Why can you buy silencers today? No one uses them but the Mob and assassins? Why should we allow the sale of hollow point and dum-dum bullets? Why do we have so many gun dealers? Surely some of them are doing something illegal? Let's put some of the "bad" ones out of business. Why do those people need so many guns and so much ammo? Send someone to investigate and arrest them."
These are all themes that have been proposed by the anti-gunners and the MSM. Spun properly, any of them could pass a public referendum by the majority in this country, despite the clear agenda and outright conflict oif some of the arguments.
The end result, as the anti-gunners want, is a gradual erosion of 2nd Amendment rights, culminating in a complete ban on private firearms ownership in this country.
This is their idea of a compromise, as they would greatly prefer an immediate repeal of the 2nd Amendment and the confiscation of all guns and ammo.
You don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment, you just need to chip away at it with legislative and legal decisions until it doesn't mean anything anymore.
TR
The political left in this country has shown a remarkable ability to organize themselves, rally the media, communicate their position to the populace, and make their will known at the polls. Unless gun owners, and to a greater extent those who oppose a socialist/tyrannical state, begin to effectively fight the political battle, we will lose.
I wholeheartedly agree. However, the battle is all but lost. The left has an IO campaign second to none. They have control of the media with only one vestige left for conservative expression (AM talk radio) and they are attempting to quell that outlet. They will silence the opposition. They are firmly entrenched in the public education system from primary to post-secondary. They control the labor organizations. And now, they control two of the three primary branches of government. Thanks to former POTUS' actions such as Lincoln, FDR, and Truman, they have precidence for subduing their opposition through Presidential order. All it will take is some form of internal threat (i.e. terrorist attack or econmic collapse).
I'm not saying give up. However, at some point, we will have a kinship to the Spartans.
Defender968
01-28-2009, 19:32
I wholeheartedly agree. However, the battle is all but lost. The left has an IO campaign second to none. They have control of the media with only one vestige left for conservative expression (AM talk radio) and they are attempting to quell that outlet. They will silence the opposition. They are firmly entrenched in the public education system from primary to post-secondary. They control the labor organizations. And now, they control two of the three primary branches of government. Thanks to former POTUS' actions such as Lincoln, FDR, and Truman, they have precidence for subduing their opposition through Presidential order. All it will take is some form of internal threat (i.e. terrorist attack or econmic collapse).
I'm not saying give up. However, at some point, we will have a kinship to the Spartans.
Respectfully KClapp it sounds to me like you are giving up, let me ask you a question, does your congressman and senators know how you feel, have you expressed your views to them in a respectful manner, how about the members of Congress considering the H.R. 25? If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Even though all the things you said may be true we still have one thing that the Dims/Commies/Left wing wackos/ and tree hugging hippies don't have on their side, the constitution and that is a very powerful force, coupled with over 200 years of history of gun ownership I still think we've got the upper hand. This fight is far from over, but it will end much quicker and go very badly for this nation if good folks like you give up.
Just my .02
I disagree.
"It is for the children. Who needs military style assault weapons? Who needs a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. Why are there "cop killer" bullets for sale? Close the "gun show loophole". Who needs a .50 caliber weapon anyway? Put an end to Saturday Night Specials. Who needs small, easily concealable handguns? Who needs large, high-powered handguns? Who needs "sniper" type weapons with high powered scopes? Why are gun owners not licensed? Why are bullets not ballistically fingerprinted? Why are they not serial numbered? Why should we allow the sale of automatic weapons? Why allow people to buy ammunition over the counter without a license? Why do people need so many guns? Maybe they should be taxed. Why not ban the sale of small caliber handgun ammo? It is only used by the criminals. Why do you need a shotgun that holds more than three rounds? Why not require a means tested license for firearms owners? How can we allow people to carry guns around concealed? It just leads to more violence? Why does anyone need to buy a gun the same day? A waiting period would be a good way for them to cool off. Why does anyone need to buy more than one gun per month? Why do we allow those dangerous ranges here? A bullet might hit my house. Maybe we should ban them, I hear that they are contaminated with toxic substances, like lead and mercury. Why can you buy silencers today? No one uses them but the Mob and assassins? Why should we allow the sale of hollow point and dum-dum bullets? Why do we have so many gun dealers? Surely some of them are doing something illegal? Let's put some of the "bad" ones out of business. Why do those people need so many guns and so much ammo? Send someone to investigate and arrest them."
These are all themes that have been proposed by the anti-gunners and the MSM. Spun properly, any of them could pass a public referendum by the majority in this country, despite the clear agenda and outright conflict oif some of the arguments.
The end result, as the anti-gunners want, is a gradual erosion of 2nd Amendment rights, culminating in a complete ban on private firearms ownership in this country.
This is their idea of a compromise, as they would greatly prefer an immediate repeal of the 2nd Amendment and the confiscation of all guns and ammo.
You don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment, you just need to chip away at it with legislative and legal decisions until it doesn't mean anything anymore.
TR
I was basing that on the 2008 polls regarding the 2nd Admendment where the over whelming majority of those polled agreed it was the individual right. But when looking at it from your perspective I see your point, and if put to a national popular vote the result might well replicate the 2009 POTUS Election results.
Put forth this Brady propaganda (interesting they pick DC) and it would sway some people when hyping the effective range. But they fail to mention the prohibitive cost and the unlikely chance of any Average Joe can pull off a 1000 yd shot with a 50 Cal..
