I've said it on this thread before. This isn't about protecting anyone or stopping future events. It is about power and control. You can't do what you were born to do if the masses can defend themselves from you.

Very well Sir, and thank you for it. It now looks like "they" are going for both and all without any due process(if some of the amendments get through)

Taste of it today in Montana
 

Today at the last minute was asked to pick up my son at the bus stop in rural Montana... 45mins later I get a call from the Transportation Safety Officer asking if I possibly had a firearm in my back pocket, I said yes it's my backup. He then said I shouldn't do that, my response was why and that I've had a permit for twenty years.

I told him I'd hide it but if le is called I'll call my attorney...

Pretty surprised this BS is happening here of all places..Pharisees

No, I completely agree--the fact that the pastor's 27 year old, mentally handicapped son killed himself hours after interacting well with the pastor and his wife is a real tragedy. I can't even begin to imagine the grief and anguish and "if I only" self-interrogations those parents are experiencing right now.

My disagreement lies with the idea that by infringing even more on my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, this adult would not have killed himself. I completely reject that idea, as there is no logical method to prove this as true. If the son had bought three cans of compressed air (completely legal, as he was over 18) and died from huffing, would his death then be acceptable? Would the federal government begin taking action to ban all aerosol products "for public safety"? I don't believe so.

As for the 'cost of doing business', we've gone 'round and 'round on this, but I stand by my previous points that there are many, many more causes of death (that aren't a Constitutionally-guaranteed right) of both youth and adults that we as a society accept for convenience. Why should gun violence be treated any differently, except that gun owners are a smaller group than the rest of US society, so its easier to blame them and restrict them than address the larger, more directly-attributable factors. Kids have committed suicide due to bullying on social media--I haven't seen anyone call for licensing and registration requirements to post on Facebook or to use Twitter. Go figure...

Maryland's Second Amendment Nightmare
 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/..._near_you.html

This is result of Maryland's SB 281 just passed the General Assembly.

I am a member of the IWLA in Frederick, Md. I know for a fact that our chapter Master Trainer and several others have and continue to train with NRA certs.
All of our trainers have taken the MSP course and are certified by the state now.

Holy Crap
 

Got a call from the Under Sheriff today regarding previously posted incident to verify permit information. BTY: happen to respect him

In any event it's a new procedure due to nuts whom should be committed. He said he'd call the school so the bus doesn't speed by when I'm at the bus stop waiting for my son...

Fear motivates sheeple. We're going to see a lot of this sort of fear and knee-jerk reaction for the next year or so. Fear also moves agendas, as a former advisor to the Teleprompter Reader once said, "Never waste a crisis". Between New Town and Boston were going to see a lot of polictics being played (at teh cost of Freedom).

Bills being voted on right now in Sacramento

Live Stream

The entire quote is, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." i guess that could sound ominous if one is convinced any change will come at their personal expense (I'm not sure the American tradition of compromise, free enterprise and separation of powers allows that to play out.)

Here's another great quote but from the President himself, ""You know, I was campaigning in Chicago and somebody asked me, is there ever any time where the budget might have to go into deficit? I said only if we were at war or had a national emergency or were in recession. Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta." —President George W. Bush, Charlotte, North Carolina, Feb. 27, 2002

Sometimes folks say stuff they wish people got the way they meant it, not the way they wanted to hear it.

TS,

Didn't even need a permit where I was according to MT law, I was cooperative anyway.

When he asked how I was doing 'thrilled and over joyed' was the answer :rolleyes:

PS..Fear, those that let it consume their common sense would be better served by doing nothing...see quote below...ain't living' if you ask me

Please explain to me how one is a member of a well-regulated militia without training on his/her weapon?
Apparently you have no faith in the free market system, a scarcity of available ranges will drive up the cost of range time leading to entrepreneur building more (and better) ranges thereby eliminating the scarcity which will in turn drive down the cost of range time.

Do you mean Sal Alinsky? www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
It's an interesting read in a wacky way but here it is, peruse and draw your own conclusion. Interesting.

I'm not sure I'm tracking the 13666 reference, weak googl-fu, perhaps.

Oh - you mean like "Carpe Diem"? As in "we don't need the usual long term strategy of a death of a thousand cuts, we'll just steer the stampeeding sheeple over the cliff they wouldn't normally go near". All of the quote, part of the quote; I don't have any problem understanding RE's espousal of Progressive Doctrine. I'm just surprised he said it where hostile witnesses might repeat it to the relative few who understand the evils of progressivism.

