GUNS GUNS GUNS.

[Stormcrow]

oh now see that? I knew you were gonna do that!

ok,so

that false premise thing....it's so bash BUSH BUSH BUSH

it's the left side of the isles mantra

of course the same libtards that used it in their anti administration blabber are the same ones who pontificated (most in writing) how dangerous Saddam was, weapons of mass bla bla bla....

(this is really such a been there done that kinda thing)

bottom line, it aint true




unless of course, you are referring to something else...

Won't debate a dead topic, particularly when it'll hijack a thread. But I will go so far as to inform you that it was the only issue I ever had with President Bush, so I'd hardly call it a "Leftist Mantra".

But your assertion that "bottom line, it aint true" worries me a bit. We all watched it happen.

[LEFT]

perhaps we'll have the opportunity to discuss this at more length another time then?

I will tell you this...if I was POTUS I would not have moved on Iraq but I understand why that move was initiated (so we may have some common ground)

I do not take our loss of American lives lightly and my reading of you would indicate the same (definately common ground)

and

please do not be offended by my reference to "libtards"...I do tend to use it most liberally

so no worries/be happy

we'll dish....

[Stormcrow]

perhaps we'll have the opportunity to discuss this at more length another time then?

I will tell you this...if I was POTUS I would not have moved on Iraq but I understand why that move was initiated (so we may have some common ground)

I do not take our loss of American lives lightly and my reading of you would indicate the same (definately common ground)

and

please do not be offended by my reference to "libtards"...I do tend to use it most liberally

so no worries/be happy

we'll dish....

I think maybe, just maybe, you kinda sorta understand "me". This, I like.

[LEFT]

yeah I reken I do (based upon our interaction here on the interweb)

I figger yerra good egg...

and for those who have actually do know me, I tend to type more (conservatively? redneck?) than I am in person (remember "amused" mood and whutknot)

[ozzman62]

My personal view .

A person has the right to protect them self " Spouse and offspring " From any impending harm and or fatal action " Any person , Individual , Trained Animal (Guard dog ) " On My Property "

At this point in time if you invade my home , I will take your life if it is so warranted if I feel you are a direct threat to said above .

I Myself , Can protect my Family . And the day any Governmental institution retracts my right to do so Is..the day I will personally without malice of forethought...

Well...

you Know ..

Ozz .

[TOAO]

The best use for a gun I've seen lately

DRAPER, Utah (AP) -- A death row inmate who had used a gun to fatally shoot two men suffered the same fate Friday morning as he was executed by a team of marksmen - the first time Utah used the firing squad to carry out a death sentence in 14 years.

A barrage of bullets tore into Ronnie Lee Gardner's chest where a target was pinned over his heart. Two minutes later an ashen Gardner, blood pooling in his dark blue jumpsuit, was pronounced dead at 12:17 a.m.

He was the third man to die by firing squad since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

Unlike Gary Gilmore, who famously uttered the last words "Let's do it" on Jan. 17, 1977, Gardner could muster few words before a black hood was fastened over his head. Asked if he had anything to say during the two minutes afforded him, Gardner said simply, "I do not, no."

The five executioners, certified police officers who volunteered for the task and remain anonymous, stood about 25 feet away, behind a wall cut with a gunport, and were armed with matching .30-caliber Winchester rifles. One was loaded with a blank so no one knows who fired the fatal shot. Sandbags stacked behind Gardner's chair kept the bullets from ricocheting around the cinderblock room.

Utah Department of Corrections Director Thomas Patterson said the countdown cadence went "5-4-3..." with the shooters starting to fire at the count of 2.

Gardner's arm tensed and jerked back when he was hit. As the medical examiner checked for vital signs the hood was pulled back, revealing that Gardner's head was tilted back and to the right, his mouth slightly open.

"I don't agree with what he done or what they done but I'm relieved he's free," said Gardner's brother, Randy Gardner, after the execution. "He's had a rough life. He's been incarcerated and in chains his whole damn life, now he's free. I'm happy he's free, just sad the way he went."

The execution was witnessed by media representatives who are separated from witnesses for the victims or the condemned in rooms on opposite ends of the execution chamber behind reflective glass so they can't be seen.

Gardner walked willingly to his execution, a stark contrast to the fatal escape attempt he undertook 25 years ago that resulted in his death sentence.

Gardner was sentenced to death after being convicted of murder in 1985 for the fatal courthouse shooting of attorney Michael Burdell during a failed escape attempt. Gardner was at the Salt Lake City court facing a murder charge in the shooting death of a bartender, Melvyn Otterstrom when he took a gun smuggled into him and he shot Burdell in the face as the attorney hid behind a door in the chaotic courthouse.

The execution process was set in motion in March when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request from Gardner's attorney to review the case. On April 23, state court Judge Robin Reese signed a warrant ordering the state to carry out the death sentence.

At that hearing, Gardner politely declared, "I would like the firing squad, please."

He told his lawyer he did it because he preferred to die that way. Gardner was allowed to choose between the firing squad and lethal injection because he was sentenced to death before Utah eliminated the firing squad as an option in 2004. State officials did not like the negative publicity fire squad executions generated.

Gardner, 49, chose his manner of death and then worked furiously with his lawyers to prevent it. They filed petitions with state and federal courts, asked a Utah parole board to commute his sentence to life in prison without parole, and finally unsuccessfully appealed to Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gardner's attorneys argued the jury that sentenced him to death in 1985 heard no mitigating evidence that might have led them to instead impose a life sentence. Gardner's life was marked by early drug addiction, physical and sexual abuse and possible brain damage, court records show.

They also argued he could not get a "fair and impartial hearing" before Utah's Board of Pardons and Parole because lawyers that represent the board work for the Utah attorney general's office, which sought his death warrant and argued against the board commuting Gardner's death sentence

The firing squad has been Utah's most-used form of capital punishment. Of the 49 executions held in the state since the 1850s, 40 were by firing squad.

John Albert Taylor, who raped and strangled an 11-year-old girl, was the last person executed by firing squad on Jan. 26, 1996.

Historians say the method stems from 19th Century doctrine of the state's predominant religion. Early members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believed in the concept of "blood atonement" - that only through spilling one's own blood could a condemned person adequately atone for their crimes and be redeemed in the next life. The church no longer preaches such teachings and offers no opinion on the use of the firing squad.

Gardner, who once described himself as a "nasty little bugger" with a mean streak, spent his last day sleeping, reading the novel "Divine Justice," watching the "Lord of the Rings" film trilogy and meeting with his attorneys and a bishop with the Mormon church. A prison spokesman said officers described his mood as relaxed. He had eaten his last requested meal - steak, lobster tail, apple pie, vanilla ice cream and 7UP - two days earlier.

Members of his family gathered outside the prison, some wearing T-shirts displaying his prisoner number, 14873. None witnessed the execution, at Gardner's request.

"He didn't want nobody to see him get shot," Randy Gardner said. "I would have liked to be there for him. I love him to death. He's my little brother."

The American Civil Liberties Union decried Gardner's execution as an example of what it called the United States' "barbaric, arbitrary and bankrupting practice of capital punishment." And religious leaders called for an end to the death penalty at an interfaith vigil in Salt Lake City on Thursday evening.

"Murdering the murderer doesn't create justice or settle any score," said Rev. Tom Goldsmith of the First Unitarian Church.

Burdell's family opposes the death penalty and asked for Gardner's life to be spared.

But Otterstrom's family lobbied the parole board against Gardner's request for clemency and a reduced sentence.

George "Nick" Kirk, was a bailiff at the courthouse the day of Gardner's botched escape. Shot and wounded in the lower abdomen, Kirk suffered chronic health problems the rest of his life.

Kirk's daughter, Tami Stewart, said before the execution she believed Gardner's death would bring her family some closure.

"I think at that moment, he will feel that fear that his victims felt," she said.

[TOAO]

http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/gallery/l48nax-b78654623z.120100618183802000gekovl81.1.jpg

[gigman]

Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director
Chris W. Cox On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"

I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that's why we told Congress we oppose it.