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/50calibermap.pdf
I find it interesting that most of the guns crimes listed on the Brady site occur East of the Mississippi and West of Colorado. It also seems that the vast majority of this incidents are in Democratic States.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/highprofile/
The legislative misadventure which occurred in my state brought me up out of my chair. I have always left the politics to others- too busy, too tired, didnt want to go to the fundraiser or the dinner. I can guarantee you that this trip around the track I will be much more involved. I would encourage all who can to allocate some of their time and money to making sure the right people get in at the local level and taking it from there. They at least have to worry about bumping into you at Wall-mart and having to explain their vote.
Blitzzz (RIP)
01-29-2009, 06:38
BryanK pretty well hit it on the nose. Don't try to mince the "defend" part with following the orders part while they are both vital to the Oath but you must defend the Constitution first against illegal orders (counter the Constitution), Bless us all, Blitzzz.
I would caution you on making any decision based on what you believe to be a "lawful order". Whether or not an order is lawful is not your decision, but the decision of your Court Martial board, should you decide not to obey the order given.
I can assure you, that if an order is given with respect to enforcing an enacted law, it is lawful until the SCOTUS decides otherwise, not you.
Your best, first line of defense is to ensure no such law is enacted. After that, if you are not willing to enforce it, then I would highly suggest leaving the military or LE organization in which you belong.
Duly noted. However to clarify what I meant by not adhering to a lawful order would be in the instance of Uncle Sam telling me to go door to door ransacking houses to claim Citizens arms by any means necessary, or something to that effect. That would be a very clear violation of our rights as US Citizens.
Respectfully KClapp it sounds to me like you are giving up, let me ask you a question, does your congressman and senators know how you feel, have you expressed your views to them in a respectful manner,
Yes, they do. And I have written them on matters concerning more than just firearms ownership. One of them has an automated email response that pretty much tells me, in a very politically-correct manner, that my views are irrelevant to him as he knows what is best for me.
how about the members of Congress considering the H.R. 25?
Yup, same as the senators. And my congressional representative knows better than me what is best for me also. Just ask him.
To demonstrate the futility of writing your representatives, consider what happened with the first bailout bill. Reports indicated that the correspondence received from constituents was overwhelmingly against the bailout. But the constituents were ignored. We have a problem Houston.
Even though all the things you said may be true we still have one thing that the Dims/Commies/Left wing wackos/ and tree hugging hippies don't have on their side, the constitution and that is a very powerful force,
It's a powerful force only if your view of the Constitution is supported by the majority of the SCOTUS judges. The fact that the two primary political parties try to stack the deck within the Supreme Court, in order to get rulings that support their political ideology, tells me the Constitution has been relegated to near irrelevance.
I'm sure Leonidas and crew understood their situation. I know I understand mine. While my cause may be lost, I will die with my boots on and standing, because I believe in what I'm defending and my honor demands it.
Duly noted. However to clarify what I meant by not adhering to a lawful order would be in the instance of Uncle Sam telling me to go door to door ransacking houses to claim Citizens arms by any means necessary, or something to that effect. That would be a very clear violation of our rights as US Citizens.
Unfortunately, just such an order can be made both lawful and Constitutional given the right conditions.
It's a powerful force only if your view of the Constitution is supported by the majority of the SCOTUS judges.
Have to disagree with you on this point, sir.
Maybe around my camp we are dilusional, but we still write to our local newspapers and elected officials, when they make the wrong call.
Believe that it is Our duty as American citizens, to challenge, cry-foul, and make Our voices heard, when those represented to serve us and
(you, Our brave soldiers), are outta line.
JMHO,:munchin
Holly
rocknrolla
01-29-2009, 10:38
Well, all those who believed the bullshit about the Dims not wanting to take your guns, try and get your votes back (again).
The leopard does not change his spots.
They have two years of unrestricted opportunity to issue legislation attacking our 2nd Amendment rights, and the only thing which could stop them is the SCOTUS, which is about evenly divided.
Contact your legislators, probably Dims, and see if they will buck the Pelosi and Reid agenda.
I strongly suspect that in most cases, they will not.
We are not seen as constituents to them, just rednecks clinging to guns and religion.
Change you can believe in indeed.
TR
These are the same dims who "promised" bipartisan talks across the board on all legislation. Hold the presses! Their first major bill through Congress is being forced through with - here's the shocker - ZERO Republican support!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-stimulus15-2009jan15,0,2499691.story
:rolleyes:
These are the same dims who "promised" bipartisan talks across the board on all legislation. Hold the presses! Their first major bill through Congress is being forced through with - here's the shocker - ZERO Republican support!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-stimulus15-2009jan15,0,2499691.story
:rolleyes:
:confused:
:munchin
Believe that it is Our duty as American citizens, to challenge, cry-foul, and make Our voices heard, when those represented to serve us
It most certainly is a responsible citizen's duty. Frankly, it is also my God-given duty. However, there is no requirement, other than force of arms and the ballot box, for our so-called representatives to listen. The force of arms is off the table, for a number of reasons. The ballot box is slow and can be manipulated by propaganda and fraud, as this last election demonstrated.
I'm far too pragmatic to believe my stand will amount to anything. I'm also too much of a warrior to just quit.
bkleonards
01-29-2009, 13:53
It looks like the fox is trying to take a different route into the henhouse.
Senate Bill 2286 recently died in committee in the state of Mississippi. If passed this bill would have required serial encoding of all ammunition produced or sold in the state. It also would have required disposal of all non encoded ammunition by 1 Jan 2010!