No, I think he means Saul Alinsky.

TR

Good catch, Dozer! I fixed it.

I was talking about Saul Alinsky, the radical community dis-organizer who wrote the "manual" for other agitators like Obama and Hillary Clinton, and dedicated it to the "greatest radical of all time, Satan." Hence the 13666 reference. But, good catch, anyway!

Where is this free market system? Certainly not in Maryland. There are limited ranges because it is difficult to start a range, given to cost, zoning restrictions and local regulations. These conditions will continue to hinder additional ranges opening. If not, I'm sure the Maryland Legislature will be happy to address that situation.

The law places onerous requirements and additional cost on the general population, which will limit the ability of many, particularly the poor, to have legal access to firearms and enjoy the whole firearms ownership experience. I'm sure that is the point of the law. It also provides a mechanism to gather data on those who possess firearms--just in case.

I guess the poor can just buy theirs on the black market, which I certain will expand in certain states like MD, NY, CT, etc... (gotta love that free market)

In your scenario I would put my money on the EPA trumping the free market system.

Exactly.

Very few new ranges are being built today, but a lot are being closed.

TR

That's in the X-ring. This has been tried before back before the emergence of the semi-auto with laws targeting the evil "Saturday Night Special." Then it was about small carryable revolvers. Result was the same; low-income folks who need to defend themselves the most, often because of where they live, are denied that. So they go elsewhere. Result is exactly counter to the rhetoric of the desired goal. It's BS, plain and simple and in many areas downright racist in its effect, harming a class they purport to regard as their base. Utter horsehockey.

Good point.
Early risers get range time here. Any arrival past 9 am on a weekend and you'll have to wait up to an hour for a position.
I believe ranges will be a good trolling spot collectivist minions as gun control takes hold.
Fortunately, in Indiana, county property is currently not restrictive on firearms/fireworks.
We built the following on my brothers property just outside of city limits.
We have smaller models for rimfire in the barn.

#383
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...t=3518&page=26

Perhaps we can get an explanation of how someone becomes well regulated without a weapon to train with. Not to mention the fact that you forgot the second half of the Second Amendment, The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.. Don't forget that pesky comma between "State" and "the".

Shall not be infringed would mean things like unnecessary burdens placed on the citizens to be able to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a requirement to have 8 hours of training to own a firearm. Should we say you can only post on the Internet if you only have passed a class on political correctness so that you don't offend someone?

Not to worry weapons is one of my specialties. There's folks like me that will train such a militia and get them up to par in short order.

"Perhaps we can get an explanation of how someone becomes well regulated without a weapon to train with."

Or Ammo¿

I've come to realize that the infringement clause really means I am allowed to do whatever I want without any personal responsibility, because everything is an "unnecessary burden".

The founding fathers were visionaries not forecasters. They also seemed to have faith in future generations that we could figure out the changes that go along with progress. As much as I laugh at the youtube videos of people who can't correctly discharge weapons I still think knowing proper technique is a good idea if just for those around.

I wonder how life would be if "shall not be infringed" had been the word choice in the other Amendments especially 1,4 and 5.

don't look at me. I'm for allowing any weapon you want as long as its use is well-regulated for proper use.

Along with liability insurance and mandatory locking, what do you consider "well-regulated"? :munchin

In my mind as well as, I would hope, in the minds of other Americans, the responsibility rests with the owner of the gun. The security measures, safety in use, where the bullets go, what's behind the target-everything on the range briefing, basically-is a job for the owner, and not a governmental regulator.

The primary duty of the gun owner is to make sure that the only person who uses the weapon is one he personally authorizes to use it, or himself. Secondarily, it has to be used safely. He needs to keep his firearm out of the hands of someone who would use it in a manner in which it shouldn't be used. Same as a knife, black powder, castor beans, gasoline and spider spray-anything potentially lethal to other humans.

The reason libs want regulation is because further restrictions get them closer to their ultimate goal-confiscation. Then, they don't have to worry about insurrection.

