View Full Version : Feinsteins Gun Control Bill
Today at a local dealer I overheard them tell a customer there were 600 NCIS calls ahead of him.
That said, it would appear that if the Feinstein registration requirement passes it would require the BATFE or whoever to hire a massive number of new government employees to process the potential millions of firearms that fall under the new law.
I am not aware of what the NFA wait time is these days, 4 or 5 years ago it around 6 months if they didn't lose your paper work......if this proposal takes effect that 6 months could turn years, which could create problems if there is a amnesty deadline.
This a huge cluster f--k in the making.
How long until Homeland Security is demanding your papers?
Started in October of 2001. Govt. issued photo ID required for interstate conveyance by commercial air carrier. Before the TSA was even formed. Now required for banking, some Internet access, even buying gift cards, but not for taking the Oath of Office for POTUS.
Badger52
12-28-2012, 05:37
This a huge cluster f--k in the making.
Last line of Feinstein's press release; they are highly skilled at funding huge cluster f--ks.
And they're assuming everyone will play nice.
Mustang Man
12-28-2012, 08:17
In the mean time I'll be stocking up on 30 round magazines for my Glock & AR15. If this unfortunately passes through these mags will be 4X their worth.
Last line of Feinstein's press release; they are highly skilled at funding huge cluster f--ks.
And they're assuming everyone will play nice.
True and I did some more digging.
Based on what I read on the internet, there is 'appears' to be a connection between registration and gun confiscation. While it is frowned upon to use example of Germany, China and Russia...there are more recent examples:
Canada:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2000/canada-where-gun-registration-equals-c.aspx
California:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=23707
Hurricane Katrina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
Venezula:
http://www.examiner.com/article/venezuela-s-chavez-bans-gun-ownership-and-firearms-sales
Australia:
http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
Apparently, there is a long track record of gun registration being used later on to confiscate legally registered firearms.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/13/39we-want-them-registered39/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626143039AAIVbUH
Just one example of how politicians manipulate gun control:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_strange_birth_of_ny_gun_laws_QJmHRpczvWipydklC 80HYM
Badger52
12-28-2012, 09:09
True and I did some more digging.
.....
Apparently, there is a long track record of gun registration being used later on to confiscate legally registered firearms.
Yup. Ya gotta give Hugo credit, he had more transparency in his motive. There is no other end-game. Ask someone who supports it (for whatever reason they think) "to what end?" And make them play the tape all the way through.
Yup. Ya gotta give Hugo credit, he had more transparency in his motive. There is no other end-game. Ask someone who supports it (for whatever reason they think) "to what end?" And make them play the tape all the way through.
Yes. So what is legally registered today can be legislated illegal tomorrow.
There was even a couple pieces about California where the owner registered his firearm, but later on their firearm(s) were confiscated because of errors....in one case the owner used abbreviation on the registration which ended up voiding his registration and thus putting him outside the amnesty/registration period.
It would be the shits to lose your firearms because you used CA instead of writing out California...
The Reaper
12-28-2012, 10:35
This is an example of how the Libs are thinking.
The camel's nose is already under the tent.
Total civilian disarmament is their eventual goal.
TR
From the dailykos.com: http://tinyurl.com/cxwvey9
How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
by sporks
It's nice that we're finally talking about gun control. It's very sad that it took such a terrible tragedy to talk about it, but I'm glad the conversation is happening. I hear a lot about assault weapon and large magazine bans, and whilst I'm supportive of that, it won't solve the problem. The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.
Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don't want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza's assault weapon was. Even more guns are chambered for more powerful rounds, like the .30-06 or (my personal "favorite") 7.62x54R. Even a .22, the smallest round manufactured on a large scale, can kill easily. In fact, some say the .22 kills more people than any other round out there.
Again, I like that we're talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. Remember the beltway sniper back in 2002? The one who killed a dozen odd people? Even though he used a bushmaster assault rifle, he only fired one round at a time before moving. He could have used literally any rifle sold in the US for his attacks.
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it:
The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.
Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.
Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.
Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted. It's certainly not perfect. People may have gotten guns from parents or family, and not registered them. Perfect is the enemy of pretty darn good, as they say. This exercise isn't so much to track down every gun ever sold; the main idea would be to profile and investigate people that may not have registered their guns. As an example, I'm not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn't have anything registered to his name. It's a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn't, that guy is not who I'm concerned with. I'm concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He's the guy who warrants a raid.
So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported. This would put the murder machine corporations out of business for good, and cut the money supply to the NRA/GOA. As money dries up, the political capital needed for new controls will be greatly reduced.
There are a few other things I would suggest. I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer. Microstamping would also be a very good thing. Even if the only thing it does is drive up costs, it could still lead to crimes being solved. I'm willing to try every advantage we can get.
A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.
We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.
I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don't want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member. I'm sure you don't either. So lets stop looking for short term solutions and start looking long term. Registration is the first step.
Tell Pres. Obama and democrats in congress to demand mandatory, comprehensive gun registration. It's the only way we can ban guns with any effectiveness.
Not sure if this has already been posted, but here is what Senator Feinstein's website has as her "modest proposal."
Our Forefathers didn't write this, it doesn't apply to us. I'm guessing the word "Treason" doesn't apply anymore. That is, unless you oppose what this administration ludicrously brings to the table. Then you're treasonous and the NDAA hammer will be brought down upon you.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi
Please share this article with anyone opposed to our 2A rights. It is the best article I've read that supports our Constitutional Right to protect ourselves.
An Opinion On Gun Control (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/)
The right idea is starting to come to the surface:
"Arizona Attorney General proposes arming school employees"
Published December 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/27/arizona-attorney-general-wants-to-arm-school-employees/?test=latestnews#ixzz2GH7fF3lb
Sheriff Joe has his own plan:
PHOENIX -- Maricopa County Arpaio said Thursday that he plans to deploy his armed volunteer posse to protect Valley schools from the kind of violence that happened in the Connecticut shooting tragedy. Arpaio believes having armed law officers around schools will deter would-be criminals from trying anything violent and, possibly, stop them if they do.
“I have the authority to mobilize private citizens and fight crime in this county,” Arpaio said.
Arpaio first started using his posse to protect malls during the holiday shopping season in 1993 in response to violent incidents in prior years. Since then he said malls where his posse members are on patrol have had zero violent re-occurrences and patrols by his all-volunteer squad during the 2012 shopping season netted a record 31 arrests.
Full article. (http://www.azfamily.com/news/Sheriff-Arpaio-is-sending-posse-to-protect-schools-185012341.html)
Pat
ddoering
12-28-2012, 13:19
This is an example of how the Libs are thinking.
The camel's nose is already under the tent.
Total civilian disarmament is their eventual goal.
TR
And they call us nuts.
Team Sergeant
12-28-2012, 13:26
Sheriff Joe has his own plan:
Pat
Joe is an idiot and he needs to be sitting on a front porch somewhere.
What is not memtioned in the article is that most of Joe's 3000 member "volunteer posse" is unarmed. Only a very small fraction is actually armed. And some of the armed ones I actually not want around kids....:munchin
Joe is an idiot and he needs to be sitting on a front porch somewhere.
WWDD?*
*What would Dever do? ;)
Pat
The Reaper
12-28-2012, 13:57
Please share this article with anyone opposed to our 2A rights. It is the best article I've read that supports our Constitutional Right to protect ourselves.
An Opinion On Gun Control (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/)
Excellent read, for those who will bother to inform themselves.
TR
Excellent read, for those who will bother to inform themselves.
TR
Agreed. I will be using some of his points in future conversations with folks close to me that think banning things will keep an event such as CT from happening again.
Monsoon65
12-28-2012, 17:02
Please share this article with anyone opposed to our 2A rights. It is the best article I've read that supports our Constitutional Right to protect ourselves.
An Opinion On Gun Control (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/)
Very good read. I've shared it with several people that don't have anything in the "cluebag" when it comes to gun control.
Gun group says active killer events quadrupled after Gun Free School Zones Act
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-group-says-active-killer-events-quadrupled-after-gun-free-school-zones-act
“Politicians pass laws for gun-free school zones,” LaPierre said. “They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20121222/NEWS01/312220019/NRA-Gun-free-schools-targets-need-guards
The NRA Chief may have a point.
Excellent read, for those who will bother to inform themselves.
TR
Yes an excellant read, I would urge all to take the time to read it, I am forwarding to some of my less enlightened friends. A couple of good excerpts follow.
"Clint Smith once said if you look like food, you will be eaten. Criminals are looking for prey. They are looking for easy victims. If they wanted to work hard for a living they’d get a job. So when you pull a gun, you are no longer prey, you are work, so they are going to go find somebody else to pick on."
"In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control."
Badger52
12-28-2012, 19:34
Don't forget to engage your political reps inside your state borders if they're at all approachable. If the despots get their way they will need complicity inside the states at some point.
Although the lines on a chart don't run that way, state reps often have lots of conversations with the hometown folks who did go to DC so your view may be reaching more than one person.
Learn your local laws and whether there is willingness inside your borders to hold hard to them. Was your state one of those, post-Katrina, to pass an anti-confiscation bill? (Not a poll, just posing the question as one worth considering.)
The use of Larry Correia's essay is a good one, targeted as it is at those who'll even discuss the topic. Share it, use it. People need to understand the scope of what is being engineered "on their behalf by the wise people" to make the bogey man go away.
(I'd alluded to it in an earlier post; thank you Lan for linking it.)
Excellent read, for those who will bother to inform themselves.
TR
That means a lot coming from you, I appreciate it. The unfortunate thing is, too many Americans are busy watching Honey Boo Boo and buying shit from China to care that our Liberties are at risk. They're too infatuated with Hollywood and the media to understand that those things skew the reality of the world we live in.
Has anyone seen Hollywood's latest video calling for an end to gun violence? It's absolutely mind boggling how ignorant these wealthy
entertainers are, so now I refuse to support anything they are a part of as should anyone who really cares.
Boycott the media, the film industry, and anyone else who uses their power of influence to spread anti American agenda to our citizens. DiFi said 12/21 that she 'personally looked at pictures of guns' in her research for putting together a bill that would ban AW's. Are you kidding me? It's time you retired you old hag and you look like a villain from a comic book.
The people who re elect you are the same one's that will come running for help when shit hits the fan because they won't be able to defend themselves. What are they going to do when they can't afford to buy organic granola bars because our monetary system fell out?
I know I'm preaching to the choir but there are a lot of people who feel like I do and it's time to speak up.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Edit: Thank you Badger52 and others for taking the time to read it. I hope this man's article makes an impression on people all over the country.
Peregrino
12-28-2012, 21:11
Edit: Thank you Badger52 and others for taking the time to read it. I hope this man's article makes an impression on people all over the country.
I've been reading LC's books since he first went pro. His fiction is entertaining (if you like tongue-in-cheek monster slaying fantasy) and incorporates everything he articulates so well in this opinion piece. I wish I could hammer out 10,000 words in one sitting at 2100-0100 and do a fraction as well. Even more interesting are the comments from the people who read it and still blindly insist he "just doesn't get it - guns are evil and must be banned".
Even more interesting are the comments from the people who read it and still blindly insist he "just doesn't get it - guns are evil and must be banned".
There are those who fear what they do not understand and those who hate what they do not wish to understand. The second group are immovable, the one's like your signature suggests, live among us, and will do anything they can to make their agenda our reality.
An opinion piece in Forbes.
Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry
Forbes
Lawrence Hunter
12/28/12
It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.
Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.
A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.
The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.
That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.
Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context.
Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist or insist it doesn’t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.”
Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms.
They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.
The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”
The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.
The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.”
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.
That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”
But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.
A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
Good opinion piece tonyz.
And Lan thank you for your post as well, excellent read.
Good opinion piece tonyz.
I agree. Thank you for sharing that tonyz.
And Lan thank you for your post as well, excellent read.
No problem. Here's the latest-
Obama wants to enact more gun control measures in 2013 (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274881-obama-hopes-to-enact-new-gun-control-measures-in-2013)
Has anyone seen Hollywood's latest video calling for an end to gun violence? It's absolutely mind boggling how ignorant these wealthy
entertainers are, so now I refuse to support anything they are a part of as should anyone who really cares.
If it was only ignorance, I could accept it as most folks would want to educate themselves to correct the problem. The real issue here is their hypocrisy. Jamie Foxx leads off the line up, and how many of his movies are based on gun violence? Jeremy Renner, Jon Hamm, Cameron Diaz, Chris Rock, Peter Dinklage, Jessica Alba...I'd wager most of the folks decrying gun violence in this ad have participated in one or more movies, TV shows, music or music videos that use violence to sell. Beyonce...really? Didn't your husband shoot his brother as a kid, and has gone on to make millions on violent rap? Most of them also likely have armed security details. Self-absorbed hypocrites, one and all.
Jamie Foxx leads off the line up, and how many of his movies are based on gun violence? Jeremy Renner, Jon Hamm, Cameron Diaz, Chris Rock, Peter Dinklage, Jessica Alba...I'd wager most of the folks decrying gun violence in this ad have participated in one or more movies, TV shows, music or music videos that use violence to sell. Beyonce...really? Didn't your husband shoot his brother as a kid, and has gone on to make millions on violent rap? Most of them also likely have armed security details. Self-absorbed hypocrites, one and all.
For those who haven't seen the videos that Razor mentions above, here they are ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OphHIxcq7dc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2y_U0sEuQ
... and YES, they ARE hypocrites, one and all. :mad:
You're right Razor. Obama said:
“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”
The biggest hypocrite of all. Both of his daughters go to Sidwell where they have 11 armed guards and are looking to hire another (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service)
Armed security is good enough for your kids but not ours Mr. President?
Tuition at Sidwell Friends is :
Lower School
$33,268 (includes hot lunch and textbooks)
Middle and Upper Schools
$34,268 (includes hot lunch)
Security is not mentioned. I guess if we could all afford the luxury of armed guards at our childrens schools we would not be having this discussion.
For all the fees go to
http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.aspx
Cost should not be an issue. Many people here have worked many years and paid tens of thousands in taxes to afford such a luxury.
I live in a state that just approved a muti-billion dollar train project, a multi-billion dollar water project and just got its citizens to approve a measure that raises taxes to support our failing education system. Many schools in my area may have closed had they not approved this tax hike. (That's what Governor Brown wanted voters to think)
Now our prisons are releasing more violent offenders out of prison because we can't afford them.
Crime is up everywhere, we are going to be facing hyper-inflation in the next couple years, and the government wants to mess with our right to defend ourselves.
Team Sergeant
12-30-2012, 15:30
Cost should not be an issue. Many people here have worked many years and paid tens of thousands in taxes to afford such a luxury.
I live in a state that just approved a muti-billion dollar train project, a multi-billion dollar water project and just got its citizens to approve a measure that raises taxes to support our failing education system. Many schools in my area may have closed had they not approved this tax hike. (That's what Governor Brown wanted voters to think)
Now our prisons are releasing more violent offenders out of prison because we can't afford them.
Crime is up everywhere, we are going to be facing hyper-inflation in the next couple years, and the government wants to mess with our right to defend ourselves.
Sounds like the makings of a hollywood movie.......:munchin
haha, I wish it weren't true but I believe it is. I wish I hadn't lost my pistol on my most recent canoeing trip. I don't know whether I'll be able to arm myself before guns are confiscated :(
Found this on CalGuns (another forum I frequent). Have a good rest of your day gentlemen.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
Just a few points from DF bill
•Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
•Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
•Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx
I am not a lawyer, but doesn't the mere fact of her proposal constitute infringement on the 2nd Amendment, therefore a violation of the oath she took when sworn into office?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
I'm writing my representatives to see about her (and a few others) expulsion (http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PL%5B%3A%230%20%20%0A) (<--Adobe file;Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office). I feel an obligation to at least try something.