The NRA has never supported -- nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don't apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That's easy to say -- unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn't support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama's stimulus bill. And we've been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress's unconstitutional attack on free speech. That's a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

[Stormcrow]

That's easy to say -- unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

President Obama's stimulus bill.

Not to detract from his actual point, because for the most part I support it, but it's guys like this who I wish weren't allowed to own guns. He shows himself as a liar with poor priorities.

He protects the Second Amendment above all else? I don't know about you, but most people find a HELL of a lot of things more important than guns.

And using the emotions of members to push political propaganda is just plain wrong. Especially when said propaganda is an outright lie. I suppose J. E. Hoover caused the Depression too, ehh? I remember who started the stimulus. And it was long before Obama was elected.

People like this guy are the reason I told the NRA to lose my number a couple months back. Too many hard cases and political douchebags.

[TOAO]

A Marine shot at an Angels game several months ago died today.

http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/gallery/l4jb5o-b78653868z.120100624125023000geeoum78.2.jpg

Kind of a shame someone in an altercation can produce a gun when he realizes he can't win the fight he started, and get away with killing a Marine, just because he's an off-duty cop. Even more shameful when they check the B.A.C. of the person that got shot and use it as an excuse, but not the B.A.C. of the pussy that shot him.


And yes, he is of Hispanic descent, what that has to do with it is incredibly lame when he's wearing that uniform.

[gigman]

10 Ways That Handguns Are Better Than A Woman





#10 - You can trade an old .44 for two new .22s

#9 - You can keep one handgun at home and have another for when you're

on the road.



#8 - If you admire a friend's handgun, and tell him so, he will probably

let you try it out a few times.



#7 - Your primary handgun doesn't mind if you have a backup.



#6 - Your handgun will stay with you even if you're out of ammo.



#5 - A handgun doesn't take up a lot of closet space.



#4 - Handguns function normally every day of the month.



#3 - A handgun doesn't ask "Do these new grips make me look fat?"



#2 - A handgun doesn't mind if you go to sleep after you use it.



And The Number One Way That A Handgun Is Better Than A Woman...



#1 - You can buy a silencer for a handgun.

[TOAO]

#1 - You can buy a silencer for a handgun.


You must not know where to shop


http://boundesign.com/cart/images/bitballgag002.JPG

[TOAO]

I didn't want to do a cop&paste, but I found this interesting.

The Harold Fish story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221//


Now while I think someone should be able to protect their home, when someone feels they need to carry one everywhere they go because they lack the proper hormones to grow testicles, it's a bit different.

Especially when they end up shooting someone else, that isn't armed, as in the Fish, and numerous other cases. for a start, the dead guy doesn't get to tell his side of the story. and it is usually "he could have.."

Yeah, they could have, but now we'll never know, cause he's dead. In the Fish case, he shot the guy 3 times in the chest. No weapon, and the guy never touched him.

that's even more lame than "he assaulted me, so I shot him"

Call me crazy, but why would someone feel the need to take a gun unless somewhere in their pointed little head, they expect trouble?

But anyways, feelings on the Fish case.

and BTW, other people lacking the proper hormones chipped in and got the case reversed, which I thought was a shame. People like that deserve the ass-rape he probably got, & secretly enjoyed.

[TOAO]

This was on Fox this morning


High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

Backgrounder:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the states the high court's historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago's handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices.

Tuesday's lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago's handgun ban doesn't allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country.

"In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship," Gura told the Court.

He argued the language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply--or incorporate--parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution's first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn't appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. "I don't see how you can read -- I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city's handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision's Second Amendment guarantee doesn't comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states.

"[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Feldman said. "States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by -- by jury."

Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there's a good chance Tuesday's case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail.

[gigman]

Monday, June 28, 2010

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association of America today praised the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision in another landmark Second Amendment case. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies not just to Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves, but protects the rights of all Americans throughout the country. The opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago brings an end to the nearly 30 year-long handgun ban that the city has imposed on its law-abiding citizens.

"This is a landmark decision," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "The Second Amendment -- as every citizen's constitutional right -- is now a real part of American constitutional law. The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way."

As a party to the case, the NRA participated in oral arguments before the Court in March. The NRA persuasively argued that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This same view was shared in friend of the court briefs by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general, and hundreds of state legislators. Public opinion polls show that it is also shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

"This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Ironically, while crime in Chicago runs rampant and lawmakers there call on the National Guard for help, Mayor Daley has insisted on leaving the residents of his city defenseless. Today's opinion puts the law back on the side of the law-abiding. We will be watching closely to make sure that Chicago abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision."

[gigman]

Cock sucking loser in Chicago.

With NRA Support,
Chicagoans Challenge New City Gun Law

Barely a week after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, NRA is supporting a new lawsuit -- Benson v. City of Chicago -- to enforce the court's decision. The suit, filed on July 6 against the city and its mayor, Richard Daley, is the first to challenge the city's new gun control ordinance passed on July 2 (please see related story from last week's Grassroots Alert here).

Just four days after the Court struck down the nearly 30 year-long handgun bans in the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Chicago enacted one of the most restrictive anti-gun ordinances in the United States. Commenting on the scope of the new ordinance, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, the top attorney for the city, said, "We've gone farther than anyone else ever has."

The city's so-called "Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance" provisions include: a ban on all gun sales in the city; a ban on possession of firearms for self-defense outside the "home" -- even on a patio or in an attached garage; a ban on having more than one assembled and operable firearm in the home; a provision that allows the Chicago police to arbitrarily ban "unsafe" handguns based on unlimited criteria; and a training requirement to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit. (However, range training would be impossible since it will now be unlawful to operate a shooting range within city limits.)

[TOAO]

while I may not be into guns, or guys using them as a substitute for testicles, there was something I remember seeing once.

About 10 years ago, I took my kid to the LA zoo, and it was hot as fuck. Unbearable hot. In the same parking lot was the Gene Autry Museum. I saw a sign that said "air conditioning" and of course, went.

They had a bunch of cool stuff, but one thing I remember standing out was the gun collection. If this wasn't the best gun collection in the country, then it would at least be in the running. If they were cars, it would be nicer than Jay Leno and Reggie Jackson's collections combined. And besides all the collectible ones, they had famous & infamous ones.


http://theautry.org/pistols/images/wildbill_pistol.jpg

http://theautry.org/pistols/index.html

http://theautry.org/collections/arms-and-armor

If you come to LA, it's in the same parking lot as the Zoo. Which I think is worth seeing.

And don't get assraped by Disney. Tell me before hand, and I'll go bikeriding on the strand and take pics of the weekly rentals. It's much nicier to be on the beach than katella&harbor, no matter what the name on the hotel says.

And in LA, as far as Museums, my personal favorite is the Page Museum.

(No, not the Jimmy Page museum)

http://www.tarpits.org/

[TOAO]

Now this case was kind of funny. another perfect example of a Cop thinking he's above the law, and stupid people thinking he should be.

In California, if a child gets a hold of your gun, YOU are responsible. Because it is YOUR responsibility to keep it away from children.

This idiot is supposed to be locked up. You can either call it child endangerment for not having him in his car seat, or for having access to a loaded firearm, either way, anyone else would be locked up, wheelchair and all.

Since he's an ex-cop, not only is he not responsible (figuratively speaking,) but even went as far as to try and blame GLOCK

Cop shot by son loses suit against gun maker
By JON CASSIDY
2010-07-16 13:12:19
A retired Los Angeles police officer who sued a gun maker after his 3-year-old son shot him had his lawsuit dismissed Friday by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.

Enrique Chavez, now 39, of Anaheim, was off-duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His son, who was not in a car seat, got a hold of the father's .45-caliber Glock while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports.

Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

In July 2008, he sued Glock, alleging that the gun's safety was "non-existent or ineffective."