A minor modification to Dusty's post:

Along with liability insurance and mandatory locking, what other requirements would you impose on law-abiding citizens in order to meet your "well-regulated" criterion? :munchin

Given that the rest of us understand "shall not be infringed" to mean precisely that.
Given that the Supreme Court has already recognized "unnecessary burden" as a detriment/deterrent to the free exercise of guaranteed rights.

You mean like they do in "gun free zone" Chicago.....:munchin

This weeks Huffington Magazine has several articles focusing on Guns & Politics.

CLOSE TO THE HEART: The debate that's still too sensitive to touch.
By SAM STEIN, HOWARD FINIMAN, CHRISTINA WILKE & EMILY SWANSON

As well as the usual political bigotry.

Found on discriminatory Books Shelf's everywhere...

VFW Post sign in Lincoln, NE.
 

VFW Post sign in Lincoln, NE.

For one woman, support for 2A goes from abstract to concrete
 

How I Evolved on Guns During the #BostonPoliceScanner Manhunt

by Paula Bolyard
April 22, 2013 - 3:00 pm


In the wee hours of Friday morning, April 19th, I evolved on guns.

First, a confession: I’ve never owned a gun. I never wanted one in my home and, like a lot of moms, I wanted to raise non-violent children and thought keeping guns out of our home was one way to do that. When my kids were young, I didn’t want them to play with toy guns — in fact, I was rather insistent about it. Eventually, I realized that little boys will make guns out of just about anything — bananas, sticks, the dog’s paw, their fingers — nothing is safe from their imaginative minds. So I compromised and allowed squirt guns and non-gun-looking Nerf guns, but nothing that resembled a “real” gun.

My sensible (ex-military) husband indulged me in this when they were toddlers, but as they grew, he convinced me that our boys needed to learn firearms safety. He took them to firing ranges where they learned to fire weapons and even to enjoy them. Our 21 year old couldn’t wait to get his concealed-carry permit the minute he reached the legal age. I’m thankful now for my husband’s insistence that our children not be raised to fear guns.

But I never wanted a gun in my home.

[snip]

But all that changed early Friday morning. Along with 80,000 others around the world, I found myself glued to the live-action police drama being played out online. I first noticed the tweets with the hashtag #BostonPoliceScanner late Thursday evening and was soon engrossed in the manhunt, listening to the officers on the ground in Watertown and Cambridge and simultaneously following the tweets from the worldwide audience.

Throughout the night, a community of sorts formed as I began to recognize Twitter handles and together we “watched” law enforcement officers create a perimeter and lay down a grid so they could search the neighborhoods of Watertown. We listened as they responded to calls from residents who “heard something” in their sheds or thought they saw a “guy with a backpack” walking down the street. This was repeated dozens of times throughout the night. When police broadcast their location, many listeners typed the address into Google Street View and so could see the streets and even houses they were responding to.

It was both surreal and very real at the same time. It was a strange combination of social media and reality show with the knowledge that life and death were on the line. At one point, someone tweeted this: "I’m halfway across the country but if someone knocked on my door right now I’d pee my pants."

A moment of levity during a very serious, very scary night.

It was the moment I evolved on guns — the moment my support for the 2nd Amendment went from abstract to concrete.

Boston-area residents were told to “shelter-in-place.”

"We’re asking people to shelter in place. In other words, to stay indoors with their doors locked and not to open their door for anyone other than a properly identified law enforcement officer,” said Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in a press conference in Watertown. “Please understand we have an armed and dangerous person(s) still at large and police actively pursuing every lead in this active emergency event. Please be patient and use common sense until this person(s) are apprehended."

I realized at that moment that the police cannot protect me from the Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs of the world.

The best they can do is tell me to lock myself in my home while they search for the bad guy. Though the residents of Watertown (and the surrounding greater-Boston area) were held in a state of near-martial law, the best most of them could do was huddle in their homes, hoping the police would take their 3 a.m. call and come running to rescue them before the terrorist killed them.

Chris Wallace interviewed Dianne Feinstein on Fox News Sunday about the Boston lockdown and asked her if the million people locked in their homes in Boston might have felt safer with guns.

“Some may have [wanted guns], yes,” Feinstein said. “But if where you’re going is ‘do they need an assault weapon?’ I don’t think so.”

Wallace pressed Feinstien on whether citizens should be able to decide the best way to protect themselves in their homes:

“How about a machine gun then?” Feinstein asked. “We did away with machine guns because of how they’re used. I think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they’re used…you can use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect and there’s the element of surprise.”