GratefulCitizen
12-31-2012, 11:14
Went to wiki to see how old she was (they're usually reliable with that sort of thing).
Found an interesting edit and took a screenshot.
Badger52
12-31-2012, 11:40
Went to wiki to see how old she was (they're usually reliable with that sort of thing).
Found an interesting edit and took a screenshot.Peter-SAN!
Thanks for that, the whole office is now laughing their non-collective-minded asses off.
Happy Moronic New Year!
:D
Went to wiki to see how old she was (they're usually reliable with that sort of thing).
Found an interesting edit and took a screenshot.
They must be reliable she was referred to as a moron :) . Maybe everyone should not be so quick to poo poo Wiki, just kidding.
Pericles
12-31-2012, 13:24
This silliness has other effects, too. Anybody remember Adventure Line, Cooper, and other makers of 30 round magazines that were govt. contractors? They went out of business after the 1994 ban. Civilian sales were keeping them in business ..... and looking at the immediate future of the Army, its 1990s all over again.
steel_eel
12-31-2012, 16:46
This video is from a 60 minutes interview with Feinstein in 1995. It shows her true intentions. At least the hag is consitent!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38
No shes is not. She used to have a CCW until it became public.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104
Considering Feinstein is a Jew I am amazed at her plan...
Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:
§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.
§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
What's that old saying .... Owners begin to look like their pets, or pets begin to look like their owners ???
69harley
12-31-2012, 22:22
You're right Razor. Obama said:
“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”
The biggest hypocrite of all. Both of his daughters go to Sidwell where they have 11 armed guards and are looking to hire another (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service)
Armed security is good enough for your kids but not ours Mr. President?
Would like to see a news reporter that covers the White House ask a hard question about this at a WH press conference. This should have more visibility.
Don't read to much into it...
He isn't being hypocritical, he agrees that all children should get an equal chance at a safe learning environment, but he's the POTUS and his children are more equal than our children.
Think of the children !
Yea I dont get it. After the holocost how anyone of Jewish decent can agree with gun control is beyond me.
We had a German I teacher that was Jewish and had lived through Holocaust. She was telling us about it one day and someone inquired as to why they didn't use firearms to fight back......she explained they weren't allowed to have firearms....they were either turned in or confiscated.
The same person that made the inquiry then remarked You turned in your guns...that was stupid. And the teacher said guns or not they likely would not have stood a chance against the army. And he then said Yeah, but at least you could have put up a fight and a killed a few of them.
Paralleling any topic with Nazi's is generally bad news for a discussion, but I read that 1938 Law and I was just puzzled how people like Feinstein, Boxer and Schumer knowingly attack law abiding citizens with such zeal......I mean their eyes sparkle with a sickening delight.
FTR - there are some articles/research that counter that the 1938 Law is widely used as propaganda by the NRA and others, and these articles go to great lengths marginalize the adverse effects of the law.......
Regardless of the laws effect, the law did exist and it's purpose was to put a certain segment of the population at a disadvantage.
How are the communists gonna keep their pledge of taking over the Country without a shot being fired if the paisanos have guns? Sheesh.
Ret10Echo
01-01-2013, 10:07
Considering Feinstein is a Jew I am amazed at her plan...
Feinstein isn't a Jew... She's a bottom feeder, political activist egomaniac who would sell her family for another term in office.
There is a danger in applying logic and reason in how these people inside the beltway think....
Yea I dont get it. After the holocost how anyone of Jewish decent can agree with gun control is beyond me.
Brush Okie,
I believe I have posted this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A49wm39crA) before, it is well worth a watch as he(R' Bendory) can explain it better than I can.
In summary, many Jews support gun control and the disarming of law abiding citizens because they fear the tool that was/is used to oppress them as opposed to looking at the reasons for oppression. While there are those who argue that antisemitism is illogical, years of oppression have created a helpless, victim mentality among many Jews(which is why some believe that by disarming the world they can create some sort of utopia, i.e. Soros), as opposed to recognizing that the pain may be a not so subtle heavenly wake up call.
That said, Feinstein, Soros, Schumer, Bloomberg etc.(and many others) are JINO, political ideologues always, and Jewish when politically expedient. The fact they are of my heritage is repulsive to me. Unfortunately, this isn't new, many of the secular Jews that came over to the US during the early 1900's were communists first and Jewish when convenient, and many headed up the early labor unions, ultimately having a hand in transforming the unions and the Democratic party into what they are now.
When political ideology replaces religion, and God given moral values are replaced by those of man, Jews become other Jews own worst enemy(Hanukkah is an excellent example of this). As they say, don't judge Judaism by the Jews; there is a vast disconnect between what is done vs. what is recorded as Jewish law.
My (inside looking out) .02
Peregrino
01-01-2013, 13:56
Kapos.
Absolutely. I can't think of anything more descriptive. Sadly, few know why that term incites such revulsion among freedom loving peoples.
Kapos.
I seem to remember that, in one of her books, Hannah Arendt mentioned the Jewish shopkeepers in Germany who were quick to sell yellow Stars of David when the law was enacted. There seems to be an "appeasement gene" in some people. Or a suicide gene.
Pat
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/30/justice/connecticut-bridgeport-gun-buyback/
looks like some people don't even need a bill to pass...
I don't know...one of the Jewish guys in my office says practically everyone of legal age going to his temple (including him) is packing, as is the Rabbi. I guess the Hammer gene is strong in some folks.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/30/justice/connecticut-bridgeport-gun-buyback/
looks like some people don't even need a bill to pass...
At those prices, maybe I should start up a personal buy-back program. $400 for an evil assault rifle? $200 for pistols? $75 for a good hunting rifle? Heck yeah, that's a good investment!
I found an interesting tidbit this eveniing....Doc Thompson vaguely rings a bell as a radio host that my fill in for Glen Beck from time to time.
Anyway, he had this email posted on his website that purportedly show the Republicans are willing to work with the Dems on Feinstein's proposed AWB.
http://docthompsonshow.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/the-republicans-have-already-given-in/
Badger52
01-01-2013, 21:13
At those prices, maybe I should start up a personal buy-back program. $400 for an evil assault rifle? $200 for pistols? $75 for a good hunting rifle? Heck yeah, that's a good investment!LOL. Friend from the buffer area around Chicago visited last summer and wanted to know if the gd's 4H group had any need for 2-3 beat up (and that's being kind) junker inop air-rifles he'd brought along. Told him:
a. our little group already had plenty of competition-ready rifles and,
b. he should save them and turn 'em in at the next "trustees" buy-back in his neck of the woods. Ended up with $600 or so worth of Cabela's cards or something.
He knows what's valuable and the grand-father's workmanlike Radom is safe & sound. He believes every Jew should have a "get on the train" gun.
Kapos.
Indeed. Unfortunately, that phenomenon isn't new either. The part of the Hanukkah story that unfortunately falls by the wayside is the fact that the Greeks initially weren't really interested in forcibly converting the Jews, all they wanted was their taxes and tributes to be paid on time. They figured that some Jews would assimilate over time. It was the Hellenists, which were Jews who embraced the Greek philosophy and culture, that convinced the king(Antiochus) at the time that by following Torah's commandments, the Jews were in effect rebelling against him. The other part that is often glossed over, is the armed rebellion which ultimately ensued.
As far as Jewish law is concerned, the right to self-defense is inherent. The idea is that one who chases(rodef lit. pursuer) after his fellow with the intent to wantonly and unlawfully taking his life has effectually relinquished his own right to life. Miamonides writes[1] that there are three commandments in this regard, 1. To save a person who is being pursued, by either maiming(if one is capable of stopping the pursuer through non-fatal injury then he must choose this route as opposed to killing him) or killing(last resort) his pursuer 2. Not to have mercy on the pursuer 3. Not to stand by idly while a colleague's life is in danger, i.e. ignoring the threat
I'll end with this: "If someone comes to kill you, get up early to kill him first." - Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, 72a
[1] Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nezikim (lit. Book of Damages - this book deals with civil law with regards to physical and monetary damages), Section 5, Chapter 1, Laws 7 - 15
I think that the response to calls for more gun control should:
reflect an understanding that some Americans will continue to seek single solutions (gun control) for complex problems (violence in America),
accept the fact that those who are disposed to wanting single solutions are not going to be swayed by carefully complied evidence and articulate counterpoints,
accept that it is an issue that reflects longer ongoing clashes among competing versions of the way things should be in America.
I think that the response to calls for more gun control should not:
Engage in the broader debate outlined in C. MOO, this debate will remain a feature of American civilization for the foreseeable future. The current political environment needs significant rehabilitation before this debate can generate more solutions than chaos.
Center around historical analogies that paint gun control advocates as members of controversial groups.
Turn the conversation into a contest of identity politics.
Use lines of argument that focus on single points of failure. Pointing out intellectual inconsistencies in a line of argument is one thing, using that inconsistency to label people as hypocrites or degenerates risks alienating both opponents and allies in this debate.
By avoiding the above listed approaches, opponents of gun control can:
avoid making a highly controversial discussion toxic,
not otherwise alienate those who are on the fence and/or more amenable to reasoned discourse,
avoid painting the opposition into a corner.
These three points reflect my own view that the blue print for political discourse in America remains Federalist no. 10. As important as any single issue may be, as much as that issue may epitomize a broader debate, I think Americans should be mindful of the consequences when the tone of debate over an issue makes compromising on other issues impossible.
Moreover, I believe that supporters of gun control want the debate to fall into the pattern outlined in points 1 through 4. They are seeking:
to paint themselves as the "rational" party in the conversation,
to appeal to the "reason" of Americans who are making up their own minds, and
to demonize as "unreasonable" and "irrational" those who oppose gun control.
Specifically, I would prefer a response that does the following:
Largely bypasses the unsustainable argument that more gun control will, on its own, end violence in America. While I understand that many find the argument itself intellectually offensive and emotionally repulsive, I believe that there's much to be gained by being very selective in responding to such "logic." People are going to believe what they want to believe. The best that can be done is to provide them with accurate information and to foster a dynamic in which some will use that information when they form their POVs.
Broadens the public perception of the "average" American gun owner. At present, proponents of gun control are casting the debate against the polarized backdrop of American politics. I think if more Americans understood the diversity of gun ownership, they'd be more willing to challenge the demonizing images they're being offered.
Flatly refuses to engage in what is essentially a piecemeal debate over the Bill of Rights. To me, as great a threat to our rights as citizens that gun control poses, the a la carte approach to the BoR that many Americans take is even more perilous.
Recasts the debate into a conversation of the underlying issues that might be addressed through changes unrelated to gun control. For example:
Address the immediate surroundings of those who work with children through periodic background checks. These checks will include an assessment of their mental health and that of their immediate family members as well.
Have a national conversation about mental health that seeks a balance among individual rights, confidentiality, and public safety. Empower Americans to recognize identifiable warning signs in their own behavior and, potentially, others.
Take Hollywood at its word.
If entertainers/producers/studios want to reduce violence in America, challenge them to address the content of their work.
Shows/movies can have story lines and plot points in which characters realistically portray responsible gun ownership.
Networks and celebrities can make non-partisan PSAs.
Personally, I strongly oppose the notion of arming teachers. If adults are going to have guns on a school campus, I would prefer that they do so as administrators/staff members who are tasked with security, as volunteers, or as off-duty LEOs, and are not teachers nor coaches, nor parents/relatives of those they are protecting.
My concerns are three-fold. First, I believe that the knowledge that teachers have guns will fundamentally alter the learning environment, especially where very young students are concerned. Second, I think that it would only be a matter of time before we see accusations of an armed teacher doing/saying something that is inappropriate. MOO, the allegation itself is more likely to open a Pandora's Box all its own that will outweigh the deterrent value of the possibility that a teacher is armed. Third, I believe that gun ownership is a private matter. It is no one's business what firearms a gun owner legally possesses. I do not see how parents who do not want teachers to be armed will not call for full public disclosure of who is carrying a weapon on campus and who isn't. And, from there, we will see the growing acceptance of a practice that is, IMO, unacceptable.
Peregrino
01-03-2013, 21:35
Sigaba - I will ruminate on your post. You make reasoned arguments for a compromise approach. Unfortunately none of your points address the fact that gun control is as polarizing as abortion - for what I see as many of the same core value dicotomies. The arguments posted in the various threads defending a citizen's right to self-defense using the only effective "equalizers" - GUNS, are overwhelming in their condemnation of the left's "facts", their demonization of conservatives and inanimate objects, and their statist agenda. All of which is totally irrelevant in the current political climate. To illustrate, I'm including an opinion piece that lays out the agenda we're competing against. Welcome to 1858 - all over again.
>"All the time fellow gun owners say things to me like, “Seriously, Steve, how would they possibly gather up all the hundreds of millions of guns that are out there?”
Well my naïve friend, let me tell you how it works."<
http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/gun-confiscation-in-ten-easy-steps/
Gun Confiscation in Ten Easy Steps by STEVE SHELDON
All the time fellow gun owners say things to me like, “Seriously, Steve, how would they possibly gather up all the hundreds of millions of guns that are out there?”
Well my naïve friend, let me tell you how it works.
Step 1: Create an anti-gun culture and make guns and gun owners the bad guys at every turn: On the evening news, every time a crime is reported, make sure there is a picture of a mean looking gun next to the chalk outline of a body. Portray hunters and sportsmen as backwoods unsophisticated hillbillies and rednecks. Feminize the society, especially the males. Create a culture where the police* are revered as heroes whose intentions can never be questioned. Demonize war and warriors. Label gun organizations “crazed lunatics” and “unreasonable extremists.” Make shooting restrictive by forcing participants to private ranges, then close the ranges by legal means citing reasons of safety, nuisance, environmental, or whatever possible. Create terms like “assault weapon”, “high-powered sniper rifle”, “guns off the streets”, “weapons of war” when engaging in the gun debate making ordinary guns out to have extraordinary functions. Build on this disinformation by using movies, gaming, and entertainment that creates the falsehood that guns are capable of doing impossible things like firing hundreds of times without reloading or overheating or blowing up a car’s gas tank with the strike of a bullet.
Step 2: Build “security” systems that make the sheeple feel safe, giving them a false sense of security and overdependence on police and government authority while at the same time disarming them. Establish gun free zones. Install security cameras everywhere. Place roving security cars with strobes in mall parking lots. Create neighborhood watch programs under the careful supervision of law enforcement insisting that no one be armed and that all incidents are to be reported to the police. Install and maintain elaborate computer entry systems in buildings. Establish pat downs at sporting events, etc. Put “no gun” signs in all public places.
Step 3: Play soothing music prior to the execution: Tell the sheeple that the taking away of their protection is for their own good. Confuse them with emotional arguments. Convince them that you’re doing it for the children. Couch it as a safety issue. Use turncoats to make illogical but emotionally appealing arguments. Tell them you’re not coming for all the guns, just some of the more evil looking ones even though they function in exactly in the same manner.
Step 4: Wait until some horrible tragedy or series of events that make the sheeple susceptible to emotional arguments and knee-jerk reactions:
Step 5: Create a system that makes registration and confiscation simple and gun ownership very difficult and expensive: Close private sales between individuals. Create a national registration or database that can easily be turned to for confiscation. Create bureaucracies that are unaccountable to the people and can serve the purpose of registration, confiscation, and collection. Create processes so cumbersome that no one would possibly want to purchase and register a firearm.
