Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Big Gun Rights Decision      Home login  
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 17
view profile
Big Gun Rights DecisionPage 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
^^^^^^The people gun control hurts most are victims of crimes against persons and property. And from what we know about crime rates, I'm sure those people are disproportionately urban blacks and other non-whites. But the well-off white leftists who are the strongest supporters of gun control laws don't care about the single black woman, living in a bad inner-city neighborhood with poor police service, for whom a gun may be the only way to defend herself and her children.

Leftists claim to care about the have-nots and consider themselves morally superior because of it, while in fact they oppress those very people. But why should it matter if you're screwing people over, as long as you can feel warm, caring, and noble doing it?
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 18
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 7/12/2010 4:13:22 PM

Leftists claim to care about the have-nots and consider themselves morally superior because of it, while in fact they oppress those very people. But why should it matter if you're screwing people over, as long as you can feel warm, caring, and noble doing it?

Especially when you can justify it via "caveat emptor," "free market compettition," and "I earned every penny."

Just pointing out that rationalization for oppressing others can take a variety of forms. It still amounts to the same thing. I get to feel superior at the expense of another's well-being.
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 19
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 7/12/2010 5:31:43 PM
Ace, take your rationalizations and apply them to Detroit, then Hong Kong. Get back to us when you determine the model of each, and the outcomes.

It's criminal to imagine that the residents of American cities have been helped by 50 years of Dem leadership, Detroit has not had a repub on the ballot since 1960.

It's an act of deliberate obtuseness not to see the end point of the nanny state.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 7/12/2010 6:31:54 PM
Especially when you can justify it via "caveat emptor," "free market compettition," and "I earned every penny."

I don't agree that in free market competition, some gain at the expense of others. How can that happen, when both buyers and sellers willingly reach agreements with each other? The idea that people will try to corner the market in some good or service so they can profit by raising prices only makes sense when that good or service is vital. Otherwise, all that will accomplish is to open new markets in alternatives to whatever good or service is being restricted.

Besides, whoever dominates the market is just as likely, if not more so, to follow John Rockefeller's strategy for Standard Oil--eliminate competitors by *reducing* the price so far they can't make a profit. His "unfairness" made oil and gasoline dirt cheap. I doubt that many people who used Rockefeller's products begrudged him his profit.

As to gun laws, I doubt that most of the people who support them have to live with the consequences. When you and your family have to live around armed and unfriendly people, and you can't count on outside help, you *need* to be armed. It's cheap to claim your heart bleeds for the have-nots, when you send your own kids to private schools, have good police service, and can afford to keep clear of most of the criminal scum.

Otis McDonald, the old guy whose case went to the Supreme Court, didn't have that luxury--and neither do millions of other Americans in bad neighborhoods. He never got a good night's sleep. He'd had criminals break in on him before, and he was painfully aware they might decide to kill him the next time. I hope he's finally got a gun.
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 21
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 7/13/2010 6:20:36 AM
The left has infantalized large portions of our citizenry into believing life is more like some orchid ranch where politicians will provide the goods in return for their ongoing uncritical support. The fact is the world is mostly the Serengeti Plains with HD TV. Much of the world is on that page, except American unions, the LAUSD school teachers which is really a baby sitting service for illegal immigrants children preparing them to vote Dem and spread their philosophy when they ultimately arrive in prison.

Let's stop the pretense, progressivism is a philosophy of ignorance, class envy and ending in poverty for all.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 22
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 9/24/2010 5:48:15 AM
DISCLOSE Act Defeated in Senate

Gun Owners of America
September 24, 2010

The U.S. Senate defeated the so-called DISCLOSE Act when it failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome Republican objections to the bill. The final vote was 59-39.

Even though the exact same bill, sponsored by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), had been defeated just two months ago and was unlikely to pass, anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) brought it up for another vote to “stir up” his left-wing base.

Instead of protecting the most important type of speech protected by the First Amendment — political speech — with this bill Congress attempted to force groups like GOA to “disclose” the names of donors in certain political advertisements.

Since Gun Owners of America will never disclose its membership lists to the federal government, it could be prohibited from running radio or TV ads exposing a federal candidate’s voting record in the weeks leading up to an election.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) aptly summed up the bill when it came to the floor in July:

This DISCLOSE Act is not about reform, it’s nothing more than Democrats sitting behind closed doors [choosing] which favored groups they want to speak in the 2010 elections — all in an attempt to protect themselves from criticism of their government takeovers, record deficits and massive unpaid-for expansions of the federal government into the lives of the American people.