“Now you’ve got police all over the place in Watertown, so I don’t really think this is applicable. I think there are people who want to make this argument,” she added.

As I listened to the police scanner during the Boston manhunt, I wasn’t thinking about “police all over the place” in the “personal security guard” sense that Feinstein seemed to be implying.

Instead, I imagined a mother huddled in the nursery with her baby. Her husband is out of town and she is also listening to the police scanner, praying the terrorist doesn’t burst through her back door.

I imagined an 85-year-old World War II veteran living alone. He fought the Nazis on foot across Europe and his government just instructed him to “shelter-in-place.” He turns out the lights in his home and hunches over his radio waiting for updates though the long night.

I wondered if they could protect themselves if the worst happened.

In the middle of that night listening to the Boston police scanner, I evolved.

I realized right then that if I were holed up in my house while a cold-blooded terrorist roamed my neighborhood, I wouldn’t want to be a sitting duck with only a deadbolt lock between me and an armed intruder. There are not enough police and they cannot come to my rescue quickly enough. They carry guns to protect themselves, not me. I knew at that instant if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev showed up at my door while I was “sheltered-in-place” and aimed a gun at my head and only one of us would live, I could pull the trigger.

I’m shopping for guns this week. I’ve been told a 12-gauge shotgun is a good choice for home protection, but I’m open to suggestions.


[LINK]

Nothing like having your nose forceably rubbed in the fact that the individual really is the person ultimately responsible for their own safety. Add a bit of responsibility for children or others who cannot defend themselves effectively and suddenly its a wake-up call.

And then there's Ms. Feinstein and everyone like her who advocates citizen disarmament. Here's an interesting read sent to me by a friend: http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/04/...y-jason-h.html. Thought provoking? Makes me wonder how long it'll be before Paula Bolyard is demonized as "reactionary" by the "opinion shapers".

That is so rich gotta, love them Huskers!

RE: orion5 Post 428, it reminds me of the old saying "A Democrat is a Republican Who Hasn’t Been Mugged Yet." this is a great read, the light has gone on in this womans head "There are not enough police and they cannot come to my rescue quickly enough. They carry guns to protect themselves, not me." You can bet she is not the only one in the area with a shopping list. I will not live in fear in my own home.

Déjà vu
 

From Guns Magazine, September 1955

Like another presentation of tinea cruris...

Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control

By JEREMY W. PETERS
NYT
Published: April 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — Talks to revive gun control legislation are quietly under way on Capitol Hill as a bipartisan group of senators seeks a way to bridge the differences that led to last week’s collapse of the most serious effort to overhaul the country’s gun laws in 20 years.

Next week when Congress is in recess, gun control groups coordinating with the Obama committee Organizing for Action will be fanning out across the country in dozens of demonstrations at the offices of senators who voted down the background check bill.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us...rol.html?_r=2&

From Guns Magazine, September 1957

Interesting article - as was the previous one you posted above - from 1955. The advertisements appearing in the mags were also particularly interesting.

Seems in some respects, the more things change the more they remain the same - wish the same could be said of prices. ;)

Thanks for posting these old articles.


From the subject 1957 article:

"Recently proposed Treasury regulations came close to this ideal; they could have destroyed the firearms industry and the shooting sport. Under the guise of protecting the people, these makers of rules who push anti-gun bills such all these are forging weapons, not into plough shares, but into an iron collar of restraint, worthy of a fascist state.

Year by year more anti-gun laws are proposed. Meanwhile, pro-gun collectors and shooters are mollified by the excuse "these laws are thought up by well meaning, innocent do gooders."

Great find, thank you.

From Guns Magazine, Jun 1958

Good post! First I've heard of an "Ortgies belly gun".

What is being discussed on NPR.

Richard :munchin

When It Comes To Guns, How Young Is Too Young?
NPR, 2 May 2013

The shooting death of a 2-year-old girl in Kentucky at the hands of her 5-year-old brother has opened up yet another debate about gun control.

While no one favors the idea of 5-year-olds using weapons without supervision, there is no consensus on the appropriate age to start hands-on training with firearms.

"Many people who have firearms familiarize their kids with firearms early on, because they want them to know that this is not something to be trifled with," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, a gun rights advocacy group.