In addition, the suit alleges negligence on the part of Uncle Mike's, the company that made the gun's holster; Turner Outdoorsman, the store where he bought the holster; and the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club, where the officer purchased the gun.

In dismissing the suit, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kevin C. Brazile cited an "exhaustive review" of the gun's safety conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department before a purchase.

Chavez's attorney, Ian Herzog, argued that the LAPD review doesn't mean the gun is actually safe.

"If you're correct about that, it amounts to a revolution in products liability," Herzog told the judge.

Herzog argued that a jury should have been allowed to make that decision.

The defense had argued that Chavez admitted he forgot the gun was in the back seat when he put his son in the truck.

Brazile also dismissed the portion of the suit directed at the holster manufacturer and seller.

"There's nothing inherently dangerous about the holster," the judge said. "It's the gun that's dangerous."




And "Blah blah he's a cophater"

If I really wanted to embarass them, I would have pointed out the million dollar accident a deputy recently got into while talking on a cellphone.

[chi]

Amazing anyone could be so careless as to leave a loaded gun on the back seat (and not strap a 3-yr old into their car seat).

[gigman]

Urge Your Senators to Oppose Elena
Kagan's Confirmation to U.S. Supreme Court

The nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court will be decided next week, when the Senate casts the final vote on her confirmation.

The NRA has announced our strong opposition to Ms. Kagan, due to her long record of antagonism toward the Second Amendment. Based on that record, it is very likely that as a Supreme Court Justice, Kagan would join the Court's minority that just last month issued dissenting opinions claiming the Second Amendment does not guarantee a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Elena Kagan represents the second time President Obama has nominated a person to the Court who aggressively opposes our right to keep and bear arms. Her confirmation would pose a direct threat to our rights for decades.

Every vote in the Senate is crucial on this issue. Please take a few minutes and contact your Senators at 202-224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 202-224-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting and respectfully ask them to filibuster and oppose Kagan's confirmation. To identify your U.S. Senators, please visit http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

[TOAO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjMADPkivxM&feature=related

[Stormcrow]

Videos like that piss me off. The guy who thought "Hey, lets have this girl with no training/strength fire a high powered pistol on camera for a laugh." should have his right to bear arms revoked. That was irresponsible, dangerous, and down right stupid. She could have killed herself, or someone else. [/rant]

[CULPRITE_INC]

she was holding it right, just not strong enough, and we know women, "yeah i can do it, no! i dont need your help. ill show him" bullshit

[TOAO]

Oh come on. she's wearing camo pants and a halter top, so she's prolly a lesbian and needed it for her ego.

[gigman]

Videos like that piss me off. The guy who thought "Hey, lets have this girl with no training/strength fire a high powered pistol on camera for a laugh." should have his right to bear arms revoked. That was irresponsible, dangerous, and down right stupid. She could have killed herself, or someone else. [/rant]

We can FINALLY agree on something.:neutral:

[Stormcrow]

We can FINALLY agree on something.:neutral:
See? I ain't all bad!

[gigman]

I thought this would fit in nicely here too.

"YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF..."

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.


6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.


7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

[CULPRITE_INC]

damn you got me with number 10

[gigman]

Outrage of the Week:
San Francisco Bans Guns ... for Movie Poster Cops?!

San Francisco is well known for its fog. But while the sunshine sometimes cuts through fog in the atmosphere, one fog that rarely seems to lift is the fog of anti-gun thinking. Twice, the city has tried to ban handguns, and been turned back by court challenges. The city's public housing authority also had to be sued to end its ban on gun possession by public housing residents. And the NRA is currently backing a challenge to the city's gun storage law, which requires city residents to store their handguns in locked containers or disabled with trigger locks.

But as if all that weren't enough, SF Weekly blogs reported this week that the city of San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) doesn't allow advertisements with guns in them. Specifically, SFMTA advertising policy regarding firearms says, "Advertising on Municipal Transportation Agency ("MTA") property, or as authorized under any contract with the MTA, constitutes a nonpublic forum. No such advertisement shall: . appear to promote the use of firearms."

[Stormcrow]

That's just plain stupid.








But I wonder, why is it that "the NRA is currently backing a challenge to the city's gun storage law, which requires city residents to store their handguns in locked containers or disabled with trigger locks."? That's one of the good laws.

[4nik8]

That's just plain stupid.

But I wonder, why is it that "the NRA is currently backing a challenge to the city's gun storage law, which requires city residents to store their handguns in locked containers or disabled with trigger locks."? That's one of the good laws.

Because having your gun locked up and inaccessible in times of speedy need (ie break in) kinda negates having it in the first place.

I'm not saying leave it where kids have access, but...I ain't a kid and don't need the govt tellin ME how to handle MY gun.....in MY house.
Besides, THAT 'good" law would require those with AND without kids to abide by their "nanny" laws.

I pay taxes and I bought it..Both the gun and the house.
Get your ( da gubment) nose out of my business.

[Stormcrow]

Because having your gun locked up and inaccessible in times of speedy need (ie break in) kinda negates having it in the first place.

I'm not saying leave it where kids have access, but...I ain't a kid and don't need the govt tellin ME how to handle MY gun.....in MY house.
Besides, THAT 'good" law would require those with AND without kids to abide by their "nanny" laws.

I pay taxes and I bought it..Both the gun and the house.
Get your ( da gubment) nose out of my business.


It always comes down to that with y'all, doesn't it? Ahh well, who cares.

[4nik8]

It always comes down to that with y'all, doesn't it? Ahh well, who cares.

:ooh:

Yeah, that little pesky business about freedom really resonates with me.

[TOAO]

Some states have laws which hold parents liable when children gain access to a firearms. At least nine states hold adults criminally responsible for storing a loaded firearm in such a way as to allow a minor to gain access. Some of these provisions include an enhanced PENALTY if the minor causes injury or death and create exceptions for parental liability when the minor gains access to a weapon by unlawful entry into the home or place of storage or if the firearm is used in SELF-DEFENSE. In addition, several states have provisions that create criminal liability when a custodial adult or parent is aware that his or her child possesses a firearm unlawfully and does not take it away. A number of jurisdictions have enacted laws making it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children. Typically, these laws apply, and parents can be charged, only if the minor gains access to the gun. There are usually exceptions if the firearm is stored in a locked box, secured with a trigger lock, or obtained by a minor through unlawful entry. In most states, the penalty for unlawful access is a MISDEMEANOR unless the minor injures someone else, in which case the parent can be charged with a FELONY.

That's a c/p

[Stormcrow]

:ooh:

Yeah, that little pesky business about freedom really resonates with me.

Freedom comes with a price. The price in this instance is Government enforced safety. Much like seatbelt, helmet, and OSHA laws, it was put there to protect you, and it doesn't matter if you like it, because we, as humans, have proven ourselves predominantly an irresponsible lot. Yeah, it's inconvenient, but barring that, it works. That's why we HAVE a Government. To protect and care for our needs.

"I am responsible for my shit, and who do they think they are treating me like I'm not?"

That's you. But it is NOT the majority of people. You cannot have laws on a case by case basis. Which makes more sense to you, a bunch of morons being left to their own devices, or a couple responsible folk enduring a minor inconvenience?

I'm certainly not trying to re-engage you in this debate, but I can think of hundreds of situations where a gun safe and/or trigger lock would save an innocent life. I can only think of a single situation where it could potentially cost one however.

[4nik8]

Some states have laws which hold parents liable when children gain access to a firearms. At least nine states hold adults criminally responsible for storing a loaded firearm in such a way as to allow a minor to gain access. Some of these provisions include an enhanced PENALTY if the minor causes injury or death and create exceptions for parental liability when the minor gains access to a weapon by unlawful entry into the home or place of storage or if the firearm is used in SELF-DEFENSE. In addition, several states have provisions that create criminal liability when a custodial adult or parent is aware that his or her child possesses a firearm unlawfully and does not take it away. A number of jurisdictions have enacted laws making it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children. Typically, these laws apply, and parents can be charged, only if the minor gains access to the gun. There are usually exceptions if the firearm is stored in a locked box, secured with a trigger lock, or obtained by a minor through unlawful entry. In most states, the penalty for unlawful access is a MISDEMEANOR unless the minor injures someone else, in which case the parent can be charged with a FELONY.