Step 6: Begin the process of making certain kinds of guns illegal: Take incremental steps by isolating one group of firearm and pitting its owners against the “more reasonable” owner. Then continue to redefine “reasonable” insisting that if this class of firearm or that class of firearm were “off the streets” then society could be a better place and our children protected.
Step 7: Create “buyback” and “amnesty” programs that have the effect of identifying and confiscating guns that have slipped under the registration radar.
Step 8: Use some kind of national emergency to begin final implementation once the population has been sufficiently disarmed. This can be done through economic chaos or used as an excuse to quell civil uprising as a result of a variety of circumstances.
Step 9: Throughout the process, implement draconian fines and prison sentences for those who refuse to capitulate. Encourage neighbor to turn on neighbor and gun owner to turn on gun owner. Reward turncoats with positions of power or financial gain.
THIS STEP IS KEY: To those that think, “They’re not going to take my guns away,” you are a fool. Most people will capitulate when they are faced with huge fines and prison sentences. Look no further than the holocaust less than sixty years ago. These were not guns that were rounded up and destroyed, but human beings! Does any reasonable person think that this could not possibly happen again?
And for those of you who think democracy is the answer, Hitler was put in power through the democratic process and then gained absolute power though various political moves eventually taking full control of the government.
Step 10: Welcome to disarmament!
My gun owning friends, do not fall for these steps. Resist them at every turn. Today it’s thirty round magazines, “military looking” guns, online ammunition sales and registration, tomorrow, it’s full confiscation.
One final thought: If safety, security, and protection of our children are really the issues, then why first go after something that is rarely used in violent crime? Why not start with something that kills far more innocents every year like abortion, prescription drugs, or automobiles?
Don’t be lulled into false thinking. It’s not about safety or protecting children; there are better ways to protect against random acts of mass murderers than to disarm law abiding citizens. To quote one of my favorite bumper stickers, “It’s not about the guns, it’s about the control.”
*This is not an indictment against police, as I have family members and very close friends who are members of the law enforcement community who believe as I do and are very necessary members of an ordered society.
cat in the hat
01-04-2013, 00:11
For his sake, I hope he has ETS'd already or he is in for some serious repercussions from an officer who only wants to cover his own ass.
http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/marine-writes-letter-to-sen-dianne-feinstein-i-will-not-be-disarmed-video/
Sigaba's post sent my brain off on a weird tangent. It has been briefly discussed <here> (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38360) how the lgbt movement worked its way from obscurity in the closet to public acceptance and adoration over the course of 20 years.
Maybe a similar approach would work for the honest gun - toting folk of America.
Or maybe the gun toting folk of America are a different breed of people, they have no desire to use subversion and "awareness campaigns" to further their cause because they don't want recognition. They just want to be left the F alone. And maybe, just maybe, that's why we are so obstinate and vocal when it comes to this issue. We are just fine with the gun abstinence crowd's stance, if you don't like guns, don't own one. If you think the police can provide you the protection you need, great!
I don't have a problem with your choice to not own guns, but leave my choice the fuck alone.
Streck-Fu
01-04-2013, 08:56
I don't have a problem with your choice to not own guns, but leave my choice the fuck alone.
And that is what the issue comes down to. Sad.
Anti-gun people don't own guns and don't want you to either.
Gun owners obviously own guns and don't care of someone else doesn't.
And that is what the issue comes down to. Sad.
Anti-gun people don't own guns and don't want you to either.
Gun owners obviously own guns and don't care of someone else doesn't.
I disagree and see it more like this:
Anti-gun people don’t own guns and want limitations on those who do.
Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.
Richard :munchin
I disagree and see it more like this:
Anti-gun people don’t own guns and want limitations on those who do.
Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.
Richard :munchin
Lets add that anti-gun people want to be protected by guns or have guns themselves (Reid, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden, David Gregory, Schumer, Rahm) but don't want the common folk to have them.
Lets add that anti-gun people want to be protected by guns or have guns themselves (Reid, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden, David Gregory, Schumer, Rahm) but don't want the common folk to have them.
I don't think you understood my first point and I'd place your comment in the same category as the one I was commenting upon.
Richard :munchin
I disagree and see it more like this:
Anti-gun people don’t own guns and want limitations on those who do.
Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.
Richard :munchin
Where do you see the Second Ammendment come in?
Team Sergeant
01-04-2013, 11:57
I disagree and see it more like this:
Anti-gun people don’t own guns and want limitations on those who do.
Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.
Richard :munchin
Nope I disagree.
I don't want the federal gov making a unilateral decision to abolish the second amendment. I've no doubt what their intent is and more than one left-wing socialist dim has made it crystal clear they wish to ban all guns. And as former/retired Green Berets we all know where that path leads.
When they come for my guns I will already be at their door, that's a promise.
Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.
Richard :munchin
I own guns, I have no problems with the current limitations (in my state). Except for the one prohibiting concealed carry in a church or any public event. Bad things have happened at both of these venues.
My state doesn't require any firearms training to obtain a CCW permit, for some this is fine, for others I think some training should be strongly encouraged.
I don't mind the legal red tape involved with purchasing suppressors, although this has prohibited me from purchasing one.
I don't mind at all, not being able to afford a fully automatic mp5k, although I think this would be a bad ass gun to own.
I'm OK with the current limitations. And I'm pro-gun.
I believe that many have come to the realization that our freedoms really are being eroded just as surely as our disposable income. I believe that many see the possession of firearms as the last bastion of ammunition left to the American populace against being completely over run by the government. Its easy to see that the government is not serving our best interest, not instituting policy for the good of the country. And while many of us will cringe at how much Obama and his minions are going to lighten our wallets, we will begrudgingly comply AS LONG AS he leaves our damn guns alone.
We are already being raped. But at least we have our guns. It may be silly to some, but to us, its a freedom that we wont stand to see pillaged if we have any say in the matter. And as long as we have guns, we will have a say in the matter.
Where do you see the Second Ammendment come in?
I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.
How do you see it?
Richard :munchin
I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.
How do you see it?
Richard :munchin
Oh I like that! I'm gonna remember that one!
Streck-Fu
01-04-2013, 13:18
[COLOR="Lime"]I see it as an amendable stipulation
"Amendable stipulation" as illustrated by "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?
I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.
How do you see it?
Richard :munchin
I don't see it as part of a "living" document, as many moderates and closet libs do. I see it as an absolute guarantee of our right as citizens to own and operate firearms.
ZonieDiver
01-04-2013, 14:32
I don't see it as part of a "living" document, as many moderates and closet libs do. I see it as an absolute guarantee of our right as citizens to own and operate firearms.
Could the Second Amendment be "amended" - by the process(es) outlined in the Constitution? I think that is more the point Richard was making... perhaps not, I'm sure he'll expound at some point.
Team Sergeant
01-04-2013, 14:35
I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.
How do you see it?
Richard :munchin
I see it as etched in stone, written by a nation of brave men that fought hard to win their freedom and vowed to write a document that left no doubts in anyone's mind that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It meaning is crystal clear to me. It's also crystal clear why it's the Second Amendment and not the 11th or 12th. Our forefathers wanted it to be as important as the First Amendment as it goes hand in hand with defending our freedoms.
I have no doubt what our great forefathers were thinking when they drafted the Second Amendment. They left no possibility that the People would ever be disarmed. They knew then that "Power" is an illusion with a well armed populace.
It's a right, not a privilege.
Could the Second Amendment be "amended" - by the process(es) outlined in the Constitution?
Looks like that's what the libs have in mind, or something similar.
Good luck with that. That issue will be the "bridge too far".
I see it as etched in stone, written by a nation of brave men that fought hard to win their freedom and vowed to write a document that left no doubts in anyone's mind that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It meaning is crystal clear to me. It's also crystal clear why it's the Second Amendment and not the 11th or 12th. Our forefathers wanted it to be as important as the First Amendment as it goes hand in hand with defending our freedoms.
I have no doubt what our great forefathers were thinking when they drafted the Second Amendment. They left no possibility that the People would ever be disarmed. They knew then that "Power" is an illusion with a well armed populace.
It's a right, not a privilege.
Yep, and there's more than just two of us who have that angle on the subject.
Team Sergeant
01-04-2013, 14:43
Yep, and there's more than just two of us who have that angle on the subject.
Great, now we have a conspiracy.....
Here they come!!!!
Ten gun bills on Congress's first day
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/275587-10-gun-bills-introduced-in-first-day-of-the-house
But two of em are okay!
Two freshman Republicans introduced contrary bills that would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones." These bills, H.R. 35 from Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and H.R. 133 from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), are a response to findings that violence in and around schools has increased since the gun free zone law took effect in 1990.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/275587-10-gun-bills-introduced-in-first-day-of-the-house#ixzz2H2goa4bX
charlietwo
01-04-2013, 15:03
I would imagine if the 2nd amendment could be amended, so too could the 1st if a big enough crisis called for it.
Dangerous grounds I would not willingly tread.
Some Brits comment on their experiences with gun control in the short YouTube vid below.
BLUF, beware liberal politicians and sympathizers bearing false promises of security.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ce5cJ3JpGnA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dce5cJ3JpGnA
ddoering
01-04-2013, 15:27
Could the Second Amendment be "amended" - by the process(es) outlined in the Constitution? I think that is more the point Richard was making... perhaps not, I'm sure he'll expound at some point.
If so, then why not the 1st Amendment as well...... Oh what a slippery slope we travel when we start to dabble with changes......
If so, then why not the 1st Amendment as well...... Oh what a slippery slope we travel when we start to dabble with changes......
Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
ZonieDiver
01-04-2013, 15:34
If so, then why not the 1st Amendment as well...... Oh what a slippery slope we travel when we start to dabble with changes......
I'm not advocating, just pointing out the possibility. As Dusty says, that seems to be the direction "they" are heading. "They" also seem to like the 1st Amendment (for "their" stuff, anyway), so "they" might not want to meddle with it as soon as "they" might with the 2nd.
2/3 of both Houses of Congress (67 and 290) and 3/4 (38) of the states. While the numbers aren't there now, could they perhaps be there in the forseeable future?
While the numbers aren't there now, could they perhaps be there in the forseeable future?
"They" could be. "They" re-elected a socialist.
Badger52
01-04-2013, 16:49
Great, now we have a conspiracy.....Well, alrighty then.
Sigaba - I will ruminate on your post. You make reasoned arguments for a compromise approach. Unfortunately none of your points address the fact that gun control is as polarizing as abortion - for what I see as many of the same core value dichotomies. The arguments posted in the various threads defending a citizen's right to self-defense using the only effective "equalizers" - GUNS, are overwhelming in their condemnation of the left's "facts", their demonization of conservatives and inanimate objects, and their statist agenda. All of which is totally irrelevant in the current political climate. To illustrate, I'm including an opinion piece that lays out the agenda we're competing against. Welcome to 1858 - all over again.
Although I've not specifically mentioned abortion, I have voiced my belief that America would benefit if participants in debates over polarizing issues took a step back from polarizing rhetoric. MOO, everyone is going to have a point beyond which they're going to say "no." To me, when it comes to polarizing issues, the key is to have discussions that, at best, will develop solutions that allow people to say "yes." Or, at worst, see participants walking away from the table temporarily saying to themselves, "That conversation has given me a lot to think about...and those people across the table treated me with empathy. Some also treated me with dignity, and respect. They aren't nearly as bad as I previously thought."^
In a previous post that proved much more controversial than I intended :o, I mentioned the role of imagination in dealing with issues that currently seem intractable, polarizing, and divisive. Here's an example of what I mean. There's a growing belief that participating in certain team sports plays a positive role in the development of self esteem among girls/young women. This heightened self esteem, some argue, can translate into girls/young women making better decisions when it comes to risky sexual behavior.*
Would it be possible to match those sensibilities to the present discussion by advocating youth centered team shooting leagues with a focus on "at risk" girls?** Would such leagues reorient the part of the discussion about guns into a discussion about women's health? Might the leagues themselves enable supporters of abortion to think about additional ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Might the young women who participate in these leagues come to understand that, what ever their political views, their economic circumstances, their cultural views, or their race/ethnicity, they had benefited personally from knowing how to use firearms? Might league events provide more opportunities for people of differing viewpoints/backgrounds to interact socially rather than to hammer away at each other politically?
Admittedly, such a proposal would likely generate controversy. The issues of liability and risk management alone might lead to complex litigation. Similarly, some will question the fairness of leagues geared towards a specific gender. Moreover, the proposal itself strikes at the heart of how American civilization acculturates women, if not also men.
_________________________________________________
^ In regards to "empathy," I'm using the definition offered by the late Heinz Kohut....[E]mpathy: the resonance of the self in the self of others, of being understood, of somebody making the effort to understand you. . . .But empathy does not mean love or compassion. Empathy can be used decisively for hateful purpose. I figure out where your weak spots are so I can put the dagger in you.* Heinz Kohut interview with Charles B. Strozier, 29 January 1981, printed as "The Psychoanalyst and the Historian," in Heinz Kohut, Self Psychology and the Humanities: Reflections on a New Psychoanalytic Approach, ed. Charles B. Strozier (New York and London: W.W. Norton, 1985), page 222.
* Dana C. Jack, "The Impact of Sports on Adolescent Development: The Importance of Title IX," Forum on Public Policy, 1:2 (winter 2005): 153-159; Kathleen E. Miller, et al, "Athletic Participation and Sexual Behavior in Adolescents: The Different Worlds of Boys and Girls," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39:2 (June 1998): 108-123.
** I'm not talking merely about girls in the "inner city."
MOO, but this is the only part of the Constitution which was not brought about by compromise and the only part which should not be subject to amendment.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The rest of that foundational document, as well as its ratified amendments, are open to the amendment process as has always been the case since its adoption on 17 Sep 1787 and its going into effect on 4 Mar 1789 - as "We the people" determine it to be fit and proper...and to argue otherwise is, also IMO, contrary to why the so-called "Founders" included an amending process in the first place.
Richard :munchin
Streck-Fu
01-04-2013, 18:23
......
Streck-Fu
01-04-2013, 18:25
That is the Preamble.....Not quite the Constitution itself. Wouldn't that be similar to only counting on the introduction to a history book?
.and to argue otherwise is, also IMO, contrary to why the so-called "Founders" included an amending process in the first place.
As you know, the Bill of Rights themselves are amendments to the Constitution itself and only exist due to the efforts of the Anti-Federalists. The Federalist believed that simply defining the powers of the federal government, along with the diligence if the states and people, would be enough to prevent that government form expanding power.
The Anti-Federalists were not so trusting and wanted specific rights defined that could not and must not be restricted by this new government.
Under this pretense, it is not intended for any of the first 10 amendments to be overturned or retracted.
"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example... of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness."
MOO, but this is the only part of the Constitution which was not brought about by compromise and the only part which should not be subject to amendment.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The rest of that foundational document, as well as its ratified amendments, are open to the amendment process as has always been the case since its adoption on 17 Sep 1787 and its going into effect on 4 Mar 1789 - as "We the people" determine it to be fit and proper...and to argue otherwise is, also IMO, contrary to why the so-called "Founders" included an amending process in the first place.
Richard :munchin
Interesting exclusion and even more so your use of the qualifier: should not
I disagree with the exclusion part and otherwise agree that the entire document is subject to amendment.
Yes my brothers - this wonderful parchment is subject to the whims of the 2/3 majority and we must be very cautious and even more judicious whenever we consider such - especially in the low-information, attention-deficit environment we find ourselves in.
Just because one can doesn't mean one should!
