JohnRich 4 #151 June 13, 2010 Quote I hope he stocked up, they ain't "Cheap!" No Mo'!! At Wally World Clinton NC a 25 round box of Remington 12 ga. short brass "Game Loads" #6shot will blow hell out of 7 bucks + tax!! Wasn't that long ago the same box of ammo was under $4.00!! WW has 100rnd. boxes of 12 ga. short brass "trap and game" for $23+ tax but it's only #7 1/2 or #8 shot. Heck, that's cheap shootin' compared to rifle ammo. .30 caliber stuff runs about $1 a cartridge for commercial ammo. I just received my big shipment of reloading powder last week, that will keep me shooting for another year. I've been waiting about 3-months for the back-order to clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #152 June 13, 2010 Here's another example, this one from Maryland, of how governments turn law-abiding citizens into criminals through gun registration. Quote: An earlier AG opinion has new - and dire - implications today. In 2006 then-AG "Poppa Joe" Curran opined that an old out-of-state misdemeanor could be sufficient to trigger a Maryland firearm disability. Readers know a person can become ineligible to possess a gun or ammo (he "acquires a firearm disability") for any of an increasing number of reasons. Conviction of any crime that could have been punished by a year and a day in jail triggers a federal gun disability. Maryland has long had its own thresholds and language for disability - a second bite at the apple. But Curran's opinion created a new law out of thin air. He said a conviction under another state's law that was not punishable by jail time at a disabling level would become disabling if the same deed would have been disabling had it been done here. Maryland simply makes more things against the law, and officials of both parties, eager to make a political statement ('tough on crime') have abandoned any sense of restraint or logic when legislating new penalties. In Maryland, it has already been the case that inexplicably minor convictions can trigger gun disability: some types of littering, driving your powerboat too fast on Spa Creek in Annapolis, or, having been gigged by Montgomery County for failing to shovel snow from your sidewalk in a timely fashion, not paying your fine (a separate crime.) A consequence of Curran's opinion is that a host of trivial matters outside of Maryland can now disable you as well. It no longer matters that the other state considers it non-disabling - only whether Maryland thinks it is disabling. This is a moving target. According to Curran, the moment officials increase a crime's penalty past a disability threshold, more people immediately become felons in illegal possession of a firearm. Instant criminals and gun crimes! Curran's opinion was originally sought by the Ehrlich administration as a way to deny someone a carry permit at that time. (You can't have a permit to carry if you can't possess a firearm.) We recently learned of the first instances of gun seizures based on this opinion. Several individuals (in Montgomery County, of course) who had trivial out-of.state infractions from years ago, but a clean record here took police hits after attempting to buy a handgun by the numbers. Even though MSP had allowed their many previous purchases, under the new standards each applicant is considered to be disabled. When the police tactical team arrived at each individual's door, it was armed with a list of the owner's previous purchases as evidence he was a "felon in possession". This list was generated from MSP's database of "not-disapproved" firearm purchases, reflecting the lawful gun registration of purchasers who followed the law in good faith. These people face further charges of perjury on the application forms. Even though they did not know that someday they would become (in Curran's opinion) disabled, their sworn statement about not being ineligible for gun ownership is flagged by MSP as a lie. [A note on terminology: Maryland has never approved a gun purchase. The most MSP will do is stamp an application to purchase a handgun as "not disapproved".] Source: "Tripwire" Newsletter, from a Maryland gun rights organization. Real simple. 1) Require registration. 2) Change the law about what they're allowed to own, or their legal status which allows them to own guns. 3) Go round-up all the newly illegal gun owners! Yee-haw! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #153 June 14, 2010 News:Gardai order audit of country’s gun owners Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy has ordered an audit of the country’s gun owners, amid concerns over the ‘‘large number’’ of unregistered firearms across the country. It will be carried out by garda superintendents in each district nationwide, under legislation originally devised to tackle organised crime gangs. The nationwide audit is aimed at people who own licensed guns, but may have lapsed in re-licensing some or all of their firearms. Anyone found in possession of an unlicensed gun faces the prospect of their ‘‘firearms being seized or may even render them liable to prosecution’’... The state last week said it would oppose a High Court application by a pistol shooter, Patrick Herlihy, who has challenged a District Court judge’s refusal to grant him firearms certificates for six pistols - the judge refused to grant certificates for the guns on the grounds of their lethal nature.Source: http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/gardai-order-audit-of-countrys-gun-owners-49882.html Gun confiscation strategy: 1) Register 'em. 2) Wait until they fail to renew their paperwork. 3) Go confiscate 'em! 4) Or just determine that their guns are "too dangerous", decline to re-authorize 'em, and then go to step #3. Woohoo! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #154 June 14, 2010 Quote Columbia vs. Heller Chief Justice Roberts, "What is reasonable about a ban?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #155 June 14, 2010 Quote Please tell us in which ruling of the Supreme Court that can be found. The dicta in Heller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #156 June 14, 2010 QuoteYou worry about guns, and a ridiculous scenario that will never happen. Police have already confiscated weapons in NY and in LA. In NY they used the registration rolls to track down the weapons in question. So, it is not a "ridiculous scenario that will never happen" I assume you would have no problem with the real ID that has been proposed? QuoteWhile we retain the right to have all the weapons we want, it's far more important to make sure that we have a strong, healthy government that we CAN trust. And this is why the FF included the 2nd. An honest Govt has nothing to fear from an armed citizen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #157 June 14, 2010 QuoteWhat's so hard about registering your guns? Registration has led to confiscation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #158 June 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou worry about guns, and a ridiculous scenario that will never happen. Police have already confiscated weapons in NY and in LA. In NY they used the registration rolls to track down the weapons in question. So, it is not a "ridiculous scenario that will never happen" Were those gun owners successful in using their weapons against the tyrannical government in order to secure their freedom? Why didn't they shoot? What good were their gun collections against the police? Quote I assume you would have no problem with the real ID that has been proposed? Your assumption is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #159 June 14, 2010 QuoteI'll bet you Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela, and Jesus could answer that for you. You don't really know your history: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."--Mahatma Ghandi The Indian Arms Act of 1878 was a total gun ban enacted to protect the British realm from an insurgency. Ghandi opposed this Act. QuoteNelson Mandela Uh, you do know that Nelson Mandela did encourage violence right? In 1961, Mandela became leader of the ANC's armed wing. He coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group. Whittaker, David J. (2003). The Terrorism Reader (Updated ed.). Routledge. pp. 244. Mandela described the move to armed struggle as a last resort; years of increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had not and could not achieve any progress. Mandela, Nelson (1994). Long Walk to Freedom. Little, Brown and Company. In the end Mandela was imprisoned. The charges included involvement in planning armed action, in particular four charges of sabotage. In fact, many people are looking for a gun given to Mandela http://www.algeria.com/forums/geopolitics-international-affairs/15401-nelson-mandelas-gun.html QuoteJesus Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." There are passages that claim a peaceful solution... but there are examples that allow for self defense and the Bible is filled with holy warriors. So three for three you are incorrect. ALL allowed the use of arms if the situation called for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #160 June 14, 2010 Quote "The pen is mightier than the sword" In the long run... Yes. But you have to be around to write history. But look what the Founding fathers used their pens for: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason "And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, and to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls." -- George Mason Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775. "They tell us that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us." -- Patrick Henry, 1775 "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775 "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" -- Thomas Jefferson. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry Please show me quotes from the writers of the Constitution that say citizens should not be allowed to have weapons? And finally, "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." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #161 June 14, 2010 QuoteSo three for three you are incorrect. ALL allowed the use of arms if the situation called for it. None succeeded over tyranny through the use of arms. All three succeeded, in the end, through peaceful means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #162 June 14, 2010 Quote"Regulation" does not equal "ban". Sure it does. It does in DC, it does in NY, Chicago, CA.... QuoteAnd on the subject of individual rights, do YOU think felons and loonies have a right to own guns? No, and neither did the founding fathers. "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" -- Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789 Now, do you support a citizen with no record owning a Full Auto M4? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #163 June 14, 2010 QuoteIf you're determined to have a certain right, then you shouldn't then have to explicitly ask for it in order for it to apply to you and be told that if you don't ask you don't get it. Then would you support a guy with no criminal record walking into a gun store and buying a Full Auto M4? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #164 June 14, 2010 Quote Please show me quotes from the writers of the Constitution that say citizens should not be allowed to have weapons? Please try to make your point without spewing forth a flurry of severely adulterated, conflated, and out-of-context "quotes" cut and pasted from NRA literature. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #165 June 14, 2010 QuoteThere's nothing more dangerous to a democracy than a gun nut who thinks he's above the law The founding fathers disagree with you... They seem to think the most dangerous thing to a Democracy is a guy like you. "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence" -- Washington. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -- Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788 "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #166 June 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteThere's nothing more dangerous to a democracy than a gun nut who thinks he's above the law The founding fathers disagree with you... They seem to think the most dangerous thing to a Democracy is a guy like you. "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence" -- Washington. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -- Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788 "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin More phony quotes cut and pasted from NRA literature. Why don't you actually try and put your case in your own words? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #167 June 14, 2010 QuoteWere those gun owners successful in using their weapons against the tyrannical government in order to secure their freedom? Why didn't they shoot? A time and a place for everything. You don't call the fire department to blow out a candle. QuoteYour assumption is wrong. Your constancy is off. You are fine with infringing on 2nd Amendment rights, but not 4th Amendment rights. Also, you claim that gun owners that illegally have a gun are bad people... But that people that broke the 18th Amendment didn't do anything wrong. Again, your constancy is off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #168 June 14, 2010 Quote The founding fathers disagree with you... They seem to think the most dangerous thing to a Democracy is a guy like you. Thanks for the personal attack. BUG OFF! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #169 June 14, 2010 QuoteThey seem to think the most dangerous thing to a Democracy is a guy like you. Funny thing is, you arent really a democracy and further, there are much purer democracies which do not have an armed populace to the extent the US does. Furthermore, there are countries presently and in history where a dictator rules over a heavily armed populace. That particular argument just doesn't make any sense, and I can't understand why anybody would want to use it to justify a right to arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #170 June 14, 2010 QuoteNone succeeded over tyranny through the use of arms. All three succeeded, in the end, through peaceful means. All three approved of the use of arms when the situation warrants it. Your use of them to back your position is gone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #171 June 14, 2010 QuotePlease try to make your point without spewing forth a flurry of severely adulterated, conflated, and out-of-context "quotes" cut and pasted from NRA literature. Just admit you can't defend against them. The point is clear... the Founding Fathers supported the right of citizens to be armed. A position you disagree with, but are unable to defend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #172 June 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteWere those gun owners successful in using their weapons against the tyrannical government in order to secure their freedom? Why didn't they shoot? A time and a place for everything. You don't call the fire department to blow out a candle. QuoteYour assumption is wrong. Your constancy is off. You are fine with infringing on 2nd Amendment rights, but not 4th Amendment rights. The government has the right to regulate guns. Quote Also, you claim that gun owners that illegally have a gun are bad people... But that people that broke the 18th Amendment didn't do anything wrong. Again, your constancy is off. You're putting words in my mouth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #173 June 14, 2010 QuoteMore phony quotes cut and pasted from NRA literature. If they are phony... Please prove they are phony. You know, like I did with your Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela, and Jesus claims. Quote Why don't you actually try and put your case in your own words? I have. You just ignore it since you can't defend against it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #174 June 14, 2010 QuoteQuotePlease try to make your point without spewing forth a flurry of severely adulterated, conflated, and out-of-context "quotes" cut and pasted from NRA literature. Just admit you can't defend against them. The point is clear... the Founding Fathers supported the right of citizens to be armed. A position you disagree with, but are unable to defend. Every Wednesday my dogs are proudly convinced they won their argument with the garbage truck by hurling a constant stream of threatening verbalizations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #175 June 14, 2010 QuoteThanks for the personal attack. Not a personal attack. You do not want people to be armed, and the FF's did. You claim that "gun nuts" are a threat to Democracy, but the FF's said that guys like you that wish to disarm the populace is the biggest threat. Now... Instead of running away, answer the questions posed if you can. I am betting you are unable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