That's a c/p

The State dictating how I raise a child with/around fire arms is one discussion.
The State requiring a lock box/trigger lock to protect me (?) or the criminal (?) by imposing a blanket law concerning the fire arm is my beef.

What I do in my house with my possessions is none of the State's business.

[4nik8]

Freedom comes with a price. The price in this instance is Government enforced safety. Much like seatbelt, helmet, and OSHA laws, it was put there to protect you, and it doesn't matter if you like it, because we, as humans, have proven ourselves predominantly an irresponsible lot. Yeah, it's inconvenient, but barring that, it works. That's why we HAVE a Government. To protect and care for our needs.

"I am responsible for my shit, and who do they think they are treating me like I'm not?"

That's you. But it is NOT the majority of people. You cannot have laws on a case by case basis. Which makes more sense to you, a bunch of morons being left to their own devices, or a couple responsible folk enduring a minor inconvenience?

I'm certainly not trying to re-engage you in this debate, but I can think of hundreds of situations where a gun safe and/or trigger lock would save an innocent life. I can only think of a single situation where it could potentially cost one however.

No where in the Constitution does it say the govt is there to care for our needs.

Promote general welfare, as in providing a state in which folks can flourish, is though.

It's NOT to dictate what can and can't happen in my home.
I can only think of ONE situation where an unlocked gun can be a hazard. In the home with a child who hasn't been taught about fire arm safety. (Barring leaving a gun lying around in easy access to a child too young to learn.)

This would fall under child endangerment laws and needn't be a blanket law for non idiots to be punished because of a few...idiots.

The case of me having a gun in my home, without children around, is a prime example of why this law is flawed.

Who is to be protected by this?

To read the way you worded your response, you'd think MOST people who own guns are morons. If that were the case, and in those states where this idiocy isn't mandated, why isn't there an overwhelming amount of evidence to require this in ALL states?

Because, as with most retarded ass laws, it's not valid and unnecessary.

Hell, Florida has a law making it illegal to fuck porcupines. I'm sure there were a few idiots that tried that...but not the majority of the people.

To me, the two laws are equally stupid. You can't protect morons by mandating dumb ass laws. Mainly because those with adequate sense already do things/don't do things that those "laws for dummies" are designed to achieve.

A nanny state to protect idiots only serves to hamstring the wise.

When the "price of freedom" comes at it's elimination, the price is just too high.

[Stormcrow]

No where in the Constitution does it say the govt is there to care for our needs.

Promote general welfare, as in providing a state in which folks can flourish, is though.

It's NOT to dictate what can and can't happen in my home.
I can only think of ONE situation where an unlocked gun can be a hazard. In the home with a child who hasn't been taught about fire arm safety. (Barring leaving a gun lying around in easy access to a child too young to learn.)

This would fall under child endangerment laws and needn't be a blanket law for non idiots to be punished because of a few...idiots.

The case of me having a gun in my home, without children around, is a prime example of why this law is flawed.

Who is to be protected by this?

To read the way you worded your response, you'd think MOST people who own guns are morons. If that were the case, and in those states where this idiocy isn't mandated, why isn't there an overwhelming amount of evidence to require this in ALL states?

Because, as with most retarded ass laws, it's not valid and unnecessary.

Hell, Florida has a law making it illegal to fuck porcupines. I'm sure there were a few idiots that tried that...but not the majority of the people.

To me, the two laws are equally stupid. You can't protect morons by mandating dumb ass laws. Mainly because those with adequate sense already do things/don't do things that those "laws for dummies" are designed to achieve.

A nanny state to protect idiots only serves to hamstring the wise.

When the "price of freedom" comes at it's elimination, the price is just too high.

Clearly, I disagree with your views on this matter, and I'm certainly not going to beat it to death, but I'm going to ask a simple question and be done.

How long do you really think it would take you to open your gun safe?

Bear in mind, that any time you have your weapon on your person, you aren't "storing" it. That means, if it were in a safe, it'd probably be in a drawer anyway. (Providing you're not a paranoid fruit who sleeps with it that is.)

[4nik8]

Clearly, I disagree with your views on this matter, and I'm certainly not going to beat it to death, but I'm going to ask a simple question and be done.

How long do you really think it would take you to open your gun safe?

Bear in mind, that any time you have your weapon on your person, you aren't "storing" it. That means, if it were in a safe, it'd probably be in a drawer anyway. (Providing you're not a paranoid fruit who sleeps with it that is.)

In a drawer would still be where a kid could get it no?
So now we're talking about a trigger lock.

How long would it take to get your keys, grab your gun, unlock the trigger lock...and then point it at the guy who's crawled through your bedroom window in order to rape/murder you?

This isn't as much about time/safety as it is about govt intrusion into my sanctity.

As long as what I do/how I conduct myself doesn't endanger the public at large, I fail to see how the govt can infringe upon my rights.

Agreed on the beating it death.

We have two different view points.
You believe in big govt/less rights because there are a few tards in the world.

I believe in what the Constitution was originally written for. Freedom from govt oppression.

:sad:

[Stormcrow]

In a drawer would still be where a kid could get it no?
So now we're talking about a trigger lock.


No, I was comparing the drawer (in a no lock situation), to the safe (in a lock situation).

Majority rules, and the majority of people are ignorant. You cannot have laws on a case by case basis.

And I love the way people who equate firearms with liberty make blanket statements about anyone who supports any form of gun legislation. Kinda proves my previous point.

[TOAO]

You can do what ever you want in your home Nik. It's just that if minor gets a hold of it and shoots someone, you'll be gone for a couple decades.

[4nik8]

No, I was comparing the drawer (in a no lock situation), to the safe (in a lock situation).

Ehh, so was I. Hence the added time hunting for keys, etc.

Majority rules, and the majority of people are ignorant. You cannot have laws on a case by case basis.

Not necessarily. Remember, this is the same city that has tried before to ban guns entirely and been over turned. Same with other cities that are anti gun/anti liberty and have been reversed because of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

And I love the way people who equate firearms with liberty make blanket statements about anyone who supports any form of gun legislation. Kinda proves my previous point.

Equate fire arms with liberty?
You make it sound as though it's not a freedom.
Last I checked, it damn sure is.

But, I wasn't making a blanket statement. I was merely going by what you typed....the whole "people are stupid and need laws to govern and care for them" bit.

Still not sure what your point is other than nanny states benefit retards at the cost of freedom for those who aren't.

:neutral:

[4nik8]

You can do what ever you want in your home Nik. It's just that if minor gets a hold of it and shoots someone, you'll be gone for a couple decades.

That's kind of my whole point.

[TOAO]

The funny part is that law is very well known. Another big law is having a young child not wearing a seatbelt. They will go straight for child endangerment.

It's funny, because a while back, someone was letting a 3 year old run around the backseat, without a seatbealt, and the kid got a hold of a loaded gun and shot him. Normally, the courts here would giggle, and say "it's tragic, but look at the bright side, there's a medical ward in prison." But no, the guy was an off duty cop, a person that should know better than anyone about unsecured firearms, and seatbelts.

Enrique Chavez, 37, of Anaheim, was off-duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports. The son was not restrained in a safety seat.

Not only did he not get so much as a ticket, he turned around and tried to sue Glock, the store he bought it from, and even the maker of the holster.

[4nik8]

The funny part is that law is very well known. Another big law is having a young child not wearing a seatbelt. They will go straight for child endangerment.

It's funny, because a while back, someone was letting a 3 year old run around the backseat, without a seatbealt, and the kid got a hold of a loaded gun and shot him. Normally, the courts here would giggle, and say "it's tragic, but look at the bright side, there's a medical ward in prison." But no, the guy was an off duty cop, a person that should know better than anyone about unsecured firearms, and seatbelts.