Yes my brothers - this wonderful parchment is subject to the whims of the 2/3 majority and we must be very cautious and even more judicious whenever we consider such - especially in the low-information, attention-deficit environment we find ourselves in.
Just because one can doesn't mean one should!
Looks like some Old Goats agree with you:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
”The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
~Thomas Jefferson
”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.”
~Benjamin Franklin
"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."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence's and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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 than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington
That is the Preamble.....Not quite the Constitution itself. Wouldn't that be similar to only counting on the introduction to a history book?
So the preamble is not a fixed component of the Constitution as set forth by those who created it and adopted by those who ratified it? Interesting.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
As you know, the Bill of Rights themselves are amendments to the Constitution itself and only exist due to the efforts of the Anti-Federalists. The Federalist believed that simply defining the powers of the federal government, along with the diligence if the states and people, would be enough to prevent that government form expanding power. The Anti-Federalists were not so trusting and wanted specific rights defined that could not and must not be restricted by this new government. Under this pretense, it is not intended for any of the first 10 amendments to be overturned or retracted.
So, in your opinion, an amendment to the Constitution is not subject to the same rules for amending as is the base document itself? How interesting.
Richard :munchin
Streck-Fu
01-04-2013, 19:01
Not my opinion. It was the stated purpose by those whom wrote it.
I guess they could have called it the Bill of Whims.
Not my opinion. It was the stated purpose by those whom wrote it.
I guess they could have called it the Bill of Whims.
It could just turn out to be just that!
Badger52
01-04-2013, 19:42
Yes my brothers - this wonderful parchment is subject to the whims of the 2/3 majority and we must be very cautious and even more judicious whenever we consider such - especially in the low-information, attention-deficit environment we find ourselves in.
Just because one can doesn't mean one should!Can vs. should, acknowledging the environment you mention. In terms of what is acknowledged as a natural right, can any majority still hold sway over the individual's natural right in a properly functioning constitutional republic (vs. a pure democracy)? Wonder what the man-on-the-street answers look like nowadays.
:rolleyes:
ZonieDiver
01-04-2013, 19:49
Not my opinion. It was the stated purpose by those whom wrote it.
I guess they could have called it the Bill of Whims.
Then those who wrote it probably should have made that proviso part of the document, shouldn't they?
By the way, I'm still waiting for some links/statistics on the massive amount of SWAT team raids on 'recreational' drug users. Got any?
Peregrino
01-04-2013, 19:53
[COLOR="lime"]So, in your opinion, an amendment to the Constitution is not subject to the same rules for amending as is the base document itself? How interesting.
Richard :munchin
Legitimate argument. The 18th and 21st Amendments proving your point. And supporting everybody else's point about amendments enacted in the heat of passion and media manipulation. The unintended consequences of prohibition still resonate through American society today 79 years later. It is my contention that any successful attack on the 2nd Amendment as is the stated purpose of the gun ban movement will be a domino event. YMMV. In the spirit of Sigaba's appeal for a reasoned discussion I will refrain from expressing my opinion of your opinion.
The Reaper
01-04-2013, 20:04
I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.
How do you see it?
Richard :munchin
I see it like this.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Looks to me like we are very close to bumping up against that underlined portion right now.
Ultimately, the Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power, not on the people's power.
Refer to the 10th Amendment specifically:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
If you want to change or rewrite the Second Amendment, there is a process described in the Constitution. Follow it.
TR
Looks like some Old Goats agree with you:
"Not everything you read on the Internet is true." - Abraham Lincoln
"Ask not what the internet can do for you, but ask what you can make up on the internet." -John F. Kennedy
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Firewall!" -Ronald Reagan
"We have nothing to fear, but being misquoted on the internet." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Some of those aint the way "it was".
"A free people ought not only be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Washington_-_State_of_the_Union.djvu&page=2
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=38367618&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+30:+FIRST+ANNUAL+ ADDRESS+TO+CONGRESS+&query=A+free+people&id=gw300452
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
In a previous post that proved much more controversial than I intended :o, I mentioned the role of imagination in dealing with issues that currently seem intractable, polarizing, and divisive. Here's an example of what I mean. There's a growing belief that participating in certain team sports plays a positive role in the development of self esteem among girls/young women. This heightened self esteem, some argue, can translate into girls/young women making better decisions when it comes to risky sexual behavior.*
Would it be possible to match those sensibilities to the present discussion by advocating youth centered team shooting leagues with a focus on "at risk" girls?** Would such leagues reorient the part of the discussion about guns into a discussion about women's health? Might the leagues themselves enable supporters of abortion to think about additional ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Might the young women who participate in these leagues come to understand that, what ever their political views, their economic circumstances, their cultural views, or their race/ethnicity, they had benefited personally from knowing how to use firearms? Might league events provide more opportunities for people of differing viewpoints/backgrounds to interact socially rather than to hammer away at each other politically?
Admittedly, such a proposal would likely generate controversy. The issues of liability and risk management alone might lead to complex litigation. Similarly, some will question the fairness of leagues geared towards a specific gender. Moreover, the proposal itself strikes at the heart of how American civilization acculturates women, if not also men.
This is an interesting proprosal. It involves something I hinted at earlier today (which was spawned by another of your post): are the pro-gun crowd in America today the type of people who are capable of/ would choose to use the tactics of subversion and misdirection to further an agenda that is not an agenda, but a Constitutional Right? I think not, hopefully some disagree with me.
That being said...
I think your proposed tactic offers an alternative route to quelling this heated topic, or at least directing the dialouge towards a more intellectual discussion.
On Facebook :rolleyes: there are two clearly defined sides to this debate, the "guns are bad and you are stupid if you dont think so" and the "guns are good and your'e not taking mine".
Dozer523
01-05-2013, 08:44
I disagree with the exclusion part and otherwise agree that the entire document is subject to amendment.
Yes my brothers - this wonderful parchment is subject to the whims of the 2/3 majority and we must be very cautious
Just because one can doesn't mean one should! The Preamble is Paragraph 2 MISSION. So it's not amendable without a change of mission. If you think it is a piece of paper well. . . (I do get what your trying to say but something's - Bible, Magna Carta, Constitution transcend what they "are" to what they "mean".)
2/3s is a pretty big number hurdle for a whim to get over. Prohibition being the exception proving the rule and proving that amendments can be amended. I'll drink to that!
The Preamble is Paragraph 2 MISSION. So it's not amendable without a change of mission. If you think it is a piece of paper well. . . (I do get what your trying to say but something's - Bible, Magna Carta, Constitution transcend what they "are" to what they "mean".)
2/3s is a pretty big number hurdle for a whim to get over. Prohibition being the exception proving the rule and proving that amendments can be amended. I'll drink to that!
I see your point and by extension Richards on the Preamble. As for 2/3s - who needs it when those sworn to uphold it routinely pass laws denuding it and appointing judges to uphold the changes? Not to mention the 'We the Idiots' keep voting them in.
Cheers to you both!
Streck-Fu
01-05-2013, 10:31
By the way, I'm still waiting for some links/statistics on the massive amount of SWAT team raids on 'recreational' drug users. Got any?
There are tons of examples. Most of these events seem to have a common theme of informants making up information for more lenient treatment and the police charge in without verifying the claims.
Columbia, MO SWAT, 2010 (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/complete-coverage-february-2010-swat-raid/). With video...which the release of prompted the police chief to state, "I hate the internet...." :rolleyes:
SWAT raid for drugs, none found, burns 12 year old sleeping girl with flash bang: LINK
(http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/grenade-burns-sleeping-girl-as-swat-team-raids-billings-home/article_71d1f226-1474-11e2-b4b4-0019bb2963f4.html)
Not a casual user but smugglers use FedEx to ship the drugs which are supposed to be intercepted before delivery to the addressee but this time the package made to the house. It happened to be the Mayor but the task foce didn't know that? Lack of due diligence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302935.html)
SWAT goes after former Marine for drugs but none found: LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/US/swat-team-gunned-marine-find-drugs/story?id=13702756#.UOhUtXf2FSk)
I did write before that they are targeting 'casual users' but it would be more accurate that they are sending SWAT after rumored drug users.....This is a very small sample of the events occurring.
ZonieDiver
01-05-2013, 10:37
There are tons of examples. Most of these events seem to have a common theme of informants making up information for more lenient treatment and the police charge in without verifying the claims.
Columbia, MO SWAT, 2010 (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/complete-coverage-february-2010-swat-raid/). With video...which the release of prompted the police chief to state, "I hate the internet...." :rolleyes:
SWAT raid for drugs, none found, burns 12 year old sleeping girl with flash bang: LINK
(http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/grenade-burns-sleeping-girl-as-swat-team-raids-billings-home/article_71d1f226-1474-11e2-b4b4-0019bb2963f4.html)
Not a casual user but smugglers use FedEx to ship the drugs which are supposed to be intercepted before delivery to the addressee but this time the package made to the house. It happened to be the Mayor but the task foce didn't know that? Lack of due diligence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302935.html)
SWAT goes after former Marine for drugs but none found: LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/US/swat-team-gunned-marine-find-drugs/story?id=13702756#.UOhUtXf2FSk)
I did write before that they are targeting 'casual users' but it would be more accurate that they are sending SWAT after rumored drug users.....This is a very small sample of the events occurring.
Thanks for the clarification. I found those as well, along with some others. Thus has it always been, I suspect, with people being set-up by criminals seeking a deal.
I still doubt, in the aggregate, that police SWAT (admittedly lots of problems with the plethora of "SWAT" around the country) are targeting 'recreational drug users' more than 'armed gangs'.
YMMV
Streck-Fu
01-05-2013, 10:44
I still doubt, in the aggregate, that police SWAT (admittedly lots of problems with the plethora of "SWAT" around the country) are targeting 'recreational drug users' more than 'armed gangs'.
YMMV
'targeting more than dealers/growers' is a stretch, I admit. It is closer to the truth that they rush in with limited information and do not verify intel before sending in the raid team. There is an extraordinary lack of due diligence before the raid and demonstrated lack of training in that they shoot too often without good target ID....
Thus has it always been,
I don't think so. While mistakes have always been made, the number of incidents like the above are on the rise as the police practice direct action raids more than investigations. They arrest some guy with pot on him, ask him where he got it, he gives up some guy he knows, and cops send in the SWAT team....hopefully they get the right house.....
Reality Check: The "Politically Incorrect Truth" About The Second Amendment (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/04/reality_check_the_politically_incorrect_truth_abou t_the_second_amendment.html)
WXIX-TV Tucson reporter Ben Swann takes a look at what he called the "politically incorrect" truth about the Second Amendment. In his "Reality Check" segment for the local FOX affiliate, Swann explains the true intention behind the Second Amendment.
"This is where American history becomes very politically incorrect because the Second Amendment was not drafted for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.
"Again, it's a very controversial subject. But if we're going to have a debate about what rights we're actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee," Swann said.
"The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained. "It's not my place to tell you what the Founders were thinking, or what they would be thinking today. But the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force."
Streck-Fu
01-05-2013, 17:40
The idea that this may have to become an Executive Order seems to be getting more possible.....
LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html)
Obama’s advisers have calculated that the longer they wait, the more distance there is from the Newtown massacre and the greater the risk that the bipartisan political will to tackle gun violence will dissipate.
“This is not something that I will be putting off,”
GratefulCitizen
01-05-2013, 17:41
I own guns, I have no problems with the current limitations (in my state). Except for the one prohibiting concealed carry in a church or any public event. Bad things have happened at both of these venues.
My state doesn't require any firearms training to obtain a CCW permit, for some this is fine, for others I think some training should be strongly encouraged.
I don't mind the legal red tape involved with purchasing suppressors, although this has prohibited me from purchasing one.
I don't mind at all, not being able to afford a fully automatic mp5k, although I think this would be a bad ass gun to own.
I'm OK with the current limitations. And I'm pro-gun.
Kennesaw has the right idea on limitations.
:D
Peregrino
01-05-2013, 19:07
I will be engaged in some "light" reading over the next few weeks in whatever down time I have.
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Guns-Liberals-Second-Amendment/dp/1610391691
It appears from Amazon's synopsis that this book advocates (attempts to put a reasonable facade on) some of the ideas being looked at by the VP's "task force". It's obviously time to look at the other side's arguments and get educated about the enemy POV.
Stiletto11
01-05-2013, 19:23
The first mistake is to assume they are operating under the ordained Constitution of 1787. The second mistake is to assume they are dejure. Never assume.
The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.
I wondered if I were comprehension-impeded. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say ""well equipped", "well armed", "quickly assembled". It speaks to "well regulated" (well controlled). It avoids the obvious "right of the militia to keep and bear arms".
The above (obvious) interpretation seems......well, obvious.
I will be engaged in some "light" reading over the next few weeks in whatever down time I have.
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Guns-Liberals-Second-Amendment/dp/1610391691
It appears from Amazon's synopsis that this book advocates (attempts to put a reasonable facade on) some of the ideas being looked at by the VP's "task force". It's obviously time to look at the other side's arguments and get educated about the enemy POV.
It certainly had a couple of well thought out reviews, send it my way when you are finished I will pay the postage and see that you get it back.
Peregrino
01-05-2013, 21:27
It certainly had a couple of well thought out reviews, send it my way when you are finished I will pay the postage and see that you get it back.
Ebooks don't mail well. I'll be travelling and I bought the Kindle version because I'm taking the Ipad anyway. Better luck next time.
Dozer523
01-05-2013, 22:37
"This is where American history becomes very politically incorrect because the Second Amendment was not drafted for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.
"The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained. "It's not my place to tell you what the Founders were thinking, or what they would be thinking today. But the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force."
"Again, it's a very controversial subject. But if we're going to have a debate about what rights we're actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee," Swann said.
That is three very interesting paragraphs which, I rearranged.
In the first paragraph Mr Swann tells us what the Founder intended. The Second Amendment is really about common citizens being able to go "mano a mano" with the duly constituted (nice word choice, eh?) military. And without a shred of evidence so . . . merely his opinion paraded as fact.
In the second paragraph he says its not his place to tell what he told us the founders intended and then tells us again what his opinion is paraded as a fact.
And finally in the third paragraph he gets it right -- " it's a very controversial subject". And he is right that the debate has to be honest but facts is facts, and opinions is opinions no matter how many times you you state the later don't make it the prior. Maybe this reporter should report the news instead of trying to make the news. maybe.
GratefulCitizen
01-06-2013, 19:55
Elements of this seem eerily familiar.
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
Dozer523
01-06-2013, 22:21
The first mistake is to assume they are operating under the ordained Constitution of 1787. The second mistake is to assume they are dejure. Never assume.What do you mean when you use the word "ordained"?
Catholic boys want to know . . . and Episcopalians and Presbyterians too:p
I found the following to be an interesting and unique perspective to the current topic. <source> (http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/)
Since last month’s horrifying and heartbreaking school massacre in Newtown, Conn., politicians and the press have, as everyone knows, been totally obsessed with firearms.
Indeed, President Obama has vowed to impose strong new gun-control measures on the nation – very soon, with or without Congress.
Other possible factors – from violent video games to the “failure of our mental-health system” to the unintended consequences of making schools “gun-free zones” – have taken a back seat to guns. Within hours of the gruesome mega-crime, the media had provided extensive, round-the-clock coverage of precisely which firearms, manufacturers and calibers the perpetrator had used, how he had obtained them from his mother, where they were originally purchased, and so on.
But where, I’d like to ask my colleagues in the media, is the reporting about the psychiatric medications the perpetrator – who had been under treatment for mental-health problems – may have been taking? After all, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, were interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: “I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn’t deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.” And here, Tambascio tells ABC News, “I knew he was on medication, but that’s all I know.”