This all apparently falls under the larger umbrella of the Ammunition Accountability Act. On one of their websites, their motto is "saving lives one bullet at a time".
If this ever passes, it will probably make ammunition unafordable by most, not to mention the issues it poses to 2nd ammendment rights ( protection of freedom) and privacy issues.
This is currently underway in other states. I would encourage everyone to check their local legislation and make sure this is not silently making its way onto the books in their area.
Health and safety to all.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Copied below from another site. thought it would be interesting to add to what is already posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ALL,
This must be put out to ALL Local, STATE, and FEDERAL Legislators. This Legislation must be stopped. Please insure this is sent to every Hunter, Gun Collectors and Recreational Shooter.
The Second Amendment MUST be respected and not rewritten by the left as they have done to American History. Our ability to Self Defense MUST be respected.
This post will be before 25,000 individuals within 24 hours. Keep it going until this attack on Americans is stopped.
John C.
Redding, CA
Look it up on snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammunition.asp
Ammunition Accountability Legislation.
Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns? Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo!
The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana ) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.
Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!
If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!
This legislation is currently pending in 18 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.
Send to your friends in these states AND fight to stop this Bill from being passed!!!
To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to: http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm
Defender968
01-29-2009, 14:06
-------------------------------------------------------------
Copied below from another site. thought it would be interesting to add to what is already posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ALL,
This must be put out to ALL Local, STATE, and FEDERAL Legislators. This Legislation must be stopped. Please insure this is sent to every Hunter, Gun Collectors and Recreational Shooter.
The Second Amendment MUST be respected and not rewritten by the left as they have done to American History. Our ability to Self Defense MUST be respected.
This post will be before 25,000 individuals within 24 hours. Keep it going until this attack on Americans is stopped.
John C.
Redding, CA
Look it up on snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammunition.asp
Ammunition Accountability Legislation.
Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns? Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo!
The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana ) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.
Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!
If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!
This legislation is currently pending in 18 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.
Send to your friends in these states AND fight to stop this Bill from being passed!!!
To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to: http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm
You can mark SC off the list, this legislation died last year with 0 cosigners, none of the politicians in my state dared to attach their name to that garbage :p. As for the rest of the states I don't know but at least we will keep our bullets in SC. Of course I've been looking online and you can't find much ammo right now, everyone’s buying scared (and there's nothing wrong with that considering the political climate)! :cool:
I am sure it will be presented again, but I believe Missouri nixed that a year ago.
Constant
01-30-2009, 10:41
I am sure it will be presented again, but I believe Missouri nixed that a year ago.
We sure did!! (Born resident of Missouri, just stationed in Colorado)
phantom1984
02-01-2009, 03:19
How would i find out about Kentucky?
It most certainly is a responsible citizen's duty. Frankly, it is also my God-given duty. However, there is no requirement, other than force of arms and the ballot box, for our so-called representatives to listen. The force of arms is off the table, for a number of reasons. The ballot box is slow and can be manipulated by propaganda and fraud, as this last election demonstrated.
I'm far too pragmatic to believe my stand will amount to anything. I'm also too much of a warrior to just quit.
KClapp,
Very good points, and it will be interesting to see in the coming weeks how many gun rights the current administration will attempt to dissolve. Speak up and speak out loud, IMHO.
Phantom, a google search just performed rendered ten pages to links on gun laws state-by-state. :munchin
Holly
bravo22b
02-01-2009, 09:11
In PA, this was introduced as House Bill 2228. The only action that was taken on it so far was that it was referred to the Judiciary committee. I'm going to dig a little deeper when I have a chance and try to find out more, but hopefully it died a quiet death, never to be seen again.
The Reaper
02-01-2009, 09:36
How would i find out about Kentucky?
Are you familiar with Google?
How about the NRA?
TR
GratefulCitizen
02-01-2009, 14:56
Minor case with major implications:
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=286
This could lead to the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
I prefer to read rather than post, but these are my observations of this matter.
Americans love being COMMUNIST, as long as they get to call it Democracy. The US Constitution has already been rewritten, and a new government has been established for well over a hundred and forty years now. Every amendment after the tenth, and various foreign treaties, has resulted in the systematic destruction of a free, reverent, and sovereign self governing people, and replaced it with a godless tyrannical oligarchy of reprobates. America has been under Martial Law since the 1860s. Thus, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant, as it has been supplanted by the 14th Amendment.
All ten planks of Marx's manifesto have been implemented, and institutionalised, in America. America isn't somewhat socialistic; America is absolutely communist. What is more pathetic is that Americans truly identify with these communist institutions as being the "American Way." And, like good little communist, they send their children off to the local Dewey Camp for indoctrination to be socially engineered, and systematically demoralised. Then when it comes time for the Trotsky Mind Laundry, Americans actually fork out tens of thousands of dollars of their hard earned money for the advanced level Party indoctrination. Americans pretend its education, but if it were education they would actually be literate enough to understand the US Constitution, and other ancient landmarks. And, of course, from birth to the grave there are mega doses of Tell-us-o Vladamir. Can the Communist Commissars be anymore obvious? Its called TV PROGRAMMING!