Not only did he not get so much as a ticket, he turned around and tried to sue Glock, the store he bought it from, and even the maker of the holster.

So, to fix THIS particular idiocy, maybe handguns in cars should be banned?
That should take care of any problems people with absolutely no common sense may encounter.

Until the next random act of retardation. Then we can legislate that problem away too.

[Stormcrow]

Equate fire arms with liberty?
You make it sound as though it's not a freedom.
Last I checked, it damn sure is.

Aye, but it's hardly the only, or even most important one.


But, I wasn't making a blanket statement. I was merely going by what you typed....the whole "people are stupid and need laws to govern and care for them" bit.

Still not sure what your point is other than nanny states benefit retards at the cost of freedom for those who aren't.

:neutral:

It certainly was. I proclaimed support for an individual law, from which you chose to form an opinion on my political position as a whole.

My point is simple:

There is no difference between a gun safe law, seat belt law, or an OSHA law, and I don't see anyone up in arms about them. These laws are put into place to make it simpler to prosecute those who, through irresponsible action/inacction, endanger others.

If you're never pulled over, or get into an accident, bet your ass you don't get ticketed for not wearing a seat belt.

If there is never an incident that needs to be investigated, about a gun in your home, bet your ass nobody's gonna be looking for your trigger lock.



This is not "support of big Govt", nor is it "anti-gun". It's simply recognition of the real point behind the law, and approval of it.


Yes, I realize that California passes stupid laws for stupid reasons. Many of which seem to be intended to deny citizen's rights. I was NOT addressing the topic with California as a factor. Nor will I. I was discussing the nature and purpose of the Law itself.

[Stormcrow]

...Normally, the courts here would giggle, and say "it's tragic, but look at the bright side, there's a medical ward in prison." But no, the guy was an off duty cop, a person that should know better than anyone about unsecured firearms, and seatbelts.

:headslap:

[Buschman]

"...and then point it at the guy who's crawled through your bedroom window in order to rape/murder you?"

This is another misconception people have about intruders entering your home. If you have your gun in hand, and shoot a person who is breaking into your house,..the police are not going to come over, check it out,..and then go "nice job."

They will haul you away,..you are going to go to jail.

Then, you are going to have to prove in court,..that there was "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the person was trying kill/harm you. UNLESS he was armed as well. That's the only way it would help your case.

Because if not, a prosecuting attourney is going to say,.."how do you know he was going to kill you? Perhaps he just wanted your VCR?"

Yeah I know,..it's a fucked up world we live in,..but that's the way it goes.

You can't just shoot somebody in your house and expect to get away with it,..simply because they were in your house.

It has to be proven that your life was actually in danger of serious bodily harm, or death.

[ozzman62]

@ Busch , If someone is coming in through my BEDROOM Window at 3:00AM I'm pretty sure he's not there for my DVD player . If I call out to him and he doesn't flee ? he is there for reasons of malice and ill will hence his untimely demise without malice of forethought and termination with extreme prejudice .

Granted though , If you foolishly shoot someone who is NOT a direct threat to you simply because they are stealing you valuables be prepared to suffer the consequences .

[4nik8]

These two posts I put together because, hand in hand, they describe the fucked up state of affairs in what some people deem as important freedoms purposely included in the Constituiton.


Aye, but it's hardly the only, or even most important one.

I don't know that I could point at any single freedom as the "most important".
Inclusively, they make up what sets America apart from other nations. Each individual right is equally important.


It certainly was. I proclaimed support for an individual law, from which you chose to form an opinion on my political position as a whole.
It wasn't just that law. Your overall view of the govt's job, as stated, was why I said what I said.


My point is simple:

There is no difference between a gun safe law, seat belt law, or an OSHA law, and I don't see anyone up in arms about them. These laws are put into place to make it simpler to prosecute those who, through irresponsible action/inacction, endanger others.

There most certainly is.
There is a HUGE difference.
Most glaringly is that the gun law pertains to my HOME. The others deal with public safety.
I'm all for legislating for the greater good of the public if, because of lack of safety measures put in place, the public at large is put at risk.
When laws start reaching across my thresh hold, I have a big problem with it.
How I store, handle or use my weapon, in my home, has no bearing on public safety.

There are already laws on the books to cover irresponsibility. You cannot legislate common sense.

If you're never pulled over, or get into an accident, bet your ass you don't get ticketed for not wearing a seat belt.

If there is never an incident that needs to be investigated, about a gun in your home, bet your ass nobody's gonna be looking for your trigger lock.

You are forgetting, conveniently maybe, the recent bill that was shot down giving the govt permission to inspect guns in your home.
This was under the guise of ensuring you only have the guns you have registered.
Whatever the pinnyanny excuses, it all amounts to one thing. Deterrence to fire arm owners.
No excuse can deny this especially given the amount of laws over turned because of govt overstepping it's authority and the laws being unconstitutional. Each little law that whittles away at rights, no matter the excuse for implementation, invariably results in the over all diminishing/elimination of a Constitutional right.



This is not "support of big Govt", nor is it "anti-gun". It's simply recognition of the real point behind the law, and approval of it.

Then it's misplaced.
There are laws already governing child endangerment.
To make a blanket law that affects those without kids the same as those with is nothing more than an assault on the right to own a weapon.
Given the agenda of the States who try and implement it along with their track record for previous laws either limiting those rights or trying to eliminate them, that fact is painfully clear.


Yes, I realize that California passes stupid laws for stupid reasons. Many of which seem to be intended to deny citizen's rights. I was NOT addressing the topic with California as a factor. Nor will I. I was discussing the nature and purpose of the Law itself.

California just happens to be ONE state intent on, at the very least, limiting rights to gun owners. The intent of the law, IMHO, has absolutely no place in any govt's powers. Especially since, as I've said earlier, there are already laws in place that cover child endangerment. The specific act that brings harm to child is immaterial.


"...and then point it at the guy who's crawled through your bedroom window in order to rape/murder you?"

This is another misconception people have about intruders entering your home. If you have your gun in hand, and shoot a person who is breaking into your house,..the police are not going to come over, check it out,..and then go "nice job."

They will haul you away,..you are going to go to jail.

Then, you are going to have to prove in court,..that there was "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the person was trying kill/harm you. UNLESS he was armed as well. That's the only way it would help your case.

Because if not, a prosecuting attourney is going to say,.."how do you know he was going to kill you? Perhaps he just wanted your VCR?"

Yeah I know,..it's a fucked up world we live in,..but that's the way it goes.

You can't just shoot somebody in your house and expect to get away with it,..simply because they were in your house.

It has to be proven that your life was actually in danger of serious bodily harm, or death.

And this is where the rights of home owners has been diminished.

It also depends on the State you're in.

In Arkansas you actually have to lock yourself in your own bedroom and only when THAT room is being threatened are you allowed to defend yourself.
What the fuck? My house is my home. The whole fucking thing. Not just a bedroom.

I should have the peace of mind to know I'm safe once I walk through my door. Not hope like hell that if an intruder decides to come in that he doesn't block my regress to the one particular spot the State deems my area of safety.

For the record:
If someone is dumb enough to break into my house, he won't make that mistake twice.

I look at it this way. He HAS to know that who ever lives there is going to be frightened. He also has to assume that he may have to defend himself.
In that vain, he's, in MY mind, already decided to take my life in order to defend his should the need arise.


These two posts, hand in hand, describe exactly the danger I'm talking about when it comes to laws infringing on home owners rights and gun owner's rights.

When it gets to the point that a criminal has more rights in YOUR home than YOU do...there's a fucking problem.

When, as a single male, I can't leave my weapon in ANY place I deem quick access, in MY house, because, as any case may arise that a cop is at my door and the gun is in clear view and NOT "properly" stored, leaving me open to prosecution...there's a fucking problem.

[Buschman]

When it gets to the point that a criminal has more rights in YOUR home than YOU do...there's a fucking problem.

