Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I for one, have never used the expression, "Water The Tree of Liberty"(which I find very inflammatory and the most thinly of veiled threats) nor have I ever advocated taking away any law abiding citizen's guns........ever. Where did you ever get such an idea that I want to take your's or anybody else's guns? You search my entire post history over the last 5 years and you will not find one....1......one post where I advocate, endorse or promote the taking away of any law abiding citizen's guns. But having run very close with the gun owning crowd for many, many years, I can attest honestly that there are many who own guns who are just bat-S#!t mean and crazy and I wouldn't go shooting at the range with them if they provided all the ammo for free. This is one of those things gun owners don't talk about much.
Any time anyone starts talking about our founding, our founders, our Bill Of Rights, our Constitution, Freedom, Liberty, Limited Government, Securing the Border, Self Responsibility, Or the 2nd Amendment, you have, do, and will always see veiled threats when in reality its the leftist who have been, are, and will always be the most violent
Assassinations
-----------------
Abraham Lincoln ----> John Wilkes Booth (Democrat)
James A. Garfield ----> Charles J. Guiteau (Insane)
William McKinley ----> Leon Czolgosz (Left-Wing)
John F. Kennedy ----> Lee Harvey Oswald (Left-Wing)
Robert Kennedy (Sen) ----> Sirhan Sirhan (Left-Wing)
Leo Ryan (Repr) ----> Jim Jones & People's Temple (Insane, Left-Wing)
Cornelius Springer Hamilton ----> Hamilton (Insane)
James Hinds (Repr) ----> George A. Clark (Democrat)
John Pinckney (Repr) ----> Unidentified Lawyer (Democrat)
Huey Long (Sen) ----> Dr. Carl Adam Weiss (Unknown)
Dr. Martin Luther King ----> James Earl Ray (Democrat)
Malcom X ----> Talmadge Hayer (Left-Wing)
Attempts
-----------------
Andrew Jackson ----> Richard Lawrence (Insane)
Theodore Roosevelt ----> John F. Schrank (Insane)
Franklin D. Roosevelt ----> Giuseppe Zangara (Left-Wing, Insane)
Harry S Truman ----> Collazo & Torresola (Left-Wing)
John F. Kennedy ----> Richard Paul Pavlick (Insane)
Richard M. Nixon ----> Arthur Bremer (Insane)
Richard M. Nixon ----> Samuel Byck (Left-Wing)
Gerald R. Ford ----> Lynette Fromme (Left-Wing, Insane)
Gerald R. Ford ----> Sara Jane Moore (Left-Wing)
James E. Carter ----> Raymond Lee Harvey (Insane)
Ronald Reagan ----> John Hinckley, Jr. (Insane)
Bill Clinton ----> Francisco Martin Duran (Insane)
George W. Bush ----> Vladimir Arutyunian (Left-Wing)
Gabrielle Giffords (Repr) ----> Jared Lee Loughner (Insane)
Alvin M. Bentley (Repr) ----> 4 Puerto Rican nationalists (Left-Wing)
Clifford Davis (Repr) ----> 4 Puerto Rican nationalists (Left-Wing)
Ben F. Jensen (Repr) ----> 4 Puerto Rican nationalists (Left-Wing)
George Hyde Fallon (Repr) ----> 4 Puerto Rican nationalists (Left-Wing)
Kenneth Roberts (Repr) ----> 4 Puerto Rican nationalists (Left-Wing)
George Wallace ----> Herman Bremer (Left-Wing)
Notice a tread?
"Where did you ever get such an idea that I want to take your's or anybody else's guns? "
The National Firearm Act of 1934
Put a tax of $200($3384.92 in today dollars) on Short barrel shotguns, rifles, Sound Suppressors, and Machine, putting them out of the reach of the common man for no reason, passed under the lie of fighting crime, which after prohibition sharply decreased.
The Gun Control Act of 1968
Which did the following
It mandated that all firearms must have a "sporting purpose" as if self defense was not a good enough of a reason.
It also banned the importation of selective fire weapons for no reason.
It also banned the mail order of firearms to law abiding persons.
It was passed after the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr..and of course crime went up.