With a lame-duck session of Congress looming after the election, anything is possible — including another attempt to push through DISCLOSE. So please stay tuned.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 23
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 9/28/2010 5:20:14 AM
From a friend of mine
From a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer:

I had a doctors appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions:

1. Did I feel stressed?

2. Did I feel threatened?

3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered yes to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security. Looks like they are going after the vets first.

Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have? Be forewarned and be aware.

The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and gun owners potential terrorists. Whether you are a gun owner veteran or not, you've been warned.
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 24
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 9/28/2010 8:41:05 AM
It's very difficult to get 100% of the vote in an election if citizens are allowed to hold weapons.
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 25
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 10/13/2010 4:15:45 PM
Tabitha they used to say in the military "this is your rifle, that is your gun", what caliber of rifle do you enjoy most?
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 26
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 12/16/2010 8:32:31 PM
Where will this stop, the disastrous out comes to liberty, of supposed well meaning intentions. the definition of terrorist or extreme according to DOJ, and DHS has gotten so broad we will all be on these lists soon.

Americans Will Need DHS Approval for Private Sector Jobs
Thursday, December 16, 2010

You’ve heard of no fly and no buy lists – get ready for no work lists. Millions of workers now must apply to the DHS and prove they are not terrorists in order to be granted permission by the government to work.

On the Alex Jones Show today, a caller pointed to information posted on a union website for ironworkers spelling out details on the Department of Homeland Security’s TWIC and SWAC programs.
Americans Will Need DHS Approval for Private Sector Jobs onepixel
Americans Will Need DHS Approval for Private Sector Jobs twic Americans Will Need DHS Approval for Private Sector Jobs onepixel

TWIC is short for Transportation Worker Identification Credential and SWAC stands for Secure Worker Access Consortium.

TWIC “is a biometric credential that ensures only vetted workers are eligible to enter a secure construction site, unescorted,” Ironworkers Local 361 in Ozone Park, New York, explains. “Before issuing a TWIC, TSA must conduct a security threat assessment on the TWIC applicant. An applicant who, as a result of the assessment, is determined to not pose a security threat, will be issued a TWIC card.”

In other words, construction workers in New York will need permission from the TSA and DHS in order to practice their profession and earn a living. It was much the same in the former Soviet Union and authoritarian states such as China where the government determines all aspects of an individual’s life and where even the mildly rebellious are severely punished.

SWAC is even more draconian. It is “a large-scale collaborative effort among public and private authorities, facility owners, contractors, and labor organizations who are partnering to prevent terrorist activity by creating a trusted contractor community. Over 500 organizations, including the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which manages and maintains the bridges, tunnels, bus terminals, airports, PATH, and seaports that are essential to the bi-state region’s trade and transportation capabilities, have joined this effort,” according to the union website.

SWAC also requires a background investigation by the government, so if construction, port workers, longshoremen, and truck drivers are involved in political activity frowned upon by the feds – for instance, 9/11 truth, considered dangerous and subversive by the State Department – it is likely they will have to find another line of work.

A SWAC PDF specifically mentions “treason” in an exhaustive list of crimes and misdeeds that will result in the federal government denying a person the right to earn a living.

The TWIC Disclosure and Certification form states the following: “I acknowledge that if TSA or other law enforcement agencies determine that I pose an imminent threat to national security or transportation security, my employer may be notified.”

The TSA no-fly list contains thousands of names, including journalists and political activists. If the government determines you hold the wrong political beliefs, according to the TWIC document, your employer will be told and you may lose your job and the ability to provide for your family.

The TWIC application also mentions “treason” and “sedition” as a criteria to put an end to an individual’s employment.

Americans Will Need DHS Approval for Private Sector Jobs aj150709banner1

Stock up for the Holidays with eFoodsDirect and get FREE Shipping!

Sedition is defined as overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by officialdom to tend toward insurrection against the establishment. The Sedition Act of 1918 forbids the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces. The Sedition Act was updated on October 26, 2001, when Congress signed the USA Patriot Act into law. In the mid 70s, the Church Committee discovered that the government had carried out an aggressive campaign for decades to neutralize – as FBI director Hoover characterized it – political activity the establishment considered a threat to its monopoly on power.