When, as a single male, I can't leave my weapon in ANY place I deem quick access, in MY house, because, as any case may arise that a cop is at my door and the gun is in clear view and NOT "properly" stored, leaving me open to prosecution...there's a fucking problem.


Word

[Stormcrow]

It wasn't just that law. Your overall view of the govt's job, as stated, was why I said what I said.

I'd like to know what you think the Govt is here for then. We NEED defended, our Govt makes it happen. We NEED a new road built, the Govt makes it happen. We NEED a murderer put to the law, the Govt makes it happen. We NEED a new school, *GASP* the Govt makes it happen. Otherwise, I wouldn't pay those fuckers a percentage of my gross income, and a percentage on everything I purchase. How exactly am I wrong?




There most certainly is.
There is a HUGE difference.
Most glaringly is that the gun law pertains to my HOME. The others deal with public safety.
I'm all for legislating for the greater good of the public if, because of lack of safety measures put in place, the public at large is put at risk.
When laws start reaching across my thresh hold, I have a big problem with it.
How I store, handle or use my weapon, in my home, has no bearing on public safety.

Until the day you go somewhere you deem inappropriate to carry a firearm, say perhaps, a wedding, and you get robbed. Now your previously unsecured gun is in the hands of a criminal. Just one example.



You are forgetting, conveniently maybe, the recent bill that was shot down giving the govt permission to inspect guns in your home.

I've forgotten nothing. As you said, it was shot down, and for good reason. Ergo, non-applicable.

This is the real issue. The "NRA" types, due in large part to bad laws like these being attempted, consider any and ALL gun legislation an affront to their constitutional rights. This premise is ridiculous.




Then it's misplaced.
There are laws already governing child endangerment.
To make a blanket law that affects those without kids the same as those with is nothing more than an assault on the right to own a weapon.
Given the agenda of the States who try and implement it along with their track record for previous laws either limiting those rights or trying to eliminate them, that fact is painfully clear.

If it were only a matter of child endangerment, yes, such laws would suffice, but it's not. The fact that you seem to think that the only potential harm in an improperly store killing tool show that you are unwilling to see the bigger picture.


And this is where the rights of home owners has been diminished.

I agree, to an extent. Yes, you damned well should be able to defend yourself, but you should also be held responsible for your actions.


These two posts, hand in hand, describe exactly the danger I'm talking about when it comes to laws infringing on home owners rights and gun owner's rights.


Again, rights go hand in hand with responsibility.

[4nik8]

I'd like to know what you think the Govt is here for then. We NEED defended, our Govt makes it happen. We NEED a new road built, the Govt makes it happen. We NEED a murderer put to the law, the Govt makes it happen. We NEED a new school, *GASP* the Govt makes it happen. Otherwise, I wouldn't pay those fuckers a percentage of my gross income, and a percentage on everything I purchase. How exactly am I wrong?
Those are projects meant to promote the general welfare of a nation. As I said already, to create an environment where the public can flourish...and, incidentally, provide for their OWN needs.
What we DON'T need is what you're advocating. Laws designed to do nothing more than legislate common sense....at the expense of the freedoms of the vast majority who have the where with all to do those things any way.



Until the day you go somewhere you deem inappropriate to carry a firearm, say perhaps, a wedding, and you get robbed. Now your previously unsecured gun is in the hands of a criminal. Just one example.

This is weak, at best, Storm.
Locks are meant for honest people. You know that.
If the locks on my HOUSE weren't deterrent enough, what's a trigger lock gonna be?
A SAFE won't stop a thief.



I've forgotten nothing. As you said, it was shot down, and for good reason. Ergo, non-applicable.

This is the real issue. The "NRA" types, due in large part to bad laws like these being attempted, consider any and ALL gun legislation an affront to their constitutional rights. This premise is ridiculous.

It is absolutely applicable. It goes to the heart of the reason for the law.
If you can't find a way to make guns completely illegal, make 'em so damned troublesome to own people will give them up on their own accord.
Incidentally, I'm not now nor have I ever been a member of the NRA.
I do, however, believe in the Constitution. I also dislike ANY infringement by the govt on my rights as a citizen.
Be they guns or any other freedom I have that should not be infringed upon.





If it were only a matter of child endangerment, yes, such laws would suffice, but it's not. The fact that you seem to think that the only potential harm in an improperly store killing tool show that you are unwilling to see the bigger picture.
Since, as the law is written, it's "meant for protection of children", I'm not sure what else is to be seen from it.


I have bows, which are killing tools as well, that aren't under lock and key.
The only "bigger picture" is gun control. Period.

What other "safety" reason is there to require me to lock up my means of defense in my own home?






I agree, to an extent. Yes, you damned well should be able to defend yourself, but you should also be held responsible for your actions.

What does this even mean?
Should I be prosecuted for protecting my life?
Is there ANY reason a stranger should be in home, against my will, with out my permission and be allowed to live?




Again, rights go hand in hand with responsibility.

Ahh, but we're not talking about responsibility. We're talking about legislation aimed at diminishing those rights.
Responsibility is what a person practices.
These laws are aimed at forcing people, even those that shouldn't fall under those restrictions, to give up their right to act responsibly and conform to what a few see as means to control what they perceive as evil.


Ya know...for two guys who weren't gonna beat a dead issue, we (at least I ) sure are having a lot of fun debating just those points.

:bigsmile:

[CULPRITE_INC]

i beive that they cant control illegal guns, so there trying to make legal ones harder to geet, witch makes no fucking sense. you say protect the kids, education, and proper storage, where lil ones cant get is all you need.

[gigman]

:roflmao:
Until the next random act of retardation. Then we can legislate that problem away too.

It's so amazing how every time someone does something stupid, our socialist congress think we need a new law. Maybe instead of lawing their way around the real issues, let's try educating our way to a real solution.

[gigman]

Anti-Gun Group Shows Why
The American Way Is Better, As U.S. Firearm Production Soars

Anyone who traveled behind the Iron Curtain back in those days probably didn't have to look very hard to find groups of "workers" sitting around doing pretty much nothing, except collecting a taxpayer-funded government paycheck.

The American way is better. Anti-gun group employees can still sit around doing pretty much nothing and collect a paycheck, but the money -- lots of it -- comes from donations, from foundations and individuals who share their ideals. While the rest of us have to contend with anything tangible they might produce, at least we don't have to pay for it, most of the time.

Take the latest from the so-called Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV), a handful of gun-hater lawyers operating out of an office in San Francisco, California. Mimicking the Brady Campaign -- probably not a good business plan, given that Brady Campaign is not exactly a thriving enterprise these days -- LCAV is now ranking the states according to how "strong" their gun laws are.

[gigman]

These dumb asses.

EPA Denies Ammo Ban Petition


Responding to a grassroots outcry from gun owners, the Environmental Protection Agency today announced that it has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and other radical groups that had sought to ban the use of lead in ammunition.

Agreeing with the position of the NRA and the firearms industry, the agency explained in a news release that it "does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)." Further crushing the hopes of anti-gun and anti-hunting activists, the release added: "nor is the agency seeking such authority."

[4nik8]

I've often wondered, how is something FROM the Earth gonna POLLUTE the Earth?

In high enough concentrations, yes.
But, that's usually at gun ranges and the like where things are kept up anyway.

[Stormcrow]

Because "Pollute The Earth" is a misnomer. Just like "Save The Wales". Nobody gives a shit about the rock, or the blubber sack. It's all about the over exposure of HUMANS to toxic elements like heavy metals (like lead), and protecting the ecosystem the HUMANS rely on to thrive.


Besides, by your thinking NOTHING could pollute the Earth, really.

[4nik8]

Besides, by your thinking NOTHING could pollute the Earth, really.

This isn't quite true, Storm.

Loads of materials, in high enough quantity and toxicity, have that potential.
Bullets, in my opinion, haven't.

Especially since, as I said, in areas of high use/concentration, where the potential for a substantial enough concentration can be had, they are policed (looked after).