Will American's eventually make a stand against tyranny? Sure, as soon as their Communist Commissars outline and define the tyranny so they can go get their Right to Bear Arms Against Tyranny Permit from the Sherrif, and pass the I'm a Good Little Communist background check. And, as we all know, Americans with all their firearms ever ready to defend America, puts fear into any nation daring to think of invading her borders. Yeah, thats why FORTY MILLION criminal foreign nationals have invaded America claiming RECONQUISTA! An invasion force of over FORTY MILLION foreign invaders is occupying American soil, and there are still Americans out there wondering when will the SHTF? Stop the Insanity. Susan Powter, where are you? And, as the American patriots cry "MOLON LABE," take note, the Communist Commissars don't need to come and get your guns, because Americans will never use them. GUN LAWS ARE JUST ANOTHER DISTRACTION! America fell long ago without firing a single shot.
Sorry, Comrades, but Americans haven't the stomach for liberty. Slaves never do.
Arwr
The Reaper
02-05-2009, 08:49
Hmm.:rolleyes:
More tinfoil, anyone?
TR
Has someone not taken their meds today?;)
I prefer to read rather than post, but these are my observations of this matter.
Americans love being COMMUNIST, as long as they get to call it Democracy. The US Constitution has already been rewritten, and a new government has been established for well over a hundred and forty years now. Every amendment after the tenth, and various foreign treaties, has resulted in the systematic destruction of a free, reverent, and sovereign self governing people, and replaced it with a godless tyrannical oligarchy of reprobates. America has been under Martial Law since the 1860s. Thus, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant, as it has been supplanted by the 14th Amendment.
All ten planks of Marx's manifesto have been implemented, and institutionalised, in America. America isn't somewhat socialistic; America is absolutely communist. What is more pathetic is that Americans truly identify with these communist institutions as being the "American Way." And, like good little communist, they send their children off to the local Dewey Camp for indoctrination to be socially engineered, and systematically demoralised. Then when it comes time for the Trotsky Mind Laundry, Americans actually fork out tens of thousands of dollars of their hard earned money for the advanced level Party indoctrination. Americans pretend its education, but if it were education they would actually be literate enough to understand the US Constitution, and other ancient landmarks. And, of course, from birth to the grave there are mega doses of Tell-us-o Vladamir. Can the Communist Commissars be anymore obvious? Its called TV PROGRAMMING!
Will American's eventually make a stand against tyranny? Sure, as soon as their Communist Commissars outline and define the tyranny so they can go get their Right to Bear Arms Against Tyranny Permit from the Sherrif, and pass the I'm a Good Little Communist background check. And, as we all know, Americans with all their firearms ever ready to defend America, puts fear into any nation daring to think of invading her borders. Yeah, thats why FORTY MILLION criminal foreign nationals have invaded America claiming RECONQUISTA! An invasion force of over FORTY MILLION foreign invaders is occupying American soil, and there are still Americans out there wondering when will the SHTF? Stop the Insanity. Susan Powter, where are you? And, as the American patriots cry "MOLON LABE," take note, the Communist Commissars don't need to come and get your guns, because Americans will never use them. GUN LAWS ARE JUST ANOTHER DISTRACTION! America fell long ago without firing a single shot.
Sorry, Comrades, but Americans haven't the stomach for liberty. Slaves never do.
Arwr
Makes me wish I had invested in ALCOA. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Holy $hit, I am getting double teamed by John Wayne. I repent, I'm sorry Duke. I didn't mean any of it. Really. LMAO.
Arwr
.."I need cop-killer bullets on the off chance that I need to kill a cop to protect my basic civil liberties".....
...Interesting to see some of the attitudes expressed by posters here, especially given that throughout the world, 'special services' units of the military are typically the ones tasked with the egregious violation of civil liberties, first against the foreign enemy, then against his 'domestic supporters'.......
Could you define a "Cop Killer" bullet? Can you name the types of ammunition that would be banned if a "Cop Killer Bullet" law was passed?
Your second section above is - lets just say interesting.
Soft Target
02-20-2009, 07:41
Special Services?
I know most of the guys on this site are Special Forces qualified.
I'll wager that there are damn few that are "Special Services" qualified; I may be the only one. What a distinction!
Oh, just showing I know the difference.
The Reaper
02-20-2009, 08:10
Just making sure I have this right...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize the argument of the defenders of the people's right (and some would say responsibility) to rebel: "I need cop-killer bullets on the off chance that I need to kill a cop to protect my basic civil liberties".
To summarize the counter-argument of the anti-gunners: "You don't need to worry about such things, officer friendly is at your service, ready to protect you from all enemies foreign and domestic"
This debate is less about guns, and more about the status of the individual as moral authority--do you decide what's right and wrong, or does it come from outside of you, perhaps from the electorate, a book, or some other source?
Interesting to see some of the attitudes expressed by posters here, especially given that throughout the world, 'special services' units of the military are typically the ones tasked with the egregious violation of civil liberties, first against the foreign enemy, then against his 'domestic supporters'...but I'm sure that could never happen here, the USG and most definitely not the fine upstanding men of the special services would never grab an innocent person in the middle of the night, beat the crap out of them, and drag them to a secret prison to be held incommunicado for an indeterminate amount of time.
Edit: for 'cop-killer bullets' I am using the operational definition of 'bullets capable of penetrating standard police-issue body armor'. Here is an article on the term and its origins: link The 5.7mm armor-piercing bullet favored by cartel assasins in Mexico probably qualifies under this term. The .308 'black tip' if indeed able to penetrate military armor would be a 'soldier-killer' bullet. Those advocating for the right to rebel and the disorganized militia would support the widespread proliferation of this bullet, to defend against the possibility of military occupation of the United States correct? Additionally, what about private ownership of SA-2s or Stingers, just in case the occupiers decide to turn the horror of air power against the American people?
distorted:
Your name defines your knowledge of firearms and ammunition.