As noted above, TWIC plans to force an expensive biometric ID on workers. This idea is hardly new. In 2002, the Electronic Privacy Information Center sued the Department of Homeland Security in order to get details on then director Tom Ridge’s plan to introduce a biometric national ID card. Ridge and the government have stated repeatdly that “national security requirements would ultimately make such cards a reality.”

Earlier this year, Democrats pushed the idea making a biometric national ID card mandatory for all Americans. “Everyone would have to produce the card to get a job, or keep a job,” the UPI reported on May 9. “On a five-year timetable the biometric cards would replace Social Security cards and would be used to prove eligibility for employment. Card scanners would be issued to all U.S. employers. The cards would at least have the capability of being linked to a central data system.”

TWIC and SWAC represent an incremental effort by the national security state to introduce biometric ID as a prerequisite for employment. In the months ahead, we can expect more intrusions by the government on our rights as spelled out by the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” that document states.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, however, according to the government, will soon be predicated on a national biometric ID card and inclusion of our most private information in sprawling databases.

In the coming Brave New World Order, only citizens vetted by a totalitarian government will be allowed to work and feed their families. All others will be locked out of the system like the mutants in Total Recall, the dystopian movie based on a story by Phillip K.****

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Joined: 2/3/2009
Msg: 27
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/9/2011 3:10:29 AM
I feel that everyone should have a right to own a gun, well not just one, but many, and when california collapses like Greece they will come in handy.... but it may be a while, or it may not, either way I feel that people should have the right to own them. too bad there are people out there who don't feel the same way i do, but then comes the day when they will need to protect someone, and a stick wont do the job.

If you do own a gun, use it responsibly, and try not to use it in schools.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 28
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/9/2011 8:43:06 AM

“Toning Down The Rhetoric” Means Obeying Big Government

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Despite the fact that Jared Lee Loughner was a psychotic loner with “left-wing” beliefs according to those who knew him, the establishment has hastily exploited yesterday’s tragic shooting in Tucson to demonize conservatives, libertarians and gun owners while ordering Americans to “tone down the rhetoric,” which is nothing more than a euphemism for stifling dissent and coercing people to roll over on Obamacare, bailouts and whatever big government is preparing to unleash next.

“The nation’s caustic political climate has become a suspect of sorts in the rampage that left six dead and a lawmaker critically injured in Arizona. Already, appeals are being heard to tone down the rhetoric,” reports the Associated Press, in doing so framing the debate and profiting from the actions of a deranged lunatic to launch a fresh assault on freedom of speech.

Make no bones about it – “tone down the rhetoric” means stifling dissent, it can have no other possible meaning. Because a lunatic decided to kill others in a bid to give his worthless life some meaning, Americans are being ordered to shut their mouths about Obamacare, endless bailouts, and the fact that their political representatives in Washington (with some notable exceptions) have ceased to represent their interests.

Arizona Sheriff Dupnik wasted no time in blaming the deaths on conservative talk radio and television presenters, despite the fact that Loughner was a “left-winger” who listed amongst his favorite books The Communist Manifesto.

“The vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business … This has not become the nice United States that most of us grew up in, he said.”

Dupnik then took a swipe at people opposing the growth of big government, wasting no time in blaming them for the tragedy.

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,” he said. “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on this country is getting to be outrageous and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

Even before the identity of the gunman was known, the Associated Press was busy tying the massacre to Sarah Palin and second amendment organizations. We’re no fans of Palin, but the fact that the AP cited one of her campaign images that centered around targeting certain states as political battlegrounds to imply that Palin was partly responsible for the carnage, while ignoring almost identical “crosshair” images against Giffords put out by liberal groups, underscores how eager the establishment was to seize upon the tragedy for crass political points scoring.

While blaming tea partiers and conservatives without a shred of connecting evidence, the likes of Associated Press, the Washington Post, and a slew of statist Obama worshiping liberal websites, conveniently failed to mention a savage hit piece against Giffords that had appeared just days before on the Daily Kos website (since pulled) which bizarrely invoked the word “dead” several times.

Indeed, as statists rushed to finger tea partiers as being responsible, they conveniently ignored the fact that Giffords was a pro-border control, pro-second amendment blue dog Democrat. In addition, the federal judge that was killed, John Roll, was a strong opponent of the Brady gun control bill. Giffords and Roll would make strange targets for anti-government extremists, since both of them have voting records that put them in alliance with most conservatives.

