Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
if Obama gets in, be prepared for a fight and write your congressmen and women to protect our right to bear arms.
I plan to add some protection should things stray offcourse in the near future, I want to be prepared to defend myself and protect my family.
Gun Regulation
Amendment II to the U.S. Constitution
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.
A major obstacle to the completion of the American Union is the fact that we have the right to private ownership of firearms. No dictator has ever taken control of his country without first confiscating the citizens guns. The Elite know this, so they have created the organization called "The Department of Homeland Security", which was formed with the expressed purpose of defending this nation against terrorist attacks from the outside. In reality, this is the beginning of a "police state", which will be used to "handle" the militias that will protest the confiscation of firearms owned by Americans. Every time that a firearm is used in an incident, the mainstream news media, and several members of Congress, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (BB & TC), demand that we have much more restrictive control of weapons.
Will we find out twenty years from now that the "DC-Area Sniper" was actually a member of one of the CIA's black-operations organizations, or was under CIA mind control as he shot his victims? There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was under CIA mind control when he (allegedly) bombed the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
Australia was once a penal colony for the British Empire, so most of the citizens of this nation are descendents of convicted criminals. Most U.S. citizens are not aware of the fact that Australia immediately outlawed private ownership of firearms after Martin Bryant, a so-called "mad murderer", killed 35 and wounded another eighteen people on the public streets of Port Author, Tasmania, in April 28, 1996, using an AR-15, .223 cal. assault rifle. Within twelve months after the outlawing of guns were passed by the Australian government, 640,381 guns were bought off the streets at the cost of over $500 million, Australian. Twelve months later, a study was made of the effects of such radical gun control, with the following results:
Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2%.
Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6%.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies went up 44%.
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms went up 300%!
The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the 12 months following the ban on weapons.
The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the 12 months following the ban on weapons.
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
During the years 2001 and 2002, armed robberies, Australia wide, increased 34.1% over the period just before the elimination of private ownership of firearms.
Last edited by Slipknot; 11-04-2008 at 08:05 PM..
Reason: sp.
I could see some restrictions, but I wouldn't worry that a regular gun owner is going to have any issues.
-spence
see that's the problem, first they call it some restrictions, eventually they take all your right to bear arms and they'll do it under the Patriot Act, homeland security or whatever, if it comes to martial law, regular gun owners will have a problem.
how about the FEMA concentration camps being built
even here on Cape Cod, Camp Edwards air force base is being converted
AMERICANS, VERY IMPORTANT IMFORMATION ABOUT MARTIAL LAW, FEMA BASE CAMPS, FEMA TRAINS, FEMA TRAILERS, FEMA OVENS, DETENTION BASES AND ITS LOCATION IN THE U.S.A AND OVERSEAS, REX 84. VIDEO SEGMENT PART 6 OF 9
there is a lot more of this stuff on the web
don't take your freedom for granted
Personally, I don't believe punishing for something that i might do is wrong.
Besides guns work much better when they're a big surprise.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
see that's the problem, first they call it some restrictions, eventually they take all your right to bear arms and they'll do it under the Patriot Act, homeland security or whatever, if it comes to martial law, regular gun owners will have a problem.
I think they wanna keep guns out of the hands of gangmembers than say moose hunters. Handgun violence and associated crime is a serious issue in big cities like DC, Baltimore & Philadelphia. I dont think people buying weapons legally over the counter at a walmart should worry too much.
Bruce, just who do you think is conspiring to cause you to have to protect your family and home? AlQaida of Middleboro?
Also, as it can be plainly seen, you have fallen victim of that small but effective organization that claims to represent all the upstanding and legal gun owners in the country, THE NRA, who actually ownly represent less than 20% of the legal gun owners in this country.
Really now, do you think the big bad Obama is coming after your shotgun or 22cal.?
No, maybe the assault weapons though like the 9mm Uzi that the kid who ripped himself open while his proud father was taking pics at that "gun show" in Westfield last week, but actual hunting weapons?
nope Steve, I'm in the 80% category, not a member of NRA
I just want to be prepared is all
You never know what might happen
The government is preparing for something, why can't they inform us what all those concentration camps are being built for? I bet they use drug money profits to fund them also. don't mind me, I'm on a conspiracy kick.
I have a hard time taking something seriously with that many spelling and grammar mistakes in it. I'm a %$%$%$%$ty speller, but 'theses' and 'left total darkness' makes this seem like it was made by some guy living in mommy's basement.
Apparently you are on a conspiracy kick. Are you using some heavy glue in a confined cabinet space"???
oh no.
I've said to much.
Too much sarcasm.
the've come for me..
I have to agree with flap;
I have no problem with hunting and hand-guns, and being prepared is admirable, but I think you are drinking the wrong kool-aid....
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
I can't see Camp Edwards, Devens, etc being used as concentration camps for Americans. Just like I can't see martial law going into effect.
