Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Lan

Can you elaborate?

Sorry, no. Use your judgement. If you're in Phoenix in the future pm me.

From a 'very limited' perspective look at some of the big internet companies, which one is and has been making it consistently difficult for the 'fools' to gather data; which one(s) do you hear crickets or slight rumbles from? Which one stands to lose the most from pissing off the 'fools'? You should have one or maybe two good company(s) and one big bad one in your answer.

Originally Posted by Lan

I hope there's a silver lining but I believe our society is too dependent to become disenchanted with 'hand out' government. Like others have said, a large percentage of our population has a 'what can you do for me now' mentality, but all good things must come to an end. I don't think a large portion of our population would understand the truth if it hit them in the face, and if they did, I don't think they would care until it affected their quality of life.

Agree, that's why I said partly...common sense and going by what folks do and not what they say (or how they say it) are not that common. Neither is knowing history as several of the QP's have pointed out. The Affordable Care Act has and definitely will wake up 'some' of the dumber ones or those too wrapped up in themselves.

I try to be hopeful that our exceptional country will wake up despite all those with clouded judgments in Washington and else where.

...but yeah, they ain't gettin' my firearms regardless of how many rounds they can hold. The morons missed the whole point of the Second Amendment. Hunting rifles back then weren't military weapons they just shot straighter.

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

How is it that progressives argue that America is not an exceptional country in the world, yet, said progressives also argue that the notions that America could ever fall prey to serious disruptions in the rule of law, coups, etc...is paranoia?

Beautiful example of clouded as well as self serving logic - lack of character, diginity, honesty, and few other things.

Frankly I don't know how they like what they see in the mirror.

[tonyz]

Another good year...now, if ammo supply would just catch up with demand...

Total NICS Background Checks November 30, 1998 - December 31, 2013 at link below:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...als-123113.pdf

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Another good year...now, if ammo supply would just catch up with demand...

Total NICS Background Checks November 30, 1998 - December 31, 2013 at link below:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...als-123113.pdf

Again, in Arizona if you have a CCW permit there is no NICS Background Check. Add another 500k to those numbers. 6 of those purchases are mine......

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Again, in Arizona if you have a CCW permit there is no NICS Background Check. Add another 500k to those numbers. 6 of those purchases are mine......

...it appears that a good year for the 2A might have just got a bit better.

[tonyz]

A video and an article on recent gun control research.

Study: Gun control laws do not reduce violent crime

Jan. 06, 2014 - 7:24 - Professor Mark Gius explains research
Fox News vid at link below
http://video.foxnews.com/v/301846640...#sp=show-clips

More gun laws, more murder? Quinnipiac prof’s study suggests it
By Joe Amarante, New Haven Register

Days after a new Connecticut gun-control law spurred long lines of people trying to register firearms deemed to be “assault weapons,” a study from a Quinnipiac University professor has found that bans on assault weapons on the state level had no significant effect on murder rates around the country. And it also found that states with more restrictive concealed weapons laws had higher gun-related murder rates on average than states with less restricted concealed weapons.

But the study’s author says more research is needed on the issue before lawmakers run with its conclusions.

Mark Gius, an economics professor at Quinnipiac for two decades, admitted he was a little bit flabbergasted Monday at the response his study has been getting since it was published in the November issue of the academic journal, “Applied Economics Letters.” He had just returned Monday afternoon from Hartford, where he appeared in a segment on Fox News Channel about the study.

“I’ve actually done other research on gun control and gun ownership,” Gius said. “So it’s kind of amazing that, for some reason, this article really took off.”

Gius, a 51-year-old Democrat, said economics professors often do research on policy issues and laws on crime and guns “to see if they have the desired impact.” His topic was his own idea, not funded by any company, he said. But he said he’s half-regretting it, given the number of media people who want to talk about it.

<snip>

http://www.nhregister.com/general-ne...dy-suggests-it

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Again, in Arizona if you have a CCW permit there is no NICS Background Check.

Montana too, with an average of 20-27 weapons per household depending on your stats source and 40k+ CCW holders, add some more.

[Stiletto11]

The issue isn't about crime so don't try to rationalize the argument. It's about government control and the registration/confiscation of arms. Why? Because they can't control the population without seizing the arms. I can't believe the NRA still doesn't get it. They constantly prop up the argument of crime and blah blah blah of the law abiding citizens who will do what the government tells them to do based on being lawful citizens. What if nobody stood in line to register their arms? You want to be policed? Then go get in line, you will also get a free shower and warm meal. Oh but I have too much to lose so I must comply. Anyone heard about the Colonist standing in line to register their weapons? Neither did I. Crazy ain't it?

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Stiletto11

Crazy ain't it?

It would appear exactly the opposite of it. Behaviors indicate your statements are quite sane if the current direction continues.

[MR2]

The Second Amendment is Not Enough! (GUNS 10.1, Jan64)

[mojaveman]

Having failed in an earlier effort to bar federal agents from enforcing gun regulations in Missouri, conservative lawmakers are trying a new tack this year: banding together with other like minded states to defy certian federal laws at the same time.

This I like.

http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-plot...-politics.html

[badshot]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

This I like.

Me too - good post.

[Stiletto11]

If Federal laws are superior to state laws then why is Colorado allowing the sale of pot when it is a federal crime? Pick and choose what law you want to enforce.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

Having failed in an earlier effort to bar federal agents from enforcing gun regulations in Missouri, conservative lawmakers are trying a new tack this year: banding together with other like minded states to defy certian federal laws at the same time.

This I like.

http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-plot...-politics.html

In a 3 hour interview on Book TV's In Depth program, Mark Levin addressed Nullification with 3 different callers. Searching "nullification" in the Text Timeline below the video player will pull up clickable links that will jump the video to the sections. If you want to do it manually, they are at: 1:48:11, 2:29:57, and 2:45:06. Total, they are probably less than 10 minutes.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/MarkLev

Watch it and see if you still agree.

Pat

[mojaveman]

Watch it and see if you still agree.

Good post and very informative.

Nullification happened once before in this country and it can happen again.