This is the second post in the past 24 hours where you have showed your ignorance, and pretty much parrotted anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment propoganda. Your insinuation that SOF might be involved is equally out of place.
I recommend that you read all of the 2nd Amendment arguments here and educate yourself before posting again on this topic.
The next post of this nature will relieve you of any further posting burdens on this board.
Move out and draw fire.
TR
Blitzzz (RIP)
02-20-2009, 08:36
Just a Note: All those other "special Service" troops you mention have not Sworn to Uphold and defend a Constitution. And we all Have not forgotten that Oath. Blitzzz
Team Sergeant
02-20-2009, 09:06
distorted,
I'm not near as nice as The Reaper, you are done posting for the next six months. (Check out your title, you post before that and you're gone.)
Consider yourself in a read only status.
Team Sergeant
I say in the first 100 days.
The big miscalculation is that the margins in some states were significant enough that a 90% flip by angry gun owners could turn the color of the state. That could reverse the coattails that carried a lot of the Dims in close races.
NC, FL, PA, and OH have a LOT of gun owners and hunters, some of who voted for change, and hopefully, they will remember come election time.
TR
It appears that the TR may not be far off in is 100 day prediction. According to ABC News - In the 'guise' of assisting Mexico, Holder is already pimping re-instating the Assault Weapons Ban.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
I don't see anything in that statement that applies to semi automatic rifles which is what the "Assault Weapon" ban is after.
Libs have to lie - telling the truth shows them for what they are.
The Obama Administration is just using this as the FIRST "reason" for the new assault weapons ban. There will be more. Although, none will be honest reasons just playing to peoples perceived fears. We need a new Assault Weapons Ban for _______.
select "reason" below.
a) Mexico to quell the out of control drug cartel violence and corruption
b) the stock market to return to it's 14,000 point glory
c) to balance the budget
d) to keep 8 million Americans from foreclosing on their McMansions
e) for the children
f) All of the above
These clowns will roll out what ever argument they think the naive will buy into and can repeat without much effort or thought.
Gentlemen, I hear cash registers at gun shops ringing louder in the coming months.:munchin
Defender968
02-26-2009, 08:42
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
I don't see anything in that statement that applies to semi automatic rifles which is what the "Assault Weapon" ban is after.
Libs have to lie - telling the truth shows them for what they are.
That's exactly what I told my wife last night. Personally I view the violence in Mexico as a reason to own an Assault rifle not a reason to ban them. If I were in Arizona I would insist on getting an assault rifle if I didn't already have one.
What's funny to me is I looked up the crime statistics related to assault weapons a week or two ago, anyone want to guess how often an assault weapon is used in a crime.......it was .9 percent of all gun crimes......wow we definitely need to address that :rolleyes: I know in the years while I was a LEO there were 2....yea that's it, 2 total incidents involving assault rifles, one was a legitimately crazy guy sitting in his garage with the door closed firing rounds off, (got his neighbors attention and of course ours :)) The second was a simple video we got a hold of that showed a bunch of known gangbangers holding an SKS, there were 12-13 in the video who all had the rifle at different points, IIRC every one of them was a convicted felon or was holding the gun and some illegal substance, took less than 3 weeks before we had rolled up all but 1 or 2 of them.
Let's use precise terms precisely. Was that SKS capable of fully automatic fire? Unless it was a really neat variant of the standard model, it was a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. We have to resist the temptation to become lazy and let "scare-speak" slip into our common vocabulary.
The Reaper
02-26-2009, 10:17
Let's use precise terms precisely. Was that SKS capable of fully automatic fire? Unless it was a really neat variant of the standard model, it was a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. We have to resist the temptation to become lazy and let "scare-speak" slip into our common vocabulary.
Minor point, a Sturmgewehr (or battle rifle) uses a full power rifle cartridge, like the .30-06, 7.62 NATO, 8x57 Mauser, 7.62x54R, etc. The SKS uses an intermediate round, the 7.62x39.
The SKS is technically, merely a semi-automatic rifle, and is not that dfifferent from Bubba's Remington 760 or Browning.
TR
Defender968
02-26-2009, 10:26
Let's use precise terms precisely. Was that SKS capable of fully automatic fire? Unless it was a really neat variant of the standard model, it was a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. We have to resist the temptation to become lazy and let "scare-speak" slip into our common vocabulary.
My apologies Razor, it was not fully automatic, and while I would agree with you that an SKS it actually a battle rifle, I refer to it as an assault rifle because in the context of FBI gun statistics it would be considered one, also because the Dims/left are going to try ban them as such as their definition of an assault rifle was in 94,
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding stock, pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
And is now as of their 07 attempt for an assault weapons ban,
L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.
I don’t in any way agree with that definition, but the Dims are saying that these weapons are killing babies and destroying civilization and as such I can and will refute their assertions with the truth backed by my personal experiences. In reality these weapons are rarely used illegally, it does happen but as a very tiny fraction of overall gun crime. I would further suggest if no one had access to these weapons the crimes that were committed still would have been just with another gun.
Just my .02
Minor point, a Sturmgewehr (or battle rifle) uses a full power rifle cartridge, like the .30-06, 7.62 NATO, 8x57 Mauser, 7.62x54R, etc. The SKS uses an intermediate round, the 7.62x39.
The SKS is technically, merely a semi-automatic rifle, and is not that dfifferent from Bubba's Remington 760 or Browning.
TR
Good point--I sit corrected. ;) What would be the correct term for a semi-auto capable rifle firing 5.56, 7.62x39. 5.45, etc. (besides 'varmint gun' :D)?