Telling US troops they have to act against US citizens wouldn't go over well with the military. The majority wouldn't do it. There is a little thing called the posse comitatus act. It is taught in basic training, boot camp and I'm sure initial training for air force and navy.
I do know that the first thing the government did in NO was go door to door and confiscate firearms, leaving the law abiders at the mercy of looters. Didn't care for that act much, personally.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Now Obama re authorizing the AWB. I'd say that is a given and only a matter of time.
All for it here.
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
I watched one of the concentration camp you tube videos and didnt get scared. Seems to me that some are jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon. Im not a NRA member but i go along with "my cold dead hands" way of thinking. Enforce the laws that are on the books. Dont need anymore. As for the AWB, it doent matter to me in the slightest. I wont be buying a assult rifle any time soon. Sure its fun to shoot em, but i dont need one. I cant think of any legitimate uses/need for an assult weapon. Also, i cant see the police/govt going door to door confiscating guns. It would be anarchy. Maybe in massachusetts it wouldnt be that tough to get them from people. Just try doing it in michigan.
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.
This was written in a time with no police force, national gaurd or military. I believe if you have a hunting licence should be able to own a hunting riffle. Other than that I don't think anyone not in the millitary, NG, or police force should have one. I reallize many good people only want one for protection, and I don't blame them. I also think there are other ways to protect yourself and family without have a gun. they have guns now that can shoot a dart packing an electric charge. Me personally, I have a machete. I think to many people are killed every year in violent crimes and even accidents to warrant everyone having the right to own a gun. The reason so many criminals have guns is because they are too easy to get.The link between accessibility to firearms and death rates has been suggested in a number of studies. One study which examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearm deaths within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas. Another review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates and suicide rates.
The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :
In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
214 unintentional
1,078 suicides
1,990 homicides
83 for which the intent could not be determined
20 due to legal intervention
Of the total firearms-related deaths:
73 were of children under five years old
416 were children 5-14 years old
2,896 were 15-19 years old
Gun-related deaths
In the top firearm-household states, homicide rates were more than double the rates found for states in the lowest firearm group. Overall, the top-gun states showed homicide rates that were 60 percent higher than all other states.
Last edited by bssb; 11-08-2008 at 11:47 AM..
“I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.”
214 unintentional ...a lot of these probably attributed to lack of knowledge in how to handle fire-arms. I had this discussion with my wife (who is Hugely Anti-Firearm) when I signed my son up for an NRA safety course and his Rifle Merit badge. I told her that at some point in his life he is going to have exposure to firearms and I would rather he knows what to do with it than to just sit there and fumble around trying to figure it out....she couldn't argue that Logic.
1,078 suicides....If somebody wants to kill themselves they are going to do it, whether it be by Gun, Pills, Jumping off a building, Hanging themselves....or sitting through an Oprah Marathon.
1,990 homicides....I would guess that 95% of these were done by people who weren't legally allowed to own a gun anyways in the 1st place...so tightening restrictions and laws will make absolutely no difference in this category because the same bad element will still get and own illegal guns. and people are also stabbed, poisoned, run down, and beaten to death.
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
of course criminals can get guns illegally. there are so many of them in circulation. Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year. The domestic production of pistols has doubled since 1980, while domestic production of rifles has fallen 40 percent, and shotguns 14 percent. In 1980, pistols made up less than 15 percent of total firearm production in the U.S.; by 1993, they had climbed to 40 percent. According to a 1992 review of the scientific literature, most studies find that gun density is positively associated with the murder rate.The National Institute of Justice, for example, reports a study of U.S. cities which found a positive correlation between gun ownership levels and felony gun use and felony murder.
“I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.”
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire! In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed frustration with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
“I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.”
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.
This was written in a time with no police force, national gaurd or military. I believe if you have a hunting licence should be able to own a hunting riffle. Other than that I don't think anyone not in the millitary, NG, or police force should have one.
opinions vary, glad you aren't president.
I see nothing wrong with owning guns for target practice.
I have had guns all my life, I see no reason we can't own guns even assault rifles. law abiding citizens should be allowed to arm themselves legally.
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire! In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed frustration with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
Read the Heller decision. It was affirmed as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
I think they wanna keep guns out of the hands of gangmembers than say moose hunters. Handgun violence and associated crime is a serious issue in big cities like DC, Baltimore & Philadelphia. I dont think people buying weapons legally over the counter at a walmart should worry too much.
Understand though that those areas with high gun crime rates have the tools to decrease criminal use of guns but choose not to.
Philadelphia is particularly absurd in that the politicians declare straw buying is a big problem but then tell the BATF to stop sending multiple purchase reports because it was getting too expensive to comply with the destruction rules. Instead of investigating actual multiple purchasers and the disposition of the guns it is far easier to just say, "let's just go with a one gun a month law . . ." and that my friend does impact the law-abiding citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaptail
Really now, do you think the big bad Obama is coming after your shotgun or 22cal.?