Letting a kid play with toys from China is exposing them to a higher risk than allowing them play outside.

[Stormcrow]

You missed my point entirely. I was commenting directly on your statement about pollution. Nothing more.

[4nik8]

You missed my point entirely. I was commenting directly on your statement about pollution. Nothing more.

No, no.

I got your first point. That's why I left it out of the quote. I agree with THAT part completely.

[Stormcrow]

Well see, I don't think you're looking at it right then. Bullets are LEAD. Just imagine what a bullets worth of it could do to a person, especially if it happened to be lodged in their heart. I mean, the whole bloodstream could be contaminated. Person would have real issues then.

[gigman]

Well see, I don't think you're looking at it right then. Bullets are LEAD. Just imagine what a bullets worth of it could do to a person, especially if it happened to be lodged in their heart. I mean, the whole bloodstream could be contaminated. Person would have real issues then.

Usually if a bullet hits the heart, especially one from my gun, you ain't going to have to worry about contamination.:xd:

Now that comment Storm was just down right silly.

[Stormcrow]

Usually if a bullet hits the heart, especially one from my gun, you ain't going to have to worry about contamination.:xd:

Now that comment Storm was just down right silly.



:blink:

You KNOW you're too hung up on a topic when you cannot recognize such an OBVIOUS joke.

[4nik8]

Well see, I don't think you're looking at it right then. Bullets are LEAD. Just imagine what a bullets worth of it could do to a person, especially if it happened to be lodged in their heart. I mean, the whole bloodstream could be contaminated. Person would have real issues then.

Damn those people that caused the kudos system to be redone.

Damn them to HELL!










































I chuckled at that.

[gigman]

:blink:

You KNOW you're too hung up on a topic when you cannot recognize such an OBVIOUS joke.

I never know about you though. If someone else would have said it I probably would have seen it as a joke.:neutral:

[Canis]

It's really hard to tell when someone is joking or not....unless they put little smilies or something. I mean.....What I might consider a joke, someone else may be dead serious about it.

[Stormcrow]

I never know about you though. If someone else would have said it I probably would have seen it as a joke.:neutral:

It's really hard to tell when someone is joking or not....unless they put little smilies or something. I mean.....What I might consider a joke, someone else may be dead serious about it.

Yeah, but guys! A bullet in the heart, and you REALLY think I'd consider LEAD POISONING to be the major point of concern?!?!?!

Give me SOME credit here. :headslap:

[gigman]

Yeah, but guys! A bullet in the heart, and you REALLY think I'd consider LEAD POISONING to be the major point of concern?!?!?!

Give me SOME credit here. :headslap:

I'm just so used to your split personalities that I don't know which one I'm talking to. :tongue:

[Stormcrow]

I'm just so used to your split personalities that I don't know which one I'm talking to. :tongue:

Now who's being silly?

[gigman]

State Department Squirms
On Garand And Carbine Imports

A lot of things have changed in the federal government since President Harry S. Truman put his famous "the buck stops here" sign on his desk. This week, Fox News reported that it couldn't get a straight answer from the State Department about its decision in March to disapprove the importation of more than 800,000 M1 Garand rifles and M1 carbines from South Korea .

According to Fox, the State Department claimed that the rifles might be used "for illicit purposes." But when asked to explain, State passed the buck to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which passed it to the Department of Justice, which passed it back to State.

The anti-gun Brady Campaign didn't hesitate to give Fox an answer, however. "Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," the group's Dennis Henigan told reporter Maxim Lott.

This really pisses me off. Those guns are collectors items and belong back in the USA. Those people really suck balls.:neutral:

[CULPRITE_INC]

i would love a fucking m1 a1 carbine

[4nik8]

State Department Squirms
On Garand And Carbine Imports

A lot of things have changed in the federal government since President Harry S. Truman put his famous "the buck stops here" sign on his desk. This week, Fox News reported that it couldn't get a straight answer from the State Department about its decision in March to disapprove the importation of more than 800,000 M1 Garand rifles and M1 carbines from South Korea .

According to Fox, the State Department claimed that the rifles might be used "for illicit purposes." But when asked to explain, State passed the buck to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which passed it to the Department of Justice, which passed it back to State.

The anti-gun Brady Campaign didn't hesitate to give Fox an answer, however. "Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," the group's Dennis Henigan told reporter Maxim Lott.

This really pisses me off. Those guns are collectors items and belong back in the USA. Those people really suck balls.:neutral:

If anyone buys that excuse as a REAL reason, they need their head checked.

[CULPRITE_INC]

dude the two guns in question are relics of a by gone era they were used to defeat the nazi armie, selling a browning automatic rifle, that i can understand(still wouldnt mind having one) but the carbine and what not are not nearly as reckless of a gun

[gigman]

Now for an update on the lead ammo issue.

EPA Rejects Lead Ammo Ban Petition, But Anglers Aren't Off the Hook:

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a press release August 27th announcing that it had rejected a petition filed by radical environmental groups to have lead ammunition banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Center for Biological Diversity and others attempted to make a case that language in the Act exempting shells and cartridges did not prevent the agency from regulating lead or other components of ammunition. EPA rejected that interpretation, but left open the second part of the petition that demands a ban on lead fishing tackle. There is no exemption in the Act protecting lead fishing tackle.

[gigman]

If anyone buys that excuse as a REAL reason, they need their head checked.

The funny thing is we already sell guns in the country with large capacity clips. AND the M-! Garand only holds 6. It doesn't have a clip. Them stupid bastards.:neutral:

[4nik8]

THAT'S what I was gettin at, gig.

[gigman]

Bloomberg Further Disgraces Himself In Latest Anti-Gun Pitch


No one in this country knows better than New Yorkers what "devastation" looks like. On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center buildings and their surrounding area were reduced to rubble, burying nearly 3,000 Americans. To this day, the images are difficult to comprehend; they show a concentration of man-made destruction unprecedented in the United States and perhaps anywhere on Earth.

New York 's current murder rate pales in comparison to that of 2001, of course. But it also pales in comparison to what it was in other years gone by. Due in part to crime-fighting programs adopted under former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, New York City 's murder rate is only a fifth of what it was 20 years ago.

Presumably, New Yorkers are well aware of the relative safety in which they live today. However, the current mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has a skewed perspective even though the September 11 anniversary is front and center in every news outlet today due to other controversies.

[gigman]

NRA Challenges Constitutionality Of Federal Handgun Ban For Law Abiding 18-20 Year-Olds: The NRA is challenging federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans 18-20 years of age from legally purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The case was filed Tuesday evening in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division. James D'Cruz of Lubbock , TX is the plaintiff in this case. The case is D'Cruz v. BATFE.

[gigman]

Members of Congress to Clinton:
Revisit Decision on M1 Rifles and M1 Carbines

U.S. senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle are urging Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to revisit the State Department's March 2010 decision disallowing the importation of M1 rifles and M1 carbines from South Korea .

In a letter to Secretary Clinton, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and 15 other senators state that the importation disapproval "amounts to no more than a backdoor gun ban that lacks any basis or justification under current Federal law and policy" and "violates law-abiding citizens' constitutional right, protected under the Second Amendment, to purchase these firearms for legitimate purposes such as target shooting, hunting, collecting, and self-protection."

The senators question the department's opinion that the rifles "could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," and request from Secretary Clinton "an explanation of your reasons for blocking the importation and sale of American-made rifles from South Korea ."

[gigman]

‎"Carrying a gun is not supposed to be comfortable, it's supposed to be comforting."

[Zaros]

http://www.arthursclipart.org/southafrica/mammals/wildebeest%20black%20gnu.gif

[gigman]

http://www.arthursclipart.org/southafrica/mammals/wildebeest%20black%20gnu.gif

Whatever that was supposed to mean.:neutral:

[Zaros]

http://www.arthursclipart.org/southafrica/mammals/wildebeest%20black%20gnu.gif

Whatever that was supposed to mean.:neutral:

The original poster asked for our favourite pictures of gnus So I posted one of Herb.
OH SHIT! It says GUNS. Phuqin dyslexia aint no joke you know!:squigglemouth:

[4nik8]

hahaha...