The Reaper
02-26-2009, 10:55
Good point--I sit corrected. ;) What would be the correct term for a semi-auto capable rifle firing 5.56, 7.62x39. 5.45, etc. (besides 'varmint gun' :D)?
IMHO, a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle in an intermediate military caliber.
Or, soon the be the favored weapon of a well-armed, newly-established criminal class.
When they go to make the example of the first person who does not want to give them up, I hope he makes a good stand.
TR
JihadJilson
02-26-2009, 11:02
Since I wasn't exactly clear on what the "LoopHole" on the "Closing the Gun-show Loophole" was I started researching what the real issue was. I found this bit of info while doing so. Granted it is from Wikipedia and no I don't believe everything posted on Wiki, it did come with a reference index, unfortunately when I went to that it required an account to log into. Anyway this is what is posted.
"A 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show.[10] The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show."
[10] http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi-bin/SDA/NACJD/hsda?nacjd+02598-0001
"A 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show.[10] The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show."
A big issue here in Texas is related to guns which are legally owned, but are improperly secured and stolen...with the predictable results under discussion in this thread once they hit the "open" market.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Reaper
02-26-2009, 11:21
For those who do not know, the "gun show loophole" is the ability to sell a firearm to someone else face to face.
They do not like the fact that the guys walking around the gun show with a rifle on their shoulder and a "make me an offer" sign sticking out of the muzzle can sell it without papers or going through a dealer, as long as state law allows. The libs like to pose it as being able to just walk up to any dealer at a show and get any firearm with no paperwork. Lotsaluck with that one. Ain't happening.
This will actually result in a total ban on face to face sales, not just at gun shows.
All of these laws are functionally useless to prevent crime, but are another few cuts on the road to total bans.
TR
Defender968
02-26-2009, 11:32
Since I wasn't exactly clear on what the "LoopHole" on the "Closing the Gun-show Loophole" was I started researching what the real issue was. I found this bit of info while doing so. Granted it is from Wikipedia and no I don't believe everything posted on Wiki, it did come with a reference index, unfortunately when I went to that it required an account to log into. Anyway this is what is posted.
"A 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show.[10] The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show."
[10] http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi-bin/SDA/NACJD/hsda?nacjd+02598-0001
The above survey is documented at the Department of Justice website, for once Wiki did get it right but here is the source, there are lots of interesting facts, all of which the left will have to drastically slant or ignore all together to support their arguments.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
Bottom line is according to the Dep Of Justice in the 90's at least most criminal homicides were committed with large caliber revolvers, my guess is that has changed to semi automatic handguns based on what I saw in my AO. We typically took 9mm or smaller semi-autos off of the thugs we dealt with, saw a few revolvers but mostly semi-autos in 9mm or 380.
I hope he makes a good stand.
With more to follow his lead, I pray.
Blitzzz (RIP)
02-26-2009, 16:08
It could be me.:munchin
What part of "infringed" do the dems(small letters) not understsnd and was this a part of the constitution they have Signed waivers on? Blitzzz
allester666
02-26-2009, 17:43
Firearm crimes are up in the UK and Australia, countries that passed gun bans. A large factor in this statistic is best explained by Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
Quoted by Thomas Jefferson:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better
for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then
to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater confidence than an armed man."
This I realize is criminal theory, not fact but statistics are leaning on this to be true. It won't ever be realized as fact in our society because crime continues to happen and that opens interpretation of the cause of crime. The atom bomb was a theory, and so is some forms of communication but they look like they work to me.
Laws are meant to set conditions for men to peacefully come together as a society. I certainly don't object that. But what is disturbing is the general lack of interest of American citizens to look into the root of the problem, and of these people who would rather blindly accept the opinions of those appointed to govern our country.
Motivation through appealing to recent events is very effective. 9/11 created stricter security standards in our nation. Good. Purpose and direction are easily assumed to the jist of preventing those who intend to inflect great harm on US citizens or guests in our country from undue harm. AAR, security measures have helped to prevent at least some further terrorism in this fashion.
Objects continually brought up such as the traggic events of Columbine, Virginia Tech and the DC sniper also serve as a motivator in the train of thought that banning the sale of certain weapons will reduce the crimes related in such weapons. In a sense this could be plausible. However, atomic weapons capabilities are already "regulated" yet those with the money, the will and the motivation can still illegally obtain them. Firearms are cheap and easier to transport, and the principle is the same in that a truly dedicated person will be able to obtain them regardless of laws. In this instance the law abiding citizen is at a loss to defend himself (possibly) against a person of ill will who chooses to disregard the law.
Its easier to defend what you have then take back that which is lost. I hope we don't slowly wittle away at our rights as a nation. This a larger impact then being able to own a "assault weapon".
Last one for the night:
"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance
to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's
liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
George Washington, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785
... there are lots of interesting facts, all of which the left will have to drastically slant or ignore all together to support their arguments.
They will continue to ignore or slant everything that common sense tells people that have it. They assume everyone else is as dumb as they are.
To assume criminals will obey any laws, especially one that would disarm them, is the pillar of stupidity, and the foundation of the anti-gun argument.
I've attempted to educate several people with anti-gun viewpoints and beliefs. I have confronted them with the truth, facts, Founding Father's writings, the Constitution itself, and several years of personal experience. Every single one of them ignored everything I said. They are incapable of reason, and lack the God given common sense normal men have. They will argue with their skewed facts, and regurgitate HCI banter, until blue in the face, and say with complete conviction that guns, not criminals, kill people and that they are evil (the gun, not the criminal) and only lead to evil destructive things.