Despite this, the AP tried to use the shooting to attack second amendment rights by alluding to Giffords’ Republican challenger Jesse Kelly last year inviting supporters to join him at a pro-gun event.

“I don’t see the connection,” between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday’s shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly’s spokesman. “I don’t know this person, we cannot find any records that he was associated with the campaign in any way. I just don’t see the connection.

“Arizona is a state where people are firearms owners — this was just a deranged individual.”

In addition, there was little mention of the fact that it was a responsible firearm owner who used his second amendment rights to help stop the carnage. It was reported that one member of the crowd interrupted Loughner’s rampage by shooting at him with his own concealed carry gun.

While the establishment continues to characterize the gunman as an anti-government extremist in a transparent ploy to chill dissent against big government, Loughner’s favorite You Tube video was a clip of someone burning an American flag. Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t recall seeing too many tea partiers burning American flags at political rallies.

When it turned out that Discovery Channel building gunman James Jay Lee was a statist zealot and a global warming alarmist, there was little call for anyone to “tone down rhetoric” about doomsday climate change scenarios. Isn’t it interesting that the establishment only demands we “tone down the rhetoric” when that rhetoric manifests itself as criticism of the state?

“Toning down the rhetoric,” or becoming afraid to speak out against the government, will do nothing whatsoever to stop mentally ill people with no political affiliations committing crimes.

By exploiting tragedies to coerce Americans into “toning down the rhetoric,” the establishment hopes to suffocate criticism of the state, opposition to Obamacare (next week’s hearings on a repeal have already been cancelled), and allow the march of big government to continue unimpeded.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 29
view profile
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/9/2011 9:52:37 AM
I think the people who are always calling for "toning down the rhetoric," etc. often DO hope to shut up those who disagree with them. This sheriff's free to voice his concern about radio hosts he thinks advocate prejudice, bigotry, tearing down the government, etc., but he can't stop them from doing it.

You have to go pretty far to stray outside the protections of the First Amendment. Obviously, you can't recruit people to make war against the U.S. Also, you can't advocate overthrowing government by force, and you can't conspire with anyone to use force to seize U.S. property, or to oppose the authority of the U.S. government or the enforcement of its laws.

But you could probably stand down the street from the county courthouse and tell anyone who would listen that judge X over there, who you thought was too soft on heinous criminals, didn't deserve to live.
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 30
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/9/2011 1:17:03 PM
I watched the early morning talk shows for talking heads spouting "do something" rhetoric which is the norm following one of these terrible events. Instead, surprisingly, I saw genuine fear and anxiety exhibited by the politicians, particularly the Dems. I think they realize they have contributed great to the anger and polarity of the country. That we are a country that is not debating the best way to accomplish common goals, but in fact has a different view of these goals.

Earlier this week there was a news story that got much play about whites deserting the Dem party as a result of two years of Obama and displayed in the midterm elections. Ostensibly then we have a two-party system where minorities and other special interests are Dems and the whites not special interest group members would be Repubs.

Although this should not be considered a good development, it is an inevitable development as takers and makers begin to recognize their obvious political affiliation.

Back to the topic, I've never understood people attempting to make a virtue out of disarming. Defending oneself and one's loved ones is as obvious of a life mission as anything. But we will hear politicians assign responsibility to crime to inanimate objects when the constant in these acts is evil whackos, not guns (see airliners, bombs, arson, and machetes). I would feel safer with, for example, a two-gun toting Match than most liberals with a baseball bat.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/9/2011 2:42:26 PM
^^^^^I'm going to make it a point to get out to the target range more. I've got an old S&W .38 special revolver with target sights, and a .22 LR replica of the 1860-ish lever-action Henry "Yellowboy." But I never seem to hit much. "How come this d----d target only has two holes in it??" They're both just not sighted in right--that's the problem. I'm sure it's not me.

I'd bet a lot of liberals avoid baseball bats like Dracula avoids wolfbane. Something so distastefully American about them.

There's a funny scene near the start of one of my favorite old movies--George Stevens' 1942 "Talk of the Town." Schoolteacher Jean Arthur, at her cutest, hears a noise in her cottage, grabs her Louisville Slugger, and discovers local misfit/suspected anarchist Cary Grant crouching in the shadows. He's broken in to hide from the cops, and he looks swarthy and disheveled. With the bat pulled back, she warns him--trying to sound serious in this girly little voice--not to dare come any closer, because she knows how to use it.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 32
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/14/2011 5:37:52 PM
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” said Barry Goldwater in his acceptance speech as the 1964 Republican presidential candidate. Goldwater’s comment is even more pertinent today as so-called liberals – who are in fact teleprompter reading opportunists – connive to destroy liberty.