It has been more than three weeks since the shooting. We know all about the guns he used, but what “medication” may he have used? (One brief mini-hoax emerged when the New York Daily News published a story claiming the shooter, according to his uncle, had been on the controversial antipsychotic drug Fanapt. That story was quickly withdrawn after the “uncle” turned out to be a fraudster with no relation to the murderer.)
And do we REALLY know what guns were used? Last I heard, they were still unsure if the AR was in the car or had been used.
DIYPatriot
01-09-2013, 09:05
In the future, disarming Americans may be as easy as hacking into their gun or flipping a switch. Let's just hope Microsoft doesn't get involved. I can't imagine having a reboot while fighting for my life.
How might this work? Start with locational "self-awareness." Guns should know where they are and if another gun is nearby. Global positioning systems can meet most of the need, refining a gun's location to the building level, even within buildings. Control of the gun would remain in the hand of the person carrying it, but the ability to fire multiple shots in crowded areas or when no other guns are present would be limited by software that understands where the gun is being used.
Guns should also be designed to sense where they are being aimed. Artificial vision and optical sensing technology can be adapted from military and medical communities. Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child or someone holding a child.
Building software into guns need not affect gun owners' desire to protect their homes. Trigger control software could be relaxed when the gun is at home or in a car, while other safety features stay on to prevent accidental discharges. Guns used by the police would be exempt from such controls.
Article (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/opinion/shane-smarter-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
Diane Feinstein: "The criteria for serving one's country should be competence and courage."
Oh well. You were schooled by a six year old. Any more quotable things you wanted to say? :munchin
Three women shot dead in 'politically motivated' Paris slayings
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16443576-three-women-shot-dead-in-politically-motivated-paris-slayings?lite=
But I thought Europe was so super safe from "Gun Violence"!
Statement From the NRA Regarding Today's White House Task Force Meeting
Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.
We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.
.............. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.
The NRA is not a political arm of the Republican party. They have made clear over the years - though few listen or understand - that 1. They will support any member with a good voting record on firearms issues and 2. They will support the incumbent over the challenger.
The "who's who list" of gun control is about to become pretty cut and dried.
Pete
NRA Life Member
The Southern States PBA official stand on gun control in America
http://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/The_Southern_States_PBA_official_stand_on_gun_cont rol_in_America_323.jsp
"..."As president of Southern States PBA, a professional law enforcement association with over 30,000 members from federal, state, county and municipal agencies, I would like to express our support for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and for law abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms. From hunting to shooting sports, firearms are a part of the American culture that are passed from generation to generation. Rank and file law enforcement officers realize that gun ownership from law abiding citizens poses no threat to the law enforcement community or to the public. New legislation aimed at reducing or restricting law abiding citizens from purchasing or owning firearms will do nothing to reduce violent crime nor will it stop criminals or those who want to commit evil acts from obtaining weapons. We, as law enforcement officers, take an oath of office to enforce the laws in our communities and support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will continue to do so. It is our hope that our leaders in Washington will look at reasonable measures to help keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and punish those more severely who are violating those laws."...."
Streck-Fu
01-11-2013, 16:37
We, as law enforcement officers, take an oath of office to enforce the laws in our communities and support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will continue to do so.
At some point, those two become exclusive. Which will they choose?
lol First Cop: "Let's go over to your place and get your guns, first."
Partner: "No. You turn yours in first, Pal."
"Yours!"
"No! Yours...hey! wait just a min...(BAM!!!)" :D
The Reaper
01-11-2013, 17:37
Good words from a great American.
Much to think about here.
TR
2nd Amendment And The Kool-Aid Drinkers; by Paul Howe
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/
On January 3rd, 2013
I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberal’s intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment. I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.
WHO’S COMING TO GET THEM?
United Nations (UN)
We are the UN. Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight. America is the enforcement arm of the U.N. We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.
If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.
Federal Government Military
Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution. I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.
Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities. Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time. Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness. Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down. In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.
Federal Government DHS or TSA
The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns. If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break. Physically conducting raids is exhausting. After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back. It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective
Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community. Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families. Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk. If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves. They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.
State Law Enforcement
The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:
• Seize guns
• Ignore the Federal Orders
If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.
Local Law Enforcement
Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens. A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons. Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.
Remember, Chiefs and Sheriff’s also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking. It would not go well. Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight. Remember also, they have to sleep sometime. Their homes and families would be at risk. It is an ugly scenario at best.
Nation of Combat Veterans and Patriots
Having been at war for over 10 years, we have a nation of combat vets and contractors that have seen more action than many of our WWII vets. It has been said that only a small percentage of Americans stood up to the British War machine in the Revolutionary War. Americans are better armed and trained today than at any time in our nation’s history. Think about what would happen if just our nation’s veterans stood up. People have been buying more guns and ammunition in the past five years than any time in my life. The guns and ammunition are out there along with the talent to use them.
Kool-Aid Drinkers
Kool-Aid Drinkers is the term I use to describe the Jonestown voluntarily massacre where the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, a dedicated community western Guyana by the Peoples Temple led by cult leader Jim Jones intentionally drank poison Kool-Aid. Over 900 people died.
In every law enforcement, government and military agency or branch, there are a small number of Kool-Aid drinkers who would blindly follow orders. They would either be purged internally by their co-workers or people they attacked would stop their gene pool.
Also, at the police tactical team level, all members “volunteer” for the job and they can have the individual integrity to terminate their team service at any time if their profession becomes corrupt or misguided. I know many a good officer that has done that in the past.
Finally, there would be a certain number of American Kool-Aid drinkers that would turn in their weapons if asked. I believe it would be a small percentage as there are always those that do not have the will to resist or fight and they are not needed should thing get tough.
History of “Gun-Free Zones”
Our nation’s history is filled with examples of “gun-free” zones failed.
The Aurora Colorado movie massacre and the recent Connecticut shooting are two that come to mind. Also, remember the Fort Hood massacre where an Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers because our military bases are gun free zones. Combat trained soldiers had to be rescued by a security guard. That is embarrassing.
Evil came to all of these places and everyone was disarmed and not ready to fight back because they were gun free zones.
Think what would happen at a national level if the American people were disarmed. Another evil would come along either from inside our country or outside of it and resulting in our downfall.
How about others in recent history:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Solutions
Write your state representatives and let them know how you feel about this issue. I would like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Next, at the local level, talk to your Sheriff or Chief of Police and ask them if they would allow or support the federal government in their confiscation of firearms. Put them on the spot now and hold them accountable. I like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car. Point them to California and let them know all the Hollywood types would be happy to financially support them in the fantasy land they wish to live in and that they are not welcome in Free America.
In the end I believe that guns are the glue that hold our country together. Guns keep the government in check and the individual American safe and free. Remove guns and the government will no longer be controlled by the people. The government will control the people.
Finally, it is claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, in 1775 were started because General Gage attempted to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the population resulting in the “Shot heard round the world.”
The Reaper
01-11-2013, 17:39
(cont.)
About the Author:
Paul R. Howe is a 20-year veteran and former Special Operations soldier and instructor. He owns Combat Shooting and Tactics (CSAT), where he consults with, trains and evaluates law enforcement and government agencies in technical and tactical techniques throughout the special operations spectrum. See www.combatshootingandtactics.com for details.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
George Washington,1732-1799, Continental Army Commander and America's first President.
TrapLine
01-11-2013, 18:32
That was a great read, Sir. I just received MSG Howe's instructional pistol shooting video as a gift this week.;)
I would not want to be the person tasked with confiscating his weapons:eek:.
I am an EPL Life member. For those who don't know what that is, I basically have to pay $25 a quarter for the next 10 years to earn Life Member status. I think you can become a Life Member of the NRA for $300 if you're sponsored by a current Life Member.
Thanks for the article Reaper. I think I might order one of Mr. Howe's DVD's.
GratefulCitizen
01-12-2013, 20:03
This could get interesting.
http://www.examiner.com/article/wyoming-drafts-bill-criminalizing-enforcement-of-federal-gun-ban
What are the consequences of issuing an order that you know won't be followed?
(Referring to federal overreach)
This could get interesting.
http://www.examiner.com/article/wyoming-drafts-bill-criminalizing-enforcement-of-federal-gun-ban
What are the consequences of issuing an order that you know won't be followed?
(Referring to federal overreach)
Money talks, Big-G could play it like seat belts and speed limits.....you don't play, we don't pay.
GratefulCitizen
01-12-2013, 20:21
Money talks, Big-G could play it like seat belts and speed limits.....you don't play, we don't pay.
IIRC, Wyoming told the feds to pound sand when the drinking age was raised to 21.
Passed on the associated federal funding.
States could pass a law holding onto federal taxes, in trust, should the benevolent masters dictates become too onerous...
IIRC, Wyoming told the feds to pound sand when the drinking age was raised to 21.
Passed on the associated federal funding.
I wish more states had the stones to do that.
GratefulCitizen
01-12-2013, 21:38
States could pass a law holding onto federal taxes, in trust, should the benevolent masters dictates become too onerous...
With a fiat currency, if done correctly, this would be functionally equivalent to a state printing their own money.
Except for the fact that they aren't actually doing it.
:D
GratefulCitizen
01-12-2013, 22:15
I wish more states had the stones to do that.
A new assault weapons ban would have more hurdles than the first one.
Printz v. US and Heller v. DC were decided after the AWB.
The states successfully nullified the real ID act.
The Bond v. US decision opens the door to many more challenges.
The coerced Medicaid expansion was struck down.
Most importantly, the people already have plenty of those "assault weapons".
Possession is 9/10 of the law.
:D:lifter
Badger52
01-13-2013, 08:27
This could get interesting.
http://www.examiner.com/article/wyoming-drafts-bill-criminalizing-enforcement-of-federal-gun-ban
What are the consequences of issuing an order that you know won't be followed?
(Referring to federal overreach)Yup. For those that would like the whole .pdf as a template to send their statehouse, just to foster the idea, I put the link to that here. (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=482162&postcount=39):cool:
One short interview on the gun control debate in the 2 links below.
Both sides have equal time. These debates are occurring across the nation.
Watch, listen and judge for yourselves regarding what sounds rational or not.
Part 1
http://www.wowktv.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8177367
Part 2
http://www.wowktv.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8177373
Possession is 9/10 of the law.
:D:lifter
Who posesses the White House?
One short interview on the gun control debate in the 2 links below.
Did you see the color drain from the anti-gun commentator's face when the other guy told him he was armed?
Did you see the color drain from the anti-gun commentator's face when the other guy told him he was armed?
That was priceless.
It looked like that commentator pooped his pants. :D :D :D
ETA ... What I'd like to know is, where can I get a grenade launcher? Mr. Poopy Pants commentator seems so knowledgeable about that, I'm just wondering where I can pick one up?
:munchin:
HOUSTON -- A couple of strangers came to the rescue when a man was robbed at gunpoint. Now, the victim wants to say thank you to the Good Samaritans.
<snip>
“I don’t believe in guns,” said Dorsey. “I don’t own a gun. I’m totally at the mercy of my saviors. They obviously sent two angels to help me. These people protected me when I couldn’t protect myself.”
After the robber had been shot, police say he jumped over a fence and was attacked by a German Shepherd. That attack prevented him from getting away.
Link (http://www.khou.com/news/local/Robbery-victim-wants-to-thank-Good-Samaritans-who-came-to-his-rescue--186572461.html)
He doesn't believe in guns so it's someone else's responsibility to risk their life to protect his(?) :confused: Well, anyway, the GSD had fun. :D
Pat
Scamilton
01-13-2013, 10:37
I also noticed his insistence to talk over him, and not allow him to speak every time he started to point out the holes in his "points". Typical left lib who only wants to hear his point made, and hear himself speak his infinite stores of wisdom to the uneducated backwoods conservative.
One short interview on the gun control debate in the 2 links below.
Both sides have equal time. These debates are occurring across the nation.
Watch, listen and judge for yourselves regarding what sounds rational or not.
Part 1
http://www.wowktv.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8177367
Part 2
http://www.wowktv.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8177373
Definitely worth watching, the guy on the right who was obviously on the left got a little fidgety there when he found out his guest was armed, my hats off to the gun advocate for handling himself so well.
By the way, I'm still waiting for some links/statistics on the massive amount of SWAT team raids on 'recreational' drug users. Got any?
I don't have any links/stats on any massive amount of raids, but...
I will tell you this....
I have this very strange Uncle who had 2 boys, one of which stayed with him on occasion. Both of his sons were users, my Uncle on the other hand didn't indulge in anything, including alcohol.
One early morning in Paola, KS the FBI, KBI, DEA and many others descended on my Uncles farm kicked in the front door, shot his dogs as they were running out the door opening, pointed guns in my uncles face, ransacked his house for hours and left empty handed.
According to the older of his two sons, the raid was over a 'tip' that the younger son had 2 pot plants growing in the house....maybe, maybe not.
No one was ever charged with any crime, but my Uncle was left with taking care of the repairs and burying the dogs.
Seems like a bit of overkill for a guy who lives by himself. The Authorities probably could have called him and avoided the 'Show'......if they had wanted to.
Here are a few others 'some' believe are a bit over the top
Mountain Pure Water IRS RAid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8mkqI_dVJg)
Gibson Guitar (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/us-guitar-idUSTRE79B7PT20111012)
Colasante Clinic (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120823/ARTICLES/120829797)
Duncan Outdoors (http://thecabin.net/news/local/2012-09-11/feds-indict-local-business-owners-irs-spokesperson-says#.UPLrVjnvomc) the owner of Duncan Outdoors is alleged to be a former Green Beret.
Dairy Raids (http://nation.foxnews.com/government-regulation/2011/04/29/milk-police-feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-unpasteurized-milk)
This what happens to local stories relating to local SWAT F-UPs.
http://fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-columbia-drug-swat-dog-shot-050710,0,7355120.story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RbwSwvUaRqc
And that doesn't even included the many KCMO SWAT raids that have gone wrong because they entered the wrong house.....that are no longer found on the web.
TrapLine
01-13-2013, 13:09
One short interview on the gun control debate]
Thank you for posting that. I think there are some valuable rebuttals to the typical anti-gun talking points in that interview.
Badger52
01-13-2013, 15:54
Definitely worth watching, the guy on the right who was obviously on the left got a little fidgety there when he found out his guest was armed, my hats off to the gun advocate for handling himself so well.
Yep, thought he comported himself very well, knowing he was in the face of attribution, the gov monopoly on use of force, etc., ad nauseum. And, yes, some moments especially worth noting.
Thanks tonyz.
GratefulCitizen
01-13-2013, 19:30
If a magazine sizes were restricted, there would probably be quite a market for 50 Beowulf AR mags.
10 rounders, of course.
;)
This what happens to local stories relating to local SWAT F-UPs.
http://fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-columbia-drug-swat-dog-shot-050710,0,7355120.story
And that doesn't even included the many KCMO SWAT raids that have gone wrong because they entered the wrong house.....that are no longer found on the web.
There's a thing about the Internet, nothing really goes away (your link, resurrected from the dead):
http://web.archive.org/web/20100510004907/http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-columbia-drug-swat-dog-shot-050710,0,7355120.story
Also the Internet archive is a *very* handy tool for catching QP phonies who think they wiped their site, or the incriminating contents thereof. -> http://archive.org/index.php
Badger52
01-13-2013, 19:48
Nice job, Mr. Peabody.