They are completely content to ignore the fact that firearms made the US what it is today, and that without the firearm, we would be subjects of those with them. They ignore the fact that firearms save many lives each day, when used by the police and citizens against criminals. They are very comfortable living in the giant fantasy world where no human wants to subjugate another, or kill another, or rape another, or steal from another. In their world, guns are the sole blame for evil doing, and when those evil guns are finally taken away from everyone, we will live in a happy flower filled field, all have long hair, and smoke weed, and sing cum-bye-ya while holding hands and swaying to the music... :rolleyes: ...you know... hippies. :D
Those same people, would have been used, by the Founding Fathers, as "cannon fodder' and described as lacking common sense.
(Admin. approved post)
Well, score one for the "Good Guys!":)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gSw0RreqiqgZ8MlkyGg7SMePqRpgD96QIK301
Court turns down NYC case against gun industry
5 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned away pleas by New York City and gun violence victims to hold the firearms industry responsible for selling guns that could end up in illegal markets.
The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.
The city's lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision.
The lawsuit was first brought in June 2000 while Rudy Giuliani was New York mayor. It was delayed due to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and because of similar litigation in the state courts.
The city refiled the lawsuit in January 2004, saying manufacturers let handguns reach illegal markets at gun shows in which non-licensed people can sell to other private citizens; through private sales in which background checks are not required; by oversupplying markets where gun regulations are lax, and by having poor overall security.
The city said a state nuisance law makes it a crime to knowingly or recklessly create a condition endangering the safety or health of a considerable number of people. But the appeals court said New York's law does not qualify as an exception to federal law. It agreed with U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed by President George W. Bush in 2005, is constitutional.
The cases are City of New York v. Beretta, 08-530, and Lawson v. Beretta, 08-545.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?
By JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009
THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.
When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.
I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.
But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.
Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.
Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.
What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.
Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.
The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.
What a load of shit... typical to find it published in the NY times.
Kyobanim
04-28-2009, 19:21
Typical of the shit that carter spouses all the time
The closet Jihadist, Jimmy needs quit smoking his peanuts shells laced with crack.
BigJimCalhoun
04-28-2009, 21:05
The closet Jihadist, Jimmy needs quit smoking his peanuts shells laced with crack.
I wonder if Jimmy Carter thinks it is ok for Hamas to have these types of firearms, in addition to the suicide vests, rpgs and rockets?
I read The Case Against Israel's Enemies and there was a whole chapter on Jimmy Carter.
Retired W4
04-29-2009, 05:29
On the next go around, his precious scoped hunting rifles will probably be classified as "Sniper Rifles". I wonder what he thinks about that! Jimma Catta is such a waste!
redleg99
04-29-2009, 13:55
Contact your legislators, probably Dims, and see if they will buck the Pelosi and Reid agenda.
I strongly suspect that in most cases, they will not.
We are not seen as constituents to them, just rednecks clinging to guns and religion.
Agreed, sir.
Perhaps it might be useful to remind our representatives of the 1994 election following the assault weapons ban?
While many of them were not in office then, they could reference it in Bill Clinton’s autobiography:
The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.
After the election [of 1994] I had to face the fact that the law enforcement groups and other supporters of responsible gun legislation … could not protect their friends in Congress from the NRA. The gun lobby outspent, out-organized, outfought, and out- demagogued them.
Bill Clinton, My Life, p 1007.
It might or might not have an effect, but I don’t think it can hurt.
The Reaper
04-29-2009, 14:02
Agreed, sir.
Perhaps it might be useful to remind our representatives of the 1994 election following the assault weapons ban?
While many of them were not in office then, they could reference it in Bill Clinton’s autobiography:
Bill Clinton, My Life, p 1007.
It might or might not have an effect, but I don’t think it can hurt.
I find it hard to believe that it takes over 1,000 pages to cover Bill's life story, if he leaves out the sex and crime.
TR
Patriot007
05-10-2009, 07:15
Just a heads up, I could not find a current statement regarding gun control on the whitehouse.gov website. The one posted here that started this thread has disappeared. In fact, try to find anything regarding guns on the website.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
SeanBaker
05-13-2009, 17:31
But [US Rep] McCarthy also plans to introduce an assault-weapons ban in the coming weeks.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/new-york-dems-taunt-gillibrand-gun-control-positions/
I'd believe it was posturing if I were an optimistic person.
greenberetTFS
05-14-2009, 06:57
I wonder if Jimmy Carter thinks it is ok for Hamas to have these types of firearms, in addition to the suicide vests, rpgs and rockets?
I read The Case Against Israel's Enemies and there was a whole chapter on Jimmy Carter.
BJC,
Do you have a website ? I'd like to read this article.....................:rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
Just a heads up, I could not find a current statement regarding gun control on the whitehouse.gov website. The one posted here that started this thread has disappeared. In fact, try to find anything regarding guns on the website.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
Now that, is scary!
Did a search for "guns" and only found the article that is written for white house touristas, and prohibited items. Duh!:rolleyes:
Where did the article go, am wondering...maybe "they" read this thread???:eek:
Am glad that Reynolds makes "Release Foil!" (great for baking btw...)
Holly
BigJimCalhoun
05-14-2009, 18:27
BJC,
Do you have a website ? I'd like to read this article.....................:rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
I apologize sir, the underlining was suppossed to mean it was a book, but in the age of the Internet, it looks like a broken hyperlink.