But while some hunters and other gun owners want to instill in their kids a sense of heritage and a healthy respect for safety, public health advocates believe there's little benefit in allowing any children to handle guns.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states bluntly in a policy statement that the best way to prevent firearm injury is to keep guns out of children's homes and communities.

"In terms of safety, why would you want these kids around incredibly dangerous products?" says David Hemenway, director of Harvard University's Injury Control Research Center. "It's hard to imagine how this increases safety at all — let's play with a dangerous product."

To keep children safe, Americans need to treat guns with the same care that they use when it comes to cars and swimming pools, says Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group. But that won't necessarily be the result of any new laws or regulations.

"Decisions around guns should be looked at as an issue of parental responsibility," Gross says. "We think it's up to parents to make sure they're fully educated about the risks of guns around the home."

Not Common But Dangerous

The number of children unintentionally killed by firearms is relatively small — an average of about 125 per year, according to the Brady Campaign.

Of course, the total number of shootings is much higher. More than 3,000 children are treated for accidental shootings in emergency rooms each year.
Shootings are likely to inflict greater harm than other types of injuries. Half of the youths treated for gun injuries at two Colorado trauma centers required intensive care, compared with less than a fifth of those with other types of injuries, according to a study published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Thirteen percent of those gun victims died, compared with fewer than 2 percent of the children injured in other ways.

Hemenway says it's much more difficult to find reliable data on the number of children who shoot other people, as opposed to how many children are shot. But his own research has shown that when children are shot accidentally, it's usually someone around their own age holding the weapon — or, often, older brothers.

Training To Avoid Accidents

Anyone who has been around children (especially boys) knows they are likely to pretend almost any object is a gun and will pretend to shoot people with it.
Small children and real firearms, therefore, are accidents waiting to happen.
Last month, a man in the Cincinnati area was arrested after his 3-year-old son shot himself in the arm while reaching for a loaded gun that was hidden under a bed.

Next week, Democratic Rep. John Tierney of Massachusetts intends to introduce a bill that would require gun makers to "personalize" weapons so that they will fire only for their owners. Such technology exists, but as with other gun restrictions, his legislation faces an uncertain future.

In the meantime, everyone from gun manufacturers to the Boy Scouts posts information on their websites related to gun safety for kids. For the most part, the tips involve common sense.

Keep weapons locked and unloaded, and keep ammunition secured elsewhere. Never point a gun at anyone else.

"There are still far too many parents in our country who think that just hiding the gun is enough," says Gross, the Brady Campaign president. "Parents think that children don't know where guns are hidden, or that their kids know better."

Gun clubs and groups such as the Boy Scouts and 4-H routinely offer firearms safety instruction to children. "Sometimes, the younger kids seem to pay attention better than the older kids," says Robert L. Weiman, who trains about 130 kids a year as a volunteer safety instructor at the Monticello Rod & Gun Club in Minnesota.

Minnesota, like a number of other states in recent years, has lowered the minimum age at which children can receive hunting licenses to 10.

Weiman says it makes no sense to him that 10-year-olds can hunt with adult supervision but aren't allowed to take his safety course until they reach their 11th birthdays.

"I know a lot of 10-year-olds personally who could go through that course with no problem at all," he says. "Ten-year-olds are as capable of understanding what we're teaching them just as well as a 12-year-old."

Marketing To Children

If states can't quite settle on the exact age at which they believe children can responsibly handle firearms, what has disturbed a number of people about Tuesday's shooting in Kentucky is the fact that Kristian Sparks, the 5-year-old who shot his younger sister Caroline, used a rifle known as a Crickett that had been given to him as a gift.

Keystone Sporting Arms, which manufactured the weapon, markets it as "my first rifle," offered in a range of colors and held in promotional materials by a cartoon cricket. Its website features a "kids corner" filled with pictures of young children holding weapons.

Those appear to have been taken down, and the company has refused to comment to reporters.

But Keystone is not alone in marketing firearms to children. Other gun makers run advertisements designed to appeal to children as well, in publications such as Junior Shooters.

In 2011, Keystone gave away 1,000 youth .22-caliber rifles to gun dealers and ranges that hosted First Shots introductory events sponsored by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

"Keystone Sporting Arms believes in firearms safety and getting youth started with the right equipment to ensure the best experience," Bill McNeal, who co-founded the company with his son in 1996, said at the time.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/02/180607...g-is-too-young