No, maybe the assault weapons . . . but actual hunting weapons?
Not even on the radar screen.
The calls to ban "armor piercing ammunition" sound wonderful cause after all, who's for shooting cops? . . . But when the criteria to ban a certain loading is simply its ability to defeat the Class II body armor worn by patrol officers, just about every centerfire rifle cartridge would meet that threshold; even Dad's old .30-30.
Ask a military man what an AP chambering is and you will get a much different answer than the one Ted Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer or Carolyn McCarthy gives you.
Next question, how do those fine politicians define a "sniper rifle?" Look out, an old scoped Model 70 sub MOA .300 WinMag meets all those criteria too . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssb
I believe if you have a hunting licence should be able to own a hunting riffle. Other than that I don't think anyone not in the millitary, NG, or police force should have one.
Well then, sorry to break the news but you harbor beliefs which are diametrically opposed to the fundamental philosophical principles of this nation and thus, the very Constitution which establishes our government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssb
In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun.
Only in agenda driven gun death stats are 19 year old's called "kids."
In 1999 the REAL total number of "kids" (up to 17 years 364 days old) that died from gunshot from all intents was 1776. That number comprises 1001 homicides, 558 suicides, 158 unintentional (accidental) deaths, 50 of undetermined cause and 9 due to legal intervention (police or justifiable homicide by a citizen).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssb
Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year.
And????
Are you arguing that by adding those millions of guns, gun murders go up? Hmmmmm, how then can the USA have over 2000 fewer gun homicides in 2005 then in 1989?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssb
The domestic production of pistols has doubled since 1980, . . . In 1980, pistols made up less than 15 percent of total firearm production in the U.S.; by 1993, they had climbed to 40 percent.
Three letters explain that . . . CCW
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssb
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms.
Absolutely an incorrect reading of Presser bordering on a dishonest misrepresentation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssb
Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!
And that is a dishonest misrepresentation; actually Presser states the opposite.
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."
This explains a mingled dependence, in the reverse of what is called nowadays, "states rights." The states are barred from disarming the citizens because those armed citizens are also the resource upon which the security of the federal government depends.
This is interesting also because it says the mandate against states disarming citizens exists without reference to the 2nd Amendment and the protection of the right exists in two planes. It exists in the "general powers" (those laid out specifically in the Constitution) and in the "prerogative of the general government." That word, prerogative, describes a underlying principle of our Constitutional Republic.
Because the "general powers" of the Constitution promises to the states to forever provide a republican form of government, a complementary power is thus granted by inference to keep that promise, to secure the continuance of our founding principles.
The republican government that the founders embraced and established has, as one of its most fundamental components, an armed citizenry ("it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable . . ." as SCOTUS puts it). The federal government then, in keeping that republican promise, can not allow any state to act in a un-republican fashion, such as disarming the citizens.
Understand also that the principle works both ways; the federal government can not act to disarm the citizens because the states rely on those same people for their security.
Presser makes it very clear that the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states and their militia regulation power. If it did, the Court would have applied the Amendment's scope and restriction on the two tiered federal power that binds the states from "prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms," not a state's power to require a permit for an armed march by private citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssb
In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia.
Where do you get this stuff? Before Heller this line of reasoning was just nonsensical; after Heller it is delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssb
Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed frustration with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has never embraced the states right / collective right theory and in Heller the Court stated that no previous SCOTUS decisions could be read to dismiss the individual rights model.
The "state's right" theory was first introduced in the lower federal court system in 1942. And yes, since then, several lower federal courts have dismissed and ridiculed the individual right model but the unanimous statement in Heller, that the right protected by the 2nd is an individual right has exposed the "state's right" cases to challenge if not directly overruling them.
US v Tot was the genesis of the "state's right" interpretation and the famous holding was actually a legal nullity when it was written and has, since Heller, finally been rendered functionally inoperative as precedent.
"It is abundantly clear that [the 2nd Amendment], unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power. "
Read the Heller decision. It was affirmed as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
Yes, affirmed as an individual right by all nine Justices.
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
They may take assault weapons but not your hunting guns?????
WTF what if they said tomorrow there will no longer be trucks , suv's, Rv's or Boats for the common people because of the cost of fuel, lack of fuel or something like that, and they came and carted off your stuff and made you drive around in friggin HYundai to do your precious beach fishing. Oh wait you won't be able to beach fish any more because of the plovers (we fight for that freedom don't we).
I don't own any assault weapons currently, but the same joy you one way Asses get from beaching a 30lb fish on the backside beaches in front of your buggies is the same joy I get at the range rocking and rolling an Ar, Mp5, or whatever I choose.
Next time you people ask us to write a letter to save a beach,or something else I will tell you all to pound sand.
Linear Mode