;)
There's a thing about the Internet, nothing really goes away (your link, resurrected from the dead):
http://web.archive.org/web/20100510004907/http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-columbia-drug-swat-dog-shot-050710,0,7355120.story
Also the Internet archive is a *very* handy tool for catching QP phonies who think they wiped their site, or the incriminating contents thereof. -> http://archive.org/index.php
I am going to bookmark that for future use. Good stuff:D
ZonieDiver
01-14-2013, 15:03
I don't have any links/stats on any massive amount of raids, but...
Here are a few others 'some' believe are a bit over the top
Mountain Pure Water IRS RAid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8mkqI_dVJg)
Gibson Guitar (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/us-guitar-idUSTRE79B7PT20111012)
Colasante Clinic (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120823/ARTICLES/120829797)
Duncan Outdoors (http://thecabin.net/news/local/2012-09-11/feds-indict-local-business-owners-irs-spokesperson-says#.UPLrVjnvomc) the owner of Duncan Outdoors is alleged to be a former Green Beret.
Dairy Raids (http://nation.foxnews.com/government-regulation/2011/04/29/milk-police-feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-unpasteurized-milk)
This what happens to local stories relating to local SWAT F-UPs.
http://fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-columbia-drug-swat-dog-shot-050710,0,7355120.story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RbwSwvUaRqc
And that doesn't even included the many KCMO SWAT raids that have gone wrong because they entered the wrong house.....that are no longer found on the web.
Here we go, again!
Not to beat a dead horse (now, where'd I leave that 2x4???:D), but:
I never said that I didn't believe that there is a proliferation of SWAT and SWAT-like raids by law enforcement - local, state, or federal. Nor did I say that I didn't believe those groups often went beyond what would be reasonable.
I specifically questioned a statement that I thought posed the premise that SWAT raids were focusing more on "recreational" drug users (again, whatever that means by whomever is defining it) as opposed to "armed drug gangs" ala "New Jack City".
In looking at the links you provided, the middle three refer to "armed federal agents" - which I guess could be anything from an IRS agent with a snub-nosed revolver (in a cool shoulder holster) to FBI HRT. I'll admit to NOT fully looking at the first link, because I couldn't get past the very scary music at the beginning.
Admittedly, the final one - the famous Amish Milk Raid - features what appears to be a "SWAT-like" raid. (But who can blame them? The Amish are noted for their wicked skills with pitchforks! ;))
Of course, none of them had to do with raids on "recreational" (or otherwise) drug users.
However, if you take all five of those, and add the ones that others posted in this thread (which covered 4 years IIRC), triple or quadruple (hell, quintuple) them to allow for "vanishing stories on the web", I'm not sure you could make the point I questioned.
For example... and I'm being conservative (as I always have been since I put an "AuH2O in '64" sticker on my parents' car)... IF we assume there are about 40 SWAT raids per year per state on ALL drug users, that would total 2000 per year nationwide. Quintupling the examples provided barely puts a dent in that number, low as it probably is.
As my final word on this particular subject (yes, I promise), I thnk the character portrayed by Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" says at one point that the first rule of police work is to go home at the end of your shift. IF a warrant had to be served on a location that was suspected of being occupied by drug dealers, who may be heavily armed, would you volunteer to take the place of the SWAT team and walk to the door in daylight, knock, and politely ask if you could search the premises?
I wouldn't.
The Amish are noted for their wicked skills with pitchforks! ;))
As well as numbchuck, bowhunting and computer hacking skills. :D
A link to share with some of those less familiar with some common firearm characteristics - as the gun control discussion develops.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
ZonieDiver
01-14-2013, 19:02
As well as numbchuck, bowhunting and computer hacking skills. :D
I hear some of them are even good at drawing Ligers!:o
A link to share with some of those less familiar with some common firearm characteristics - as the gun control discussion develops.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Thanks for posting that, I guess I was all ginned up after O was elected the first time, I am glad I was.
Texas has a "Plan B"....
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) is threatening to file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he moves to change gun regulations through executive order.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2013/01/rep-stockman-threatens-obama-impeachment-over-guns-154141.html?hp=r4
Yes I know the Senate wont do a damn thing!
ZooKeeper
01-14-2013, 21:05
I am not familiar with this guy's work, but I found this thoughts on gun statistics a worthy read...
http://godsandservices.com/2013/01/13/gun-statistics-dont-mislead-people/
ZonieDiver
01-14-2013, 21:58
Thanks for posting that, I guess I was all ginned up after O was elected the first time, I am glad I was.
I got pretty "ginned up" last November 6th, as the evening in CA wore on to night.:D
I got pretty "ginned up" last November 6th, as the evening in CA wore on to night.:D
I was whisky-ed out that evening.
NYS...beat your > 7 round magazines into plough shares or convert otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals?
WSJ article about NYS may provide insight into what is coming.
Let's hope the NY Assembly stops this nonsense.
What if the next shooter uses a 6-shot revolver...or five?
Tighter Weapon Law Passes Senate With Bipartisan Support, Moves to Assembly
WSJ
POLITICS Updated January 14, 2013, 11:57 p.m. ET
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595704578242253004271978.html
Ret10Echo
01-15-2013, 17:48
So who is building the secure storage, gun shop and range complex in PA?
lol The extent of lib imbecility never ceases to amaze me. I expect to be even further amazed later in the week.
PedOncoDoc
01-16-2013, 05:13
...Obama’s package would also include a federal gun trafficking measure to stop straw-man purchases and crack down on trafficking rings...
Does this mean he's taking back executive privilege in the Fast and Furious investigation, coming forward with everything he knows about the operation and forcing Holder to relinquish all documents and testify under oath?
Ret10Echo
01-16-2013, 07:15
It's for the children (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-unveil-sweeping-gun-proposals-wednesday-including-assault-weapons-ban/2013/01/15/09452c34-5f31-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNP_p)
Hmmm... a pattern. Insurgents surround themselves with women and children...
Badger52
01-16-2013, 07:21
Does this mean he's taking back executive privilege in the Fast and Furious investigation, coming forward with everything he knows about the operation and forcing Holder to relinquish all documents and testify under oath?Not a chance. The #1 whistleblower got his formal pat on the head from ATF following their exhaustive internal review (the one where no one of substance gets slammed) and acting director sent a mea culpa note to Grassley. All is forgiven. Holder remains Untouchable. Next.
Team Sergeant
01-16-2013, 11:00
Not a chance. The #1 whistleblower got his formal pat on the head from ATF following their exhaustive internal review (the one where no one of substance gets slammed) and acting director sent a mea culpa note to Grassley. All is forgiven. Holder remains Untouchable. Next.
No one is "untouchable". :munchin
Badger52
01-16-2013, 11:38
No one is "untouchable". :munchinIn literal terms I agree. In the case of the aforementioned executive privilege I would relish someone on the hill displaying the stones to validate that.
ImagesNC
01-16-2013, 19:00
Found this
http://2ndamendmentdebate.com/?p=317
Thought some of you guys at Bragg might like the guys comments.
"Weapon guide for the uninformed" at link below:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?id=640963
(and average homicides or deaths - per year - per category)
"Weapon guide for the uninformed" at link below:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?id=640963
(and average homicides or deaths - per year - per category)
lol Good link. Frustrating. :mad:
GratefulCitizen
01-24-2013, 08:23
They either don't want this to pass, are taking an extreme position prior to "compromising", or they may simply be delusional.
Even if something like this did pass, attempts at enforcement would crumble the union.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/22/miller-national-assault-weapon-ban-coming-thursday/
They will be happy with the national background check.
Because with that they will create a database (legally or illegally) of owners and firearms. With that, whenever confiscation (in their minds) becomes necessary (or a convenient crisis occurs) will be easy-peasy. (They won't have to do it, the 'little' people will have that job).
JMO
GratefulCitizen
01-24-2013, 08:43
They will be happy with the national background check.
Because with that they will create a database (legally or illegally) of owners and firearms. With that, whenever confiscation (in their minds) becomes necessary (or a convenient crisis occurs) will be easy-peasy. (They won't have to do it, the 'little' people will have that job).
JMO
Enforcement would be difficult.
Printz v US will impede their efforts.
I wasn't quite sure where to put this due to several threads on the subject, but has anyone else heard anything about this?
Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”
(http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/)
To even think that the administration would issue an order to fire on "non-compliant dissidents" is appalling. However in the current climate with this bill going to vote, says it just may become an event in the not too distant future. Nothing surprises me anymore.
They either don't want this to pass, are taking an extreme position prior to "compromising", or they may simply be delusional.
Even if something like this did pass, attempts at enforcement would crumble the union.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/22/miller-national-assault-weapon-ban-coming-thursday/
One has to wonder if a wave of mass peaceful civil disobedience is on the horizon?
Will folks register? Will folks dispose of otherwise lawfully acquired weapons and magazines...??
If this Feinstein bill moves forward as introduced - in addition to fighting to terminate it politically - I wonder if citizens will examine the duty, consequence and wisdom of following the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience that has contributed to - and will continue to contribute to - this nation's founding and greatness. This tradition ranges from the Boston Tea Party - to the Underground Railroad - to the civil rights movement. Perhaps, others - in an abundance of caution - are reviewing the duty, wisdom and consequences relating to disobeying unlawful orders.
The good, law abiding gun owners (and authorities) in NY have less than a year to formulate and execute their legal response -- and moral response -- to defacto confiscation and relative disarmament.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
Interesting times.
Dozer523
01-24-2013, 09:38
I wasn't quite sure where to put this due to several threads on the subject ...
Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” .
Heeeeeey Maaaaaan, how do you spell the sound of someone taking a HUGE hit off some seriously choice weed?
From your cited "source":
"I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”
https://www.facebook.com/jim.garrow.1/posts/10151209214442015
Best laugh I've enjoyed in awhile. Thanks.
Richard :munchin
I wasn't quite sure where to put this due to several threads on the subject, but has anyone else heard anything about this?
Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”
(http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/)
To even think that the administration would issue an order to fire on "non-compliant dissidents" is appalling. However in the current climate with this bill going to vote, says it just may become an event in the not too distant future. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Why do you think there are SpecOps guardposts set up at all the known KGC cache sites, now?
Heeeeeey Maaaaaan, how do you spell the sound of someone taking a HUGE hit off some seriously choice weed?
K-a-t-r-i-n-a???
Having participated in civil disturbance training over the years, as I'm sure many here have, was ROE/EOF not part of that training? Up to and including deadly force? Is it not plausible that the current POTUS would "weed" out military advisors/leaders if they refused to participate in the forceful disarmament of law-biding citizens? I realize infowars isn't the best source, but it brings up a valid issue to be discussed. The same topic in question is also available elsewhere.
Dozer523
01-24-2013, 10:31
K-a-t-r-i-n-a???
Having participated in civil disturbance training over the years, as I'm sure many here have, was ROE/EOF not part of that training? Up to and including deadly force? Is it not plausible that the current POTUS would "weed" out military advisors/leaders if they refused to participate in the forceful disarmament of law-biding citizens? I realize infowars isn't the best source, but it brings up a valid issue to be discussed. The same topic in question is also available elsewhere.
Finally! Katrina was Obama's fault. I knew it!
Yeah deadly force is sometimes covered but it sure wasn't covered in NO. CAANG sent folks (as did many other NG) none took weapons.
Plausible? That the President is purging the top brass? With such a bizarre litmus test? How would you ask that question?
Infowars is less than not the best source. And the point isn't valid. Did it show up in the Inquirer, too. Put the shovel down.
Finally! Katrina was Obama's fault. I knew it!
Yeah deadly force is sometimes covered but it sure wasn't covered in NO. CAANG sent folks (as did many other NG) none took weapons.
Plausible? That the President is purging the top brass? With such a bizarre litmus test? How would you ask that question?
Infowars is less than not the best source. And the point isn't valid. Did it show up in the Inquirer, too. Put the shovel down.
Come on now, the Inquirer has broken some pretty interesting stories over the years, Good ol JOhn Edwards comes to mind.
With that being said, the use of "anonymous" sources pretty much says all I need to know on said subject. If there is a retired GO out there that KNOWS this is going on, but prefers to use his friends to get the word out there instead of standing up him/herself is not a leader and is just trying to stir up shit.
...Put the shovel down.
The shovel is down, and so is my spoon. My cornflakes have mysteriously developed the aroma of urine :D
Summary
January 24, 2013
Feinstein Introduces Bill on Assault Weapons, High-Capacity Magazines
Prohibits sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of 157 dangerous military-style assault weapons; bans high-capacity ammunition magazines
Washington—U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today joined a broad coalition representing Congress, law enforcement, doctors, clergy and gun violence victims to announce the introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The bill bans dangerous military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
The following joined the Senate bill as cosponsors: Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
“The bill introduced today is the product of more than a year of work, with input from across the country,” Feinstein said. “Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that—but it’s a battle worth waging. We must balance the desire of a few to own military-style assaults weapons with the growing threat to lives across America. If 20 dead children in Newtown wasn’t a wakeup call that these weapons of war don’t belong on our streets, I don’t know what is.”
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 has two principal goals:
First, the bill prohibits the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 157 of the most commonly-owned military-style assault weapons. It also bans an additional group of assault weapons that can accept a detachable ammunition magazine and have one or more military characteristics.
Second, the bill bans large-capacity magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. These devices allow shooters to fire numerous rounds in rapid succession without having to stop and reload.
The legislation also protects the rights of law-abiding citizens who use guns for hunting, household defense or legitimate recreational purposes. The Assault Weapons Ban includes a grandfather clause that specifically exempts all assault weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment from the ban. The legislation also excludes:
More than 2,200 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles by specific make and model;
Any gun manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and
Weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement.
Other key provisions in the bill:
Requires background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered by the legislation, including sale, trade and gift;
Requires that grandfathered assault weapons be stored safely using a secure gun storage or safety device in order to keep them away from prohibited persons; and
Prohibits the sale or transfer of high-capacity ammunition feeding devices currently in existence.
“I believe this bill is a big step toward ending the mass shootings that have devastated families across the country—from Newtown to Aurora, from Tucson to Virginia Tech, from Columbine to Oak Creek,” Feinstein said. “It’s time for Americans to stand up and tell the gun manufacturers that the lives of our children are more important than their profits and get these dangerous weapons out of our schools, our workplaces, our malls and our theaters. It’s time to take action, and we’ll get it done, not matter how long it takes.”
Senator Feinstein was joined at the press conference by Senators Durbin, Schumer, Blumenthal and Murphy; Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) and Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.); Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (also president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors); Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey (also president of the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association); and a wide range of groups that have endorsed the bill.
The full text of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 as well as additional background information is available on Senator Feinstein’s website at
feinstein.senate.gov/assaultweapons.
Additional resources:
Bill text will be made public after the bill is introduced.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary
So why are retired law enforcement exempted from "these weapons of war [which] don’t belong on our streets"?
Why not exempt retired military too? (Rhetorical question).
Snaquebite
01-24-2013, 16:26
List of firearms prohibited by name
Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.
Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.
Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.
List of firearms prohibited by name
Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.
Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.
Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.
lol Good luck with that. :D
List of firearms prohibited by name
Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.
Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.
Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.
From the summary...
"It also bans an additional group of assault weapons that can accept a detachable ammunition magazine and have one or more military characteristics."
So, the list is far from exclusive. No sunset, no transfer of banned mags -- this thing needs to die.
From the summary...
"It also bans an additional group of assault weapons that can accept a detachable ammunition magazine and have one or more military characteristics."
So, the list is far from exclusive. No sunset, no transfer of banned mags -- this thing needs to die.
It will. Demlibs are too ignorant to be aware of the backfire this gun thing is gonna cause.