You have to see this, the logic is amazingly stupid.!

What I find amazing is the fact that there are more riots in Europe on a daily basis than we ever have in the states. So instead of guns the lib left would have us in the streets rioting with rocks. There is a reason no one really ever goes all out, because it will go south real quick and nobody wants that. Ever wonder why the government keeps at bay in the end. Its called the 2nd amendment.
100 million guns didn't kill anybody today.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their? revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln, 4 April, 1861
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 33
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/15/2011 10:40:07 PM
Shooting victim arrested, accused of threat
James Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee and back in last week's Tucson rampage, allegedly shouts, 'You're dead!' at a 'tea party' activist during a town hall meeting for victims and witnesses.

By Nicole Santa Cruz and Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times

January 16, 2011

A man who was wounded in last week's shooting rampage in Tucson was apprehended by authorities Saturday after he allegedly threatened a "tea party" activist at a town hall meeting of victims and eyewitnesses of the attack.

James Eric Fuller, a 63-year-old Democratic activist, was arrested after shouting "You're dead!" at Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries, said Pima County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jason Ogan. Fuller was shot in the knee and back Jan. 8 when a gunman opened fire, killing six and injuring 13, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Fuller, a disabled veteran and former campaign volunteer for Giffords, was charged with making threats, intimidation and disorderly conduct and was involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation, Ogan said.

In an interview with Democracy Now on Thursday, Fuller linked the shooting to conservative leaders associated with the tea party, including Sarah Palin, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle. "It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target," Fuller said.

The town hall, organized for an ABC News special, "After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued," was held at St. Odilia Catholic Church, which two of the shooting victims attended.

Jim Kolbe, a former Republican congressman, said Fuller "was clearly more emotional about the town hall than anyone else" at the event. Near the end of the taping, the subject turned to gun control. Humphries, who has opposed gun-control laws, was being interviewed on the matter when Fuller interrupted. Deputies escorted him from the scene.

According to Kolbe, the incident "demonstrates the weariness that people have right now."
Joined: 7/11/2009
Msg: 34
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/23/2011 10:59:12 AM
" 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 well regulated (clocks are "well regulated" meaning the they are well functioning) Militia (see USC Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Sections 311 & 312), being necessary to the security of a free State (note uppercase "S" in State - indicates Sovereignty, as in Free, Sovereign, Independent, as well as "willing" member of the Union and free to leave at any time - joined freely, may leave freely), the right (THE Right - pre-existing, God Given, Inherent RIGHT .... cannot be legislated, changed, altered, remove, etc., except by the ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF THAT RIGHT) of the people (WE THE PEOPLE - free, Independent, SOVEREIGN ..... people created government, government created laws, thus, laws must serve government, and government must serve WE THE PEOPLE) to keep and bear (own, carry, use, possess, etc.) Arms (weapons - any and all kinds of weapons), shall not be infringed (this last part means exactly what is says - anything that one does not wish to do, that is forced upon one, IS AN INFRINGEMENT, and is specifically FORBIDDEN by this Amendment).

So! Each and every Free, Sovereign, Citizen, is ENTITLED by God, and God Alone, to carry, in any manner desired, any type of weapon desired, at any time anywhere.

Yes, this means up to and including nuclear weapons and jet aircraft - if one could afford such. It against the LAW, God's and Man's, to commit wanton murder - the weapon used is irrelevant. A baseball bat can be used as a weapon for murder, as easily as a knife or gun. What about the American Automobile? Used to kill more people each year than all other weapons combined - negligently, intentionally, or accidentally - irrelevant once again.

ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS have SWORN to uphold, support, and defend, the Constitution for These United States. Failure to do so automatically removes them from office for breach of oath, contract, and trust. The ONLY Constitution is the one written by our Founding Fathers, and accepted by them, AS WRITTEN.

A LAW is only a law if it complies with said Constitution and is clearly understandable by the common person, otherwise, you are being expected to obey someone's opinion of what the "law" says, not the LAW ITSELF.