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
The Hughes Amendment which was illegally added after it failed a voice, and electric vote was added to the bill by Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) which banned machine guns from being added into the after May 19, 1986. which created felons out of law abiding citizens who did not know about such a law, and made the price of a full auto AR15 or MP5 well out of the hands of the average American citizens for no reason, seeing how their have only been 3 machine guns lawfully owned ever used in a crime, all 3 of which belonging to the Law Enforcement offices who owned them and committed those crimes. 3 out of 170,000
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994
passed in 1994 by a Congress and signed by a President of the Democratic party Which banned the sale and manufacture of any firearm with two or more of the follow features
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
It expired on September 13, 2004
All of those Federal laws, as well as countless out state laws where written by, introduced, and passed by and signed by By Democrats or Neo Con Statist That is why we think you parasites will take our guns away, you guys have been at it since 1934....
You posting that you hope I'm first through your door so you can kill me, qualifies as one of those bat-S#!t crazy Bastards I'm talking about. You want me to come through your door first, so you can blow my brains out. Why???? Because you perceive I'm not in lock step with your conception of what the 2nd. means??? I'd say you are the epitome of the itchy finger syndrome.
Where did he say that? all he said was if you support such acts of tyranny, be the one out enforcing them..
"Itchy finger Syndrome"? you mean not taking it any more, we will not let the statist limit and abolish our rights, and our way of life..
Just a question: if you dislike San Diego' strict gun laws why don't you move to New Orleans or Dallas or Saint Louis or Birmingham?
They have lenient gun laws and they are safer than San Diego... oh wait... nevermind
Why should they? Why should Americas have to move to experience a basic freedom? of those Statist thugs what to live in a "safe society" tell them to move to Mexico.
I believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide the populace with the ability to resist the government. But the USSC does not agree. If the court had interpreted the law as written they would have ruled out all gun control laws. What part of "no law" did they not understand. However the grand conspiracy had already agreed that such an outcome was not acceptable...so they agree that you can have a gun for personal defense and that is about it.
I do not agree with the founding fathers but I do agree that is what they wrote. If the USSC had chosen to go that way we would then have had a very active dialog on the subject and would likely have ended up with a new version of the second. I have no idea whether it would have been very restrictive or less restrictive than the present interpretation. But no way the nation would have bought a weapons free for all..
As to the limits of the USSC propose away. I believe the right has already suggested an override and term limits. Don't hold your breath.
And yes if you buy into the idiocy of fighting off the feds you are a member of the BAD GUYS
Ok what would you have us do? lay down and be slaves? and I guess our founders were BAD GUYS as well.
I would think local regulation confining arms to revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles are very likely to be found acceptable.
Wrong.
Whether or not a gun is "in common use" is the test. The semi-auto pistol is far and away the most popular type of handgun, and a semi-auto rifle may or may not be the most common type of rifle, but it is certainly "in common use." The AR-15 is the most popular rifle platform in the nation.
Whether or not a gun is "in common use" is the test.
Isn't that a cute tactic?
Guns like the SKS "Sporter" were banned in California by the state government in 1999. All were confiscated or forced out of the state.
Now they announce that if a gun is in "common use", it's fine and will be considered acceptable.
Then they will tell us, "Gee, it looks like the SKS Sporter isn't in common use here in California, so I guess it isn't protected by the 2nd amendment."
See how it works, in the minds of the gun-rghts-haters? It's the perfect system.
Whether or not a gun is "in common use" is the test. The semi-auto pistol is far and away the most popular type of handgun, and a semi-auto rifle may or may not be the most common type of rifle, but it is certainly "in common use." The AR-15 is the most popular rifle platform in the nation.
Sorry thqt is simply untrue. What has been decided is that you cannot ban handguns.
From the USSC Decision
Quote:
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."
There is nothing to keep the regulations from expanding the limits on automatic weapons to semi-automatic using the same argument.
And concealed carry...the only really useful form for most purposes...is clearly fair game.
Guns like the SKS "Sporter" were banned in California by the state government in 1999. All were confiscated or forced out of the state.
Now they announce that if a gun is in "common use", it's fine and will be considered acceptable.
Then they will tell us, "Gee, it looks like the SKS Sporter isn't in common use here in California, so I guess it isn't protected by the 2nd amendment."
See how it works, in the minds of the gun-rghts-haters? It's the perfect system.
They only confiscate "illegal guns" so just make every gun illegal...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