Utah Bob
01-24-2013, 17:14
So why are retired law enforcement exempted from "these weapons of war [which] don’t belong on our streets"?
Why not exempt retired military too? (Rhetorical question).
We can have them, but not apparently in the streets. Have to keep it in the yard. I have found out recently that nobody hunts with an AR so I'm not sure what I'll do with it.
You non-retired cops may send your "weapons of war" to me
c/o Lazy Bob Ranch
Middle o ' Nowhere, Colorado
I'l take good care of them. :p:rolleyes:
Dozer523
01-24-2013, 17:21
? . . . this thing needs to die.:rolleyes:
:D
:rolleyes:
:D
Shoot, I see what you did there.
:D
The Reaper
01-24-2013, 20:37
I wasn't quite sure where to put this due to several threads on the subject, but has anyone else heard anything about this?
Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”
(http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/)
To even think that the administration would issue an order to fire on "non-compliant dissidents" is appalling. However in the current climate with this bill going to vote, says it just may become an event in the not too distant future. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Posse Commitatus prevents it.
As I understand it, they will need to use the Guard instead, and I don't see them kicking in doors and seizing property where they live.
TR
For us retired LEO's it came down to Clinton's answer to put more cops on the street and his promise to do so while he was a P.I.T.A. POTUS. Thus HB 218 passed. I should say that the way it was written is very anemic at best and if you do happen to get involved in an active shooter incident and have to take someone down, you are left open and truley on your own.
Also, the fact that there is no "Federal Government" standard shooting course implimented in qualifying, you fall back on your state qualification course and that is enough to satisfy the requirements to carry as long as you qualify once a year on that course too.
I am awaiting an incident to happen that would really test the limitations and the huge holes in this HB.
Everyone has a right to defend themselves from injury and/or death as we all know. This even includes helping others that we may not even know.
What really scares this old guy is the intentions of having only the law enforcement people in this country armed. I have met many, many, and very many LEO's who should never have been given a badge and a handgun. They were very badge heavy and didn't believe in peoples rights, the Constitution, God's Laws or anything else in regards to taking an oath of office or in anyway learn to treat people with respect. I was that way once and I thank the Lord that it only lasted a couple of months before I realized my mistake. Like I have stated before: That Badge covers a small part of your chest and NONE of your Arse."
Unfortunately, some Academies across this nation seem to be teaching that we should be the only ones armed. This may not be in the curriculum of an Academy but I'll bet you it will be voiced by one of the Instructors during the Academy at some point! That kind of opinion instills wrong thinking I belief into someone young, dumb, stupid along with some College Idiots who join and who are more than eager to get out and fight crime and supress evil where ever it may rear its ugly head. Also seems to be an influx of newbies in the Academy that come across being members who are definately "anti-gun" and were either raised that way or at one point decided in their lives that ordinary law abidding people here in the USA should not be armed at all because they will protect and serve them as they can. BS! LEO's are well into the high percentage arena when it comes to being "pro-active". Reactive is more our nature. Thus, my argument for peoples rights accorded them by the 2nd Admendment.
Thus it angers me everytime I see on the news when legislation is produced to ban all Military-Style semi-autos; and the hyprocrite(s) that makes such statements, almost without exception, always has either allot or at least half of their background filled in with LEO's in uniform who support that ban just like Fiendstein does. It is in very bad taste to see those LEOs who are standing behind her in support (My belief is that they all do, otherwise why stand there.) of her hyperbole and her way of thinking on what is better for the people of this nation? I consider this almost as equal in the way with the very bad taste in which King Obama signed those executive orders with children from Sandy Hook school and then his audacity to name their names on television while signing and telling the American people that he is saving their lives as well as all school children. I mean why would they do this? You took an oath before GOD to protect the Constitution of this nation and you show up at some sort of circus rally/political statement making event that goes AGAINST one of the Admendments you swore to protect, and in uniform?
My beliefs are that this was never a battle between right and wrong but of Good versus Evil. It seems like our government forgot that a long time ago.:(
Just my beliefs and some disagreement with my supposed Brothers & Sisters in law Enforcement.
Badger52
01-25-2013, 04:26
My beliefs are that this was never a battle between right and wrong but of Good versus Evil. It seems like our government forgot that a long time ago.:(
You make some good points & thanks for your post. These nods to animals that are more equal than others are seen often. It is seen in union heads who don't speak truly for workers, by associations of chiefs of police who are miles away from the sense of the rank & file officers' views, even GO's whose view has traversed to the completely political with a decline in both conduct and support of their oath.
On the opposite (east, appropriately) side of the state we have such a PD chief who'd look great in a Stasi uniform. There are LEOs and there are peace officers. I prefer having coffee with the latter.
Not to worry, there are plenty to join the battle. Evil doesn't get a pass
:cool:
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/number-nations-sheriffs-refusing-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-laws
From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation's sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.
CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:
•Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, "I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment," in a letter to Coos County citizens.
•Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
•In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: "I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective."
•Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: "Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office."
•Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.
In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: "I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation."
A letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein from Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California states: "Our founding fathers got it right and many politicians are getting it wrong."
In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: "I will...rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
At a town hall meeting, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told citizens "you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County."
Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, "I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won't happen."
In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: "Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law," Snyder said.
For a list of more sheriffs who are standing up against new gun regulations, please click here.
Snip
NurseTim
01-25-2013, 06:21
I dismiss anything coming out of California out of hand due to their tacit acceptance to the same laws as the federal government put forth but at the state level. An acquaintance ran afowl of their onerous and obtuse weapons laws some time ago and went from citizen to felon in an instant, over a technicality. This is a good man, that to the outside world is a villain. But to people who are acquainted with him know him to be the antithesis of that label.
If the sheriffs were serious about their commitment to the constitution, they would sign all NFA papers put before them as the 1934 firearms act is an infringement.
No sir, these sheriffs are politicians with higher aspirations that talk the talk but do not walk the walk of supporting the second amendment.
Some sobering statistics in this piece that might not fit DiFi's gun ban narrative.
Gun crime facilitators are the ones pointing fingers
By Jack Kelly
JWR
1/23/13
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0113/jkelly012313.php3#.UQLDlXy9KSN
Liberals blame "gun nuts," the "gun lobby," and the National Rifle Association for gun violence. They should be pointing fingers at each other.
The NRA offers "a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"It's outrageous and unsettling" that the NRA won't support gun control legislation in the wake of the massacre in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in December, said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
The emphasis white liberals put on gun control is racist, said Cornel West. "Not a peep; not a mumblin' word when the black folk getting shot. But now Newtown, vanilla side, low in behold we got a major conversation."
The Princeton professor thinks just about everything is racist, but he has a point. Most murder victims -- and most murderers -- are black.
In 2007, the homicide rate among blacks was 23.1 per 100,000; 2.7 for whites, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly half of all murder victims are African Americans, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. More than 90 percent were murdered by other blacks.
Blacks are seven times as likely as people of other races to commit murder, the New Century Foundation found in a 2005 study. They are three times as likely to use a gun while committing a crime of violence.
There were 200 more murders in Chicago last year than there were U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan. There's been as many homicide victims this month as there were in the Newtown massacre. Black New Yorkers are 13 times as likely to be murdered -- or arrested for murder -- as whites, says the NYPD.
Two-thirds of all murders with firearms last year took place in the 50 largest metro areas. Nearly all those cities are governed by Democrats. America doesn't have a gun violence problem. Democrats do. They facilitate gun violence.[/COLOR]
• The seminal event in criminology was the 1972 study by Marvin Wolfgang of the University of Pennsylvania that indicated just 7 percent in the cohort he studied committed more than two-thirds of violent crimes.
For each offense for which they were caught, these chronic offenders committed eight to 11 other crimes. They were rarely punished. Had these "Dirty 7 Percenters" been sent to prison for just a year after their third offense, there'd have been 7,200 fewer serious crimes in Philadelphia, Mr. Wolfgang calculated. Subsequent research here and in Europe has confirmed his findings.
The rate of violent crime has fallen by nearly half since publication of Mr. Wolfgang's study, chiefly because more chronic offenders are being sent to prison for longer periods. It would have fallen further, but liberals fought against longer sentences.
• Most gun crime is committed by gang members. Most gang members come from single parent families. Thanks chiefly to liberal policies which undermine traditional marriage, the proportion of blacks born out of wedlock has risen from 25 percent in 1965 to 72 percent now.
• The number of mass shootings (four or more victims) has risen from 18 in the 1980s to 87 in the 2000s. People like Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, would have been committed to a state mental hospital. But liberal policies emptied them out.
All but one mass shooting in the last 50 years has taken place in a "gun free" zone. Shooters choose them because they know there won't be an armed citizen there to cut their murder spree short.
Gun violence could be reduced if more who lied on the background check form were prosecuted, the NRA's Jim Roberts told Vice President Joe Biden last week. "We don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form," Mr. Biden told him.
They only have time to punish the innocent. But gun control laws haven't reduced violence in Chicago and New York. Violent crime soared in the District of Columbia after a gun ban was enacted. It "emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves," said Jeffrey Shapiro, a former prosecutor there.
To reduce gun violence, we must focus on the people who commit gun crimes, not on the law abiding.
JWR contributor Jack Kelly, a former Marine and Green Beret, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration.
Surf n Turf
01-25-2013, 15:10
From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation's sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Sheriff David Clarke: Residents should arm themselves with guns, 911 not best option
In his latest radio spot, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and "I need you in the game."
"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.
"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."
Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."
"You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/sheriff-clarke-urges-residents-to-arm-themselves-with-guns-o38h47h-188375091.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html
A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate today unless some members changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.
At least six of the 55 senators who caucus with Democrats have recently expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a simple 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.
A ban on the military-style weapons is among the legislative goals President Barack Obama outlined in his recommendations to Congress on curbing gun violence after the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut. Vice President Joe Biden said today it will take “persuasion and information” to garner the necessary support in Congress to enact the weapons’ ban and other measures.
“We have an obligation to act -- not wait,” Biden told reporters after a more than two-hour roundtable at Virginia Commonwealth University to discuss the administration’s push for new gun-safety measures.
Yesterday, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced legislation to outlaw sales of assault- style weapons during a news conference where survivors of past shootings, some of them with bullets still lodged in their bodies, urged its passage.
Uphill Fight
At that event, Feinstein said it’s unclear whether the fight is winnable. “We don’t know, it’s so uphill,” she said. “It depends on the courage of Americans.”
The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have recently expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who is caucusing with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.
Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.
The 1994 assault weapons ban, signed by President Bill Clinton, expired in 2004 and, until the school shooting in Newtown, there’s been little effort in Congress to renew it.
Weapons Legislation
The new legislation prohibits the sale or transfer of 158 of the most commonly owned military-style assault weapons. It exempts all assault weapons legally possessed prior to passage of the law and excludes more than 2,200 hunting and sporting rifles.
Baucus, in a Jan. 16 statement, said that “before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of a one-size-fits-all directive from Washington.”
“The answer isn’t simply in limiting guns,” said Andrea Helling, a spokeswoman for Tester. The senator also told the Missoulian newspaper that an assault weapons ban wouldn’t have stopped the shootings in Newtown.
Begich said he was “not interested” in a ban, during a Jan. 10 conference call with reporters.
“I don’t believe that we need to pile on new laws and suddenly that solves all the problems,” he said. Manchin told CNN on Jan. 13 that the debate can’t be “about guns and guns only and a “stand-alone ban” will “not go anywhere.”
Freshmen Skepticism
Two freshmen also expressed skepticism about an assault weapons ban.
“There isn’t any amount of gun regulation or gun executive orders that will solve the problem of identifying people who could potentially do this and making sure they get the help and their families get the help so they don’t do this,” Heitkamp told North Dakota’s KXMB-TV and KXMC-TV Jan. 15.
Scott Ogden, a spokesman for King, said the senator “remains skeptical” about an assault weapons ban, though he was waiting for more details. And Collins is concerned that the proposed legislation is “far broader in the kinds of rifles that would be banned than was the case in the law in effect between 1994 and 2004,” said her spokesman, Kevin Kelley.
Further dimming prospects for the assault weapon ban, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, both Democrats, voted against extending a previous ban in 2004. Neither has made any public statements since Newtown indicating that they will change their positions.
Victims’ Voices
Feinstein is hoping survivor testimonials, along with the images of the slain Sandy Hook students, most of them 6-year- olds, will push these Democrats to reconsider their opposition.
“The message to Democrats is, ‘See what your silence does?’ There will be more of these. These won’t end,” Feinstein told reporters.
“If just reading the list of beautiful names and looking into the eyes of some of the pictures of the children slain doesn’t do something to the conscience of America, nothing I can say or do will,” she said.
The vote shortage may prompt Democrats to focus on another major goal: banning high-capacity magazines that have been used in many of the shooting massacres over the past decade to fire off numerous bullets in a matter of seconds.
Feinstein’s legislation also includes a large magazine sales ban, and Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, introduced legislation on Jan. 22 to ban the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Tucson Shooting
In the Tucson, Arizona, shooting two years ago that severely injured former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, of Arizona, Jared Lee Loughner fired 31 bullets in 15 seconds from a Glock 19 pistol. He was tackled while reloading. Shooter James Holmes used a 100-round magazine to kill 12 and wound 58 in July 2012 at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater.
Some of these lawmakers did express support for a ban on high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and increased background checks.
“Congress must act to implement magazine capacity restrictions,” King spokesman Ogden said in a statement.
King is also “generally supportive of expanded background checks,” he added. Collins “supports a reasonable limitation on the number of rounds of ammunition in a magazine,” spokesman Kelley said.
Biden Trip
Biden, who Obama tapped to develop recommendations for action after the Connecticut shooting, said there would be more trips outside of Washington to discuss the issue. He called Newtown “a national tragedy and a window into a vulnerability people feel about their safety and the safety of their children.”
The White House’s campaign-style effort is designed to build political pressure on Congress to take action.
“I have no illusions about what needs to be done and how difficult it will be,” Biden said in an e-mail today to Obama’s supporters. “Each one of us needs to speak up and demand action,” he wrote, concluding: “Let’s get this done.”
The private roundtable included cabinet officials, Democratic lawmakers, and members of the state-appointed review board that investigated the 2007 shooting that killed 33 people at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, known as Virginia Tech, in the deadliest gun massacre in U.S. history.
That incident prompted enactment in early 2008 of a law improving state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, aimed at barring criminals or mentally ill individuals from obtaining guns.
Mental Health
Biden said the group discussed the need for strengthening that system and implementing universal background checks with better and more timely information from states. He said they also talked about the “woefully inadequate” number of trained mental health professionals available around the country.
Manchin told a West Virginia radio interviewer Jan. 24 that he also is working with senators of both parties to require most gun purchasers, including those at gun shows, to undergo checks.
“If you’re going to be a gun owner, you should have a background check and be able to pass a background check,” he said. Exceptions should be made in cases where a gun is transferred from one family member to another, and when the owner is getting a gun to use at a sporting event.
Manchin said private sellers at gun shows have an “unfair advantage” because they don’t have to perform background checks while a licensed dealer does.
Snip
Very thin margin for something so important.
Very thin margin for something so important.
Yeah, but look at who we're talking about, here. The dregs of the libdem dungheap.
Why doesn't the NRA and others point out rightly how during a recession this is going to have a strong negative impact on the economy?
How many Local Gun Stores, small town manufacturing/gunsmiths, and even large manufacturing companies will have to lay off or close completely if these restrictions are imposed?
If there is anything politicians don't want sticking to them is anything that stinks like hurting the recovery, or killing american jobs.