Demand that your elected officials obey the Oath they have Sworn, before God and WE THE PEOPLE - or, Demand that they remove themselves from the office they hold UNLAWFULLY.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 35
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/24/2011 8:43:21 PM
The Assassination Attempt You Have Not Heard Of
by Erick Erickson

It happened in September of 2010 in Missouri. A 22 year old named Casey Brezik, wearing a bullet proof vest, charged toward Missouri’s Democratic Governor Jay Nixon with a knife and attempted to slash his throat.

In light of the media’s race to talk about the right’s climate of hateful rhetoric, you have probably guessed by now that Casey Brezik was an anti-Christian, anti-capitalist leftist who participated in a number of leftwing protests. He was also a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.

Luckily for all involved, Brezik was high on pot at the time and got confused. Instead of slashing the Governor’s throat, he slashed the throat of a community college dean he took for the Governor.

Jack Cashill, writing at the American Thinker, notes

In his “About Me” box on Facebook, Brezik listed as his favorite quotation one from progressive poster boy, Che Guevara. The quote begins “Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism” and gets more belligerent from there.

On his wall postings, Brezik ranted, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

As good as his word, Brezik’s marched on Toronto in June 2010 to protest the G20 Summit, where he was arrested, charged, and deported. “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” he boasted.

Given what we have seen come out of Arizona, we can establish two things as fact. First, had Governor Nixon been harmed in any way, the media would have immediately begun lamenting the tea party movement and “political rhetoric.” Second, had the injuries been as they were, but Brezik had listed himself as a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh fan on his Facebook wall, the media would have covered this exactly as they covered Arizona.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/24/2011 9:04:42 PM

So! Each and every Free, Sovereign, Citizen, is ENTITLED by God, and God Alone, to carry, in any manner desired, any type of weapon desired, at any time anywhere.

That's not what the Supreme Court said in McDonald. It pretty clearly recognized that the states can still restrict the right to keep and bear arms. You're really claiming the Second Amendment makes that right absolute. But not even any of the First Amendment rights is absolute--and neither is any other right in the Bill of Rights.

Neither Heller nor McDonald--the only true 2d Amendment decisions the Court's ever made--even comes close to being authority for what you're claiming. That means there's no legal authority at all for it. Any of us can say the law's anything we please, but that won't cut any ice in court.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 37
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 5/1/2011 9:40:12 AM
Obama: We're working on gun control 'under the radar'
Posted: April 26, 2011
6:07 pm Eastern

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Barack Obama reportedly told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun-control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentions a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in."

Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar."

Apparently Mrs. Brady either doesn't grasp the concept of "under the radar," or, more likely, she expected the reporter to be discreet and keep the "good news" about Obama's stealth operations to himself. Thankfully this reporter chose to report the news, so we have direct corroboration of Obama's sneak-attack against the Second Amendment.

What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media. Compare the media's current silence with what happened during the 2000 presidential campaign when then NRA Vice-President (and GOP activist) Kayne Robinson told a group of rights supporters in California that electing Bush would mean "we'll have a president where we work out of their office, unbelievably friendly relations."

The media went into a feeding frenzy over this comment to such a degree that Bush distanced himself from the NRA, publicly endorsed reinstatement of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban and withdrew overt support for the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (a law which shields firearms manufacturers from harassment lawsuits over non-faulty products). The story was carried repeatedly on virtually every major media outlet in the country – and it was not based on anything Bush himself had said.

In Obama's case, the president himself purportedly claimed active support for a highly controversial agenda and admitted that he was violating his own promise of transparency in pursuit of that agenda. Yet the media ignores it.

Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama's chat with Jim and Sarah. Just the fact that a group's leaders were cordially welcomed at the White House, much less given a private, informal meeting with the president would generally be something to crow about, but on their web site the big push right now is to "Tell President Obama to Ban Assault Clips!" (whatever the heck an "assault clip" is).

Something else conspicuous in its absence on the Brady site is any mention of ATF's recent "study" on the importability of shotguns. Like the president's "under the radar" comment, the Brady bunch doesn't want to provide fodder for folks like me pointing out the truth.

The president of the United States and his staff are actively engaged in a multi-faceted plot to increase restrictions on firearms ownership, and they are doing their best to keep the American people from knowing about it. The ATF shotgun importability "study" is a core component of that "under the radar" gun-control plot.

As I have previously reported, the ATF "study" examines current laws, regulations and practices regarding the importability of shotguns based on whether they are considered to have a "sporting purpose" in accordance with the provisions of the Gun Control Act. Like a bank robber wearing a brightly colored hat to distract witnesses' attention from more important identifying features, the ATF "study" puts forward a bold list of features that they say generally distinguish non-sporting shotguns from sporting shotguns.