Here is a link to the book
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Israels-Enemies-Exposing/dp/0470379928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242347182&sr=8-1
I loaned my copy from the local library, as for me, it would be a one-time read.
GratefulCitizen
10-24-2009, 12:55
This will lead to gun control through the back door.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/22/the-feds-take-a-shot-at-guns/
Control of health care + guns being a "health" issue = gun registration
They're just looking for something to hang their hat upon, and then bring the issue before a sympathetic federal judge.
-mandatory health insurance
-forms require registration of guns
-IRS enforcement
-penalties for not filling in forms correctly
Historically, you're guilty until proven innocent when dealing with the IRS.
I guess it's time to get an FFL and buy all the parts for that AR-15 I've always wanted.
I guess it's time to get an FFL and buy all the parts for that AR-15 I've always wanted.
Dates are important....
If obama gets to install Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice, we will be in trouble.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs
Write your two senators and tell them "No on confirming Kagan". And do it like you were voting in Chicago, early and often.
ZonieDiver
05-13-2010, 12:31
If obama gets to install Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice, we will be in trouble.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs
Write your two senators and tell them "No on confirming Kagan". And do it like you were voting in Chicago, early and often.
Good luck with that!
1) One never knows what an SC justice is gonna do, or who might "change their stripes" when the balance on the court shifts a bit.
2) Elections have consequences, and a significant portion of our voting populace needs to learn or re-learn that lesson.
3) I didn't like the "borking" of Bork, and don't want to "bork" Kagan - even if she does look like Kevin James. :D
Green Light
05-13-2010, 12:31
Mine are Byrd and Rockefeller. Put your hand on the ground . . . wait until it is cold to the touch. That's when they'll vote against her (when hell freezes over).
If obama gets to install Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice, we will be in trouble.
Trouble? How so?
Trouble? How so?
She has toed the ultra liberal left wing line on every other issue. Anyone who bans military recruiters from the harvard campus because they oppress gays is someone to be wary of.
Nevermind the fact that "don't ask, don't tell" was not a DOD policy, it was President clinton's policy.
Hate to sound redneck, but two liberal jewish female justices from New York City and one liberal hispanic female justice from New York City bodes ill for our future.
ZonieDiver
05-13-2010, 14:12
She has toed the ultra liberal left wing line on every other issue. Anyone who bans military recruiters from the harvard campus because they oppress gays is someone to be wary of.
Nevermind the fact that "don't ask, don't tell" was not a DOD policy, it was President clinton's policy.
Hate to sound redneck, but two liberal jewish female justices from New York City and one liberal hispanic female justice from New York City bodes ill for our future.
Oy vey! The republic has survived worse, and will undoubtedly survive this.
Green Light
05-13-2010, 15:17
Hate to sound redneck, but two liberal jewish female justices from New York City and one liberal hispanic female justice from New York City bodes ill for our future.
Nope. You don't sound like a redneck. You sound like a bigot. The ONLY part of your statement above that makes any sense is liberal. The other stuff is just bigoted crap. Being Jewish or Hispanic doesn't mean squat. I'm descended from both and I'm just to the right of Atilla the Hun (politically speaking). I'm also a redneck. I guess you have a false impression of all three.
Green Light,
I am suitably stomped upon. Sorry I offended you.
However, I remind you that Sotomeyer said that she would bring a superior view to the court because she was a Hispanic female. During the confirmation process, Ginsburg said that she was from a liberal Jewish upbringing in NY. Not my words, theirs.
Again, sorry I offended you.
She has toed the ultra liberal left wing line on every other issue. Anyone who bans military recruiters from the harvard campus because they oppress gays is someone to be wary of.
Nevermind the fact that "don't ask, don't tell" was not a DOD policy, it was President clinton's policy.
Hate to sound redneck, but two liberal jewish female justices from New York City and one liberal hispanic female justice from New York City bodes ill for our future.
They can pass all the laws they want, many people will not be swayed to peacefully hand over their firearms, and at present time I do not believe there are enough LEO's to run around the country confiscating weapons. Bans on certain types of ammo and parts will lead to a black market industry.
I don't see them winning that war.
They can pass all the laws they want, many people will not be swayed to peacefully hand over their firearms, and at present time I do not believe there are enough LEO's to run around the country confiscating weapons. Bans on certain types of ammo and parts will lead to a black market industry.
I don't see them winning that war.
It also won't help when LEO's like myself refuse to have anything to do with any kind of illegal confiscation.
It also won't help when LEO's like myself refuse to have anything to do with any kind of illegal confiscation.
Hat tip to ya! I am just hoping none of us ever have to cross that bridge.
The Reaper
05-14-2010, 03:58
They can pass all the laws they want, many people will not be swayed to peacefully hand over their firearms, and at present time I do not believe there are enough LEO's to run around the country confiscating weapons. Bans on certain types of ammo and parts will lead to a black market industry.
I don't see them winning that war.
The Brits did not disarm their populace overnight.
If someone there sees a gun or hears a gunshot, they call the cops.
They make examples out of the first few, most of the rest of the sheep will follow peacefully, turn their guns in or bury them forever.
The 4473s will lead them to the biggest violators.
At least they will create an extremely well-armed criminal class.
TR
I swear to all that's holy, your Honor, all my firearms were stolen one night by persons unknown, along with the ammo and my old bayonet...
Now, excuse me while I continue working in my garden.
The day it comes time to bury your guns is the same day you should dig them up.
D.