A quick google search only really revealed a few economic articles relating to a gun ban and most were either outdated or weren't written by actual business/economic sources like Fortune or Forbes.
122 pages - just available - but not yet posted on the Library of Congress THOMAS legislative database site.
Courtesy of David Codrea
Examiner.com
http://www.scribd.com/doc/122212105/S-150
Why doesn't the NRA and others point out rightly how during a recession this is going to have a strong negative impact on the economy?
I don't see the current administration giving a flying fvck about the economy. On the other hand, Ive seen them take some pretty big steps to impede its growth. I doubt that angle will play.
I think Sigaba has a point though, how can the pro gun crowd approach the anti gun crowd with solid proposals that demonstrate willingness to curb gun violence that doesn't include banning firearms. Can the pro/anti/don't care crowds set aside their party affiliations and address a nation wide issue as a nation instead of as rival gangs?
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 1/24/2013
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 1/24/2013
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 1/24/2013
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 1/24/2013
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 1/24/2013
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 1/24/2013
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 1/24/2013
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 1/24/2013
Sen Murphy, Christopher S. [CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] - 1/24/2013
Sen Schatz, Brian [HI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 1/24/2013
Sen Warren, Elizabeth [MA] - 1/24/2013
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 1/24/2013
DiFi Bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bdTvSS:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/|)
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 1/24/2013
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 1/24/2013
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 1/24/2013
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 1/24/2013
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 1/24/2013
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 1/24/2013
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 1/24/2013
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 1/24/2013
Sen Murphy, Christopher S. [CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] - 1/24/2013
Sen Schatz, Brian [HI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 1/24/2013
Sen Warren, Elizabeth [MA] - 1/24/2013
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 1/24/2013
DiFi Bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bdTvSS:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/|)
Yep. The dregs.
OldNCranky
01-25-2013, 16:36
What a contrast of purpose..........
2A:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Preamble to Feinstein's AWB 2013
A BILL
"To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to
keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
So much for that "Oath" she took...
"...and for other purposes."
Feeling safer already.
Looks like certain magazines will have serial numbers.
"...and for other purposes."
Feeling safer already.
Looks like certain magazines will have serial numbers.
The bill has to pass. They won't get the votes.
But, they've showed a hand the otherwise clueless constituents aren't gonna like. This will backfire, politically.
The bill has to pass. They won't get the votes.
But, they've showed a hand the otherwise clueless constituents aren't gonna like. This will backfire, politically.
D, let's hope so. This thing and the NY thing is a complete mess.
Oldrotorhead
01-25-2013, 17:01
122 pages - just available - but not yet posted on the Library of Congress THOMAS legislative database site.
Courtesy of David Codrea
Examiner.com
http://www.scribd.com/doc/122212105/S-150
It seems one of the co-sponsor likes kids. Mayby more than he should.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/25/emails-show-fbi-investigating-sen-bob-menendez-for-sleeping-with-underage-dominican-prostitutes/
:mad:
The final part of her bill (after the BS laundry list of weapons that are "OK", which are obviously offered as a red herring so they can say "see, you have 1000's of weapons which are still legal)...
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
16 If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by
17 this Act, or the application of such provision or amend
18 ment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconsti
19 tutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made
20 by this Act, and the application of such provision or
21 amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be af
22 fected thereby.
It may take more than a few court cases to kill all the shizzle in this bill, IF it somehow passed...
Stiletto11
01-25-2013, 17:22
If the Bill doesn't pass the states controlled by the Progs will pass their own bans; Gov of Connecticut said, "Public safety trumps gun rights."
If the Bill doesn't pass the states controlled by the Progs will pass their own bans; Gov of Connecticut said, "Public safety trumps gun rights."
Let 'em learn the hard way.
Badger52
01-26-2013, 06:13
"...and for other purposes."
Looks like certain magazines will have serial numbers.I did that once, with some masking tape & a Sharpie at the range, sorting good, bad & ugly of a bunch of various mags. Do you suppose that's what they mean?
When we expelled the English from the Country, we used muzzleloaders. They were the "assault rifles" of the period.
How hard can it be for anybody to understand that, if this type of BS legislation had passed back in those days, we'd be gumming kidney pie?
I understand it's to be done incrementally, but libdems won't stop trying until they've succeeded in removing our means to resist; they'll use every angle possible-especially politicizing tragedy-until they have complete control.
They feel that people aren't capable of managing their own day-to-day lives to the extent that they think it's necessary to control our intake of certain foods, ensure we warm up before shovelling snow, etc.
The day there aren't enough folks in the Country to tell these communists to leave us the f.ck alone is the day we go under.
Here's the text and explanation for Feinstein's AWB 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0Y8CyBgeQ
ddoering
01-26-2013, 08:37
When we expelled the English from the Country, we used muzzleloaders. They were the "assault rifles" of the period.
How hard can it be for anybody to understand that, if this type of BS legislation had passed back in those days, we'd be gumming kidney pie?
I understand it's to be done incrementally, but libdems won't stop trying until they've succeeded in removing our means to resist; they'll use every angle possible-especially politicizing tragedy-until they have complete control.
They feel that people aren't capable of managing their own day-to-day lives to the extent that they think it's necessary to control our intake of certain foods, ensure we warm up before shovelling snow, etc.
The day there aren't enough folks in the Country to tell these communists to leave us the f.ck alone is the day we go under.
Amen.
GratefulCitizen
01-26-2013, 21:33
Saw this cover at the grocery store.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130128,00.html
:rolleyes:
No, they can't stop the violence.
Let's hope they don't start a war.
Ret10Echo
01-27-2013, 06:48
No, they can't stop the violence.
They are idiots of the highest caliber....
Firearms don't create violence.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/27/obama-gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more/
President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue.
“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.
Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but “I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.”
The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.
He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.
He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.
The interview appears in the Feb. 11 issue of The New Republic.
Obama also said one of the biggest factors in the gun-control debate will be how it is shaped by the media.
“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”
The president argued that “the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word” and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are “willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”
Has Obama himself ever fired a gun? Yes, he says, he and others shoot skeet frequently at the president's Maryland retreat, Camp David.
The president also said much of the challenge in Washington is to make Americans feel that national politics is indeed connected to their day-to-day realities.
“And that’s not an unjustifiable view,” he said. So everything we do combines both a legislative strategy with a broad-based communications and outreach strategy to get people engaged and involved, so that it’s not Washington over here and the rest of America over there.”
Snip
Barbarian
01-27-2013, 12:12
President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue.
The current administration, and the mainstream media are the only sources I've heard that say the American public is in favor of gun control. Nearly everything else I've seen, points to the contrary.
Dear Mr. President and former so-called constitutional lecturer,
Hunting has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It is about defending the State and an individuals right to protect ones life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
If our so-called leaders would refrain from their continuous rhetoric of division and derision, maybe, just maybe the people would be less concerned about the tyrannical possibility's from their own government.
GratefulCitizen
01-27-2013, 12:27
"Compromise"
Here is an opening offer:
Subsidies (and legalization) for individual citizens to purchase newly manufactured selective fire rifles and each citizen shall have the right to slap the politician of their choosing twice on general principle.
In the spirit of compromise we are willing to accept:
-Butt out and leave us alone.
-Reduce to just one slap.
IMO, The Founders did not fight and bleed and risk most everything to enshrine the right to mere recreational gun use in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is about individual liberty over tyranny.
charlietwo
01-27-2013, 12:53
Via www.breitbart.com-- "President Barack Obama has revealed that he is a regular shooter, according to an interview posted Sunday at The New Republic:
FF: Have you ever fired a gun?
Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.
FF: The whole family?
Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."
Too bad he doesn't have the same respect of fighting tyranny that also trace back for generations.
Always moving the pieces on the board....
Badger52
01-27-2013, 13:11
Via www.breitbart.com--Always moving the pieces on the board....He could've said that and passed many an NRA candidate-approval banquet.
:rolleyes:
Utah Bob
01-27-2013, 13:49
Saw Petraeus on CNN this morning saying we don't need assault rifles. Thanks Dave.:mad:
BTW Dave, WE don't have any. They just LOOK like assault rifles.
Read a pretty good blog/article by Sam Harris entitled The Riddle of the Gun. While I don't agree with some of his points of view, overall he makes several salient arguments.
The Riddle of the Gun (I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.)
I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.
Saw Petraeus on CNN this morning saying we don't need assault rifles. Thanks Dave.:mad:
Says the guy that threw away his career for some pu$$* and gave her (reporter) access to classified info.
Utah Bob
01-27-2013, 16:58
Says the guy that threw away his career for some pu$$* and gave her (reporter) access to classified info.
He's beginning to make a habit of being an ass.
Trapper John
01-27-2013, 20:04
Take a look at the attached. After you read this ask yourself which would you rather have - a .38 revolver or a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine?
They call black bear cubs "grizzlies" up there?
Take a look at the attached. After you read this ask yourself which would you rather have - a .38 revolver or a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine?
The story that you posted is a little exaggerated from the original/actual story
Snopes - Bear (http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp)
Bear 2 (http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/outdoors/urban-legends/killer-grizzly-bear.html)
Alaska.com - Bear (http://www.alaska.com/2008/10/16/1950/the-truth-about-alaskas-monster.html)
Bear.org (http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/myths-a-misconceptions/175-internet-hoax.html)
Regardless of the actual story, something that big in the woods with me is always going to be argument enough for hi-cap magazines in my book...
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Arkansas-Senate-approves-guns-in-church-bill-4229640.php
Arkastan's Congress is controlled by the Republicans now. First time in 100 years.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — The Arkansas Senate voted Monday to allow concealed handguns in churches and other places of worship, rejecting complaints from a handful of Democratic lawmakers that it undermines the idea of the institutions being sanctuaries from violence.
By a 28-4 vote, the Republican-controlled Senate approved the legislation that would leave it up to individual places of worship to decide whether to allow concealed handguns inside. Churches are currently listed as places where concealed handguns are prohibited.
The proposal is among several aimed at loosening the state's firearms restrictions, including a bill filed Monday that would keep secret the list of Arkansas residents permitted to carry concealed handguns.
Sen. Bryan King, the sponsor of the guns in church bill, said the measure would help rural churches far from police or law enforcement that can't afford to hire security.
"This just gives each church the ability to handle their own security," King, R-Green Forest, told senators before the vote.
Of the 49 states that allow concealed handguns, Arkansas is among 10 that specifically prohibit them from churches, according to the National Rifle Association. Past efforts to allow guns in churches have failed in the Legislature, but gun rights advocates believe they're poised to change that now that Republicans are in control.
Eight Democrats voted for the measure in the Senate. Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe has indicated he'll likely sign the measure into law should it reach his desk.
Snip
Badger52
01-29-2013, 12:39
....rejecting complaints from a handful of Democratic lawmakers that it undermines the idea of the institutions being sanctuaries from violence.Because a whacked out mass murderer doesn't.
Because a whacked out mass murderer doesn't.
lol Mrs. Dusty just told me about something she read stating that Obama's security should put up their guns and hold up "Gun-Free Zone" signs, 'cause everybody in one of those zones is safe. :D
In following with the "in common use" opinion of the SCOTUS, could it not be argued that the AWB ban be lifted for M4's? Maybe we should be arguing for less gun control instead of fighting to keep things as they are. That way we can 'concede' in the end for no change and the libs will feel like they won.
swatsurgeon
01-29-2013, 13:37
I have carried a weapon into my synagogue since I am old enough to legally be able to carry concealed. I always noted as a kid that any synagogue we ever went to for the high holy days, there would always be a police presence, right in front. As you get older, you begin to understand why......
My rabbi always knew I was armed, and trained in medical emergencies which seemed to always happen when I was around.
Places of worship, schools, offices, hospitals are NOT and HAVE NEVER been immune to violent acts. Idiots walk into hospitals armed with weapons and have shot/stabbed staff, you read about most but not all incidences in the news.
I remain a lawfully armed physician, jew, father, husband, uncle, cousin, nephew, friend, tactical medical provider and citizen of the United States of America, 24/7.
I depend on no one to come to my aid in a manner which would deescalate a situation, anywhere, anytime, that makes me safe all of the time (unless one of the QP's is with me, especially TS!!)
ss
just saw where a doc was shot in a Newport Beach Medical office TODAY.....I am not giving up my weapons!
It seems one of the co-sponsor likes kids. Mayby more than he should.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/25/emails-show-fbi-investigating-sen-bob-menendez-for-sleeping-with-underage-dominican-prostitutes/
:mad:
Need to keep getting the word out on this sicko. He'll get a pass as he a dem and absolutely NO standards apply to dems, but we need to keep howling about this sick, twisted, demented pedarist. :mad:
I'll give up my 2d amendment rights when Obama gives up his 13th amendment rights. fair trade.....:munchin
Has anyone read this article yet?
Choice of Mary Jo White to Head SEC Puts Fox In Charge of Hen House
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/choice-of-mary-jo-white-to-head-sec-puts-fox-in-charge-of-hen-house-20130125
I wonder if the recent gun control narrative being pushed by cooperatively aligned mass media......
(whose concentration of ownership in the last generation is also cause for considerable concern:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States )
.....is effectively a "win-win" for entrenched interests?
If gun control measures succeed...awesome(for entrenched interests)....the noose tightens.
If gun control measures fail....awesome(for entrenched interests).....the distraction worked and the genuinely newsworthy stuff worth expending limited public political energy on has already been blasted through without notice.
The complete and total lack of the 2nd Amendment's role in deterring tyranny in the mass media gun control narrative, combined with the likes of the SEC effectively being owned by those it's meant to police are just two examples of why I'm thinking along these lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU
This a testimony at the Gun Violence Prevention Hearing in Hartford, CT.
He gives a good speech.
Stiletto11
01-30-2013, 15:26
During a radio interview, a Connecticut legislator said that when he heard that the Sandy Hook shooting involved an "assault rifle" he said, "I thought I banned them. How could this have happened?" He then went on to admit he knew nothing about guns, but now he is more inclined to learn about them due to his self proclaimed ignorance. He wants gun owners to be at ease because he is now learning more about them and he isn't trying to restrict 2nd amendment rights. Can you believe this hack, this POS?
Beating the dead horse, again :D
On the topic of raid overkill, the following article and embedded video documentary are worth a watch.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/jan-morgan-video-documentary-rampant-injustice/
This documentary exposes the blatant trampling of the Constitutional rights of Americans during white collar crime investigations by the Department of Justice and the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
This documentary is not about the guilt or innocence of the business owners involved.
It is about the increasing number of unconstitutional, para-military, gestapo style raid tactics involving two agencies of the federal government.
These are white collar crime investigations where heavily armed, hostile government raids by 40 to 50 agents are being utilized as opposed to a few agents entering the businesses with proper search warrants to acquire the financial records sought.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the tactics, the Constitutional rights of citizens who work in these businesses, yet have nothing to do with the financial transactions of the owners, have been undeserved victims of these frightening raids … unlawfully detained for hours, intimidated, interrogated without the presence of a lawyer and their personal property confiscated.
GratefulCitizen
02-01-2013, 22:02
"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Guns-illegally-owned-by-20-000-in-state-4234266.php
Nearly 20,000 registered gun owners in California are ineligible to have guns yet still do, and it could take three years and $25 million for authorities to confiscate the weapons, law enforcement officials told a legislative committee Tuesday.
:D
Ummm... yeah.
Good luck with the other 270 million.
Writing a law and enforcing a law are not the same thing.
Many states, sheriffs, and citizens are telling you to pound sand.
Molon labe.