As intended, the media, as well as the gun-rights community, have almost universally focused on this list of features to the exclusion of other critical items in the "study," most importantly the statement that the list is a guide, not a rule. It states that, while these features are strong indicators of a gun being non-sporting, and therefore unsuitable for importation, that the real test they intend to employ is one of application, not features.

What that means is that the list of features is mostly show and the real test is whether the importer can demonstrate that these or similar guns – regardless of what features might be currently attached or how the gun might be currently configured – are commonly used for ATF-recognized sporting purposes such as hunting, trap and skeet shooting.

Up to this point importers have been able to replace "non-sporting" features like higher capacity magazines, folding stocks and pistol-grips with more traditionally sporting style options. They have also simply removed superfluous items such as compensators, barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs.

Under the guidelines set forth in the ATF "study," such cosmetic changes will no longer suffice. Importers will have to prove that these guns are actually, commonly used for sports ATF recognizes. The very popular 3-Gun and tactical shotgun competitions of the U.S. Practical Shooting Association, International Defensive Pistol Association and International Practical Shooting Confederation are specifically mentioned in the ATF study and dismissed as not being recognized sports because previous ATF rifle and handgun importability studies have not recognized these sports as sports. So preferred equipment for these very popular and rapidly growing international sports will be blocked from importation because ATF has not previously recognized them as sports, and they are not going to recognize them now because they have not previously recognized them. It is the logic of a merry-go-round.

Some have suggested that a simple solution to the problem is to just manufacture clones of the non-importable, non-sporting shotguns right here in the good old USA. Unfortunately there is more to the story. The Gun Control Act prohibits importation of any shotgun with the exception of those which the attorney general determines to be "particularly suitable for sporting purposes." But the 1968 Gun Control Act is not the only place in federal law that applies the "sporting purposes" test. The National Firearms Act uses almost identical language when it declares that any firearm with a bore diameter of greater than .5 inches (a 12 gauge shotgun bore is about .73 inches) is a "destructive device," except for those shotguns that the attorney general determines to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.

Obama's "under the radar" assault on the Second Amendment is underway. One seemingly minor change in enforcement lays the groundwork for bans not just on importation, but also eventually on sale and possession, of several popular shotgun styles. And it is all taking place virtually undetected and unopposed because, as Obama himself has stated, it is "under the radar." The compliant media and even major gun-rights groups apparently have their radar turned off.

Read more: Obama: We're working on gun control 'under the radar'
Joined: 6/3/2011
Msg: 38
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 6/12/2011 1:46:02 AM
It is interesting to note that most of these gun-toting, 2nd admendment, NRA members say that it is their God given right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. They believe themselves to be Christians. The often quoted anacronym comes to mind WWJD.
Yes we have the right to bear arms. I believe that my forefathers had in mind that the common man would have his own arms and so when called upon to serve in the militia that he would do so. I do believe that when call upon to serve our country, many of these aforementioned people will hide behind these liberties to say that my government is wrong and that they have to put an end to it.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 39
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 6/12/2011 7:03:04 AM
This is all that needs to be said:
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 40
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 6/12/2011 7:24:30 AM
A gun is an equalizer. I'm always stunned that some can imagine that possessing the ability to defend oneself and their loved ones is some form of negative, a deviation, an outlier to normal human motivations. A gun is a tool like a shovel, saw or wheelbarrow. To project evil unto inanimate objects is certainly a mental illness. The number and depth of unexamined beliefs among lefties is astonishing. They seem to conflate their fairy tale wishes with the harsh realities of humankind.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 41
view profile
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 6/12/2011 1:50:50 PM

I believe that my forefathers had in mind that the common man would have his own arms and so when called upon to serve in the militia that he would do so.

I'm sure they did have that in mind. But that doesn't mean that is the only basis of the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court certainly has not held that in either of its Second Amendment decisions. The right exists independent of the need for state militias.

Like just about every constitutional right, the 2d Am. right is not absolute. The Court has not yet made clear how far either Congress or the states can limit it. But it is clear that the right prohibits any measure which would completely prevent ownership or possession of firearms. That must also mean a state cannot prohibit the sale of ammunition--at least not in all its counties--or the right to have a firearm would mean very little.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Big Gun Rights Decision