[gigman]

The gun that is with you is better than the one at home in the safe.

[gigman]

A gas station clerk was working the register when a man walked in and confronted him. He handed him a note with the words, 'Money now' inscribed on it and demanded that the safe be opened. The clerk ran from the store and attempted to call the police but the assailant quickly caught up with him. The suspect savagely beat the clerk even though he had already broken his nose. That's when a man driving by witnessed the assault and ran to the man's aid. "The good Samaritan...pulled out a gun to threaten the robber," said Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood. "He is license to carry a concealed weapon. I applauded the Good Samaritan for getting involved." The robber fled but was arrested because the witness wrote down his license plate number. (Delaware County Times, Primos, Pa ,8/19/10

[4nik8]

Shame the good samaritan wasn't nervous and accidentally shot the robber..

:xd:

[gigman]

ELECTION 2010 RECAP:
Gun Owners' Rights To Be Strengthened In Next Congress!

Election Day 2010 was a great day for the Second Amendment and NRA members, and positions us well for our future defense, and advancement, of the Second Amendment! The most important fact about Tuesday's elections for gun owners is how many more pro-gun lawmakers we will have in the next legislative session and how many fewer anti-gun lawmakers there will be. Here are some highlights from Tuesday's contests:

U.S. Senate

* 19 of NRA-PVF's 25 endorsed U.S. Senate candidates won. This marks a pro-gun upgrade of eight Senate seats.
* In the 111th Congress, there were 43 A-rated and 34 F-rated Senators. The 112th Congress will contain 50 A-rated (+7) and 33 F-rated Senators (-1).
* There will be 12 pro-gun Senate freshmen.

[gigman]

Vol. 17, No. 45 11/12/10
DOJ Inspector General Proposes Multiple Sales Reports On Long Guns


As we noted in the Sept. 24, 2010 Grassroots Alert, a draft report prepared by the Justice Department Inspector General had called into question the BATFE’s mega-million-dollar Project Gunrunner program. Established in 2007, this program sought to expand the agency’s firearm tracing operation, relative to the still uncertain amount of smuggling of firearms from the United States to Mexico. This week, the report appeared in final form.



Like the draft, the final report notes that despite Project Gunrunner’s lavish funding, the program suffers because the BATFE fails to coordinate with its own people, with those of the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and with Mexican officials.



“We also found no routine sharing of firearms trafficking-related information and techniques between ATF intelligence personnel in Southwest border locations and in the ATF Mexico Country Office,” the report says. “ATF and ICE do not work together effectively on investigations of firearms trafficking to Mexico. . . . ATF does not systematically and consistently exchange intelligence with its Mexican and some U.S. partner agencies.”

[4nik8]

That's funny.

These guys have jobs to do...and they're NOT the ones we're told.
My cousin is a member of ICE.

You'd shit at some of the stories he tells me.

Illegals? Leave 'em the fuck alone.....

[gigman]

Isn't this just a bite in the ass!!!!

Vol. 17, No. 46 11/19/10
NRA Strongly Opposes The Nomination Of Andrew Traver to Head BATFE

Calls On President Obama To Withdraw The Nomination

The NRA strongly opposes President Obama’s nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers. Further, an important nomination such as BATFE director should not be made as a “recess appointment,” in order to circumvent consent by the American people through their duly elected U.S. Senators.

Traver served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police’s (IACP) “Gun Violence Reduction Project,” a “partnership” with the Joyce Foundation. Both IACP and the Joyce Foundation are names synonymous with promoting a variety of gun control schemes at the federal and state levels. Most of the individuals involved in this project were prominent gun control activists and lobbyists.

[ozzman62]

Just what you need , A Rat in the wheat silo .

[4nik8]

Does this appointment really surprise you?

The net is having new restrictions being placed on it to shut down sites without due process.

SS benefits have been denied an increase for the last 2 years because "there's no inflation".

Obama care shoved down people's throats.

Talk of ANOTHER tax, much like flat tax but will NOT replace a sales tax, being put into place.

And now an appointment to try and make gun ownership harder.


It's gotta be baby steps to break us and make it where the people can't do what is said in the constitution.

make it a gov't for and by the people...through revolt if necessary.


*Obviously that's not a complete list of the shite that's happening...just a quick shot at what is pertinent.
Make the avg person broke, control information (even if it's just in it's infancy) and limit the ability to over throw the gov't through any means necessary.

[gigman]

Does this appointment really surprise you?

The net is having new restrictions being placed on it to shut down sites without due process.

SS benefits have been denied an increase for the last 2 years because "there's no inflation".

Obama care shoved down people's throats.

Talk of ANOTHER tax, much like flat tax but will NOT replace a sales tax, being put into place.

And now an appointment to try and make gun ownership harder.


It's gotta be baby steps to break us and make it where the people can't do what is said in the constitution.

make it a gov't for and by the people...through revolt if necessary.


*Obviously that's not a complete list of the shit that's happening...just a quick shot at what is pertinent.
Make the avg person broke, control information (even if it's just in it's infancy) and limit the ability to over throw the gov't through any means necessary.

It reminds me of the book I'm reading now, 'The Thor Conspiracy.' The author hit the nail on tha head. Even though it's supposed to be a fiction, it's actually very possible.

[gigman]

Amtrak Prepares For Guns In Checked Bags

Railroad passengers on Amtrak should soon be able to once again transport firearms in checked baggage. The change is slated to begin on Dec. 15, the effective date of the amendment by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., that forced Amtrak to accommodate gun owners. The new service will only be available between stations where checked baggage service is currently available.

As when transporting guns on a commercial airline flight, gun owners should pack firearms unloaded and in a locked, hard-sided container. Ammunition should be stored in a manufacturer's box or in "fiber, wood, or metal boxes … or in other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition." Unlike airlines, Amtrak also requires handgun cases to be stored inside a suitcase or other checked bag.

[poohdog]

I had my share of guns donkeys years ago...got my first firearms certificate at 17.It wasn't so hard in those days before the IRA kicked off and everything tightened up.
Nowadays over here since the schoolkids slaughter at Dunblane (16 kids 1 teacher killed) It's illegal to own a handgun or multi action shotgun.This happened years after I stopped using them, otherwise I wouldn't have been happy surrendering my guns.

At 18 I had the first .357 in Nottinghamshire...a Ruger Blackhawk single action..a S&W Police positive 38 revolver sleeved down to .22...a Browning 'target'.22 automatic and a Stevens/Savage 12 bore 5 shot with choke ....All now illegal over here.

[LEFT]

tiz thuh seezun...

[gigman]

I had my share of guns donkeys years ago...got my first firearms certificate at 17.It wasn't so hard in those days before the IRA kicked off and everything tightened up.
Nowadays over here since the schoolkids slaughter at Dunblane (16 kids 1 teacher killed) It's illegal to own a handgun or multi action shotgun.This happened years after I stopped using them, otherwise I wouldn't have been happy surrendering my guns.

At 18 I had the first .357 in Nottinghamshire...a Ruger Blackhawk single action..a S&W Police positive 38 revolver sleeved down to .22...a Browning 'target'.22 automatic and a Stevens/Savage 12 bore 5 shot with choke ....All now illegal over here.

I didn't know them commie bastards in your country let anyone have guns.:neutral:

[poohdog]

I didn't know them commie bastards in your country let anyone have guns.:neutral:

Cops have got plenty and over here are expert at blasting the crap out of anybody with a water pistol...One guy had a table leg in a supermarket bag and got killed by a trigger happy 'marksman' :squigglemouth: The cop was found to be innocent naturally.

[gigman]

Cops have got plenty and over here are expert at blasting the crap out of anybody with a water pistol...One guy had a table leg in a supermarket bag and got killed by a trigger happy 'marksman' :squigglemouth: The cop was found to be innocent naturally.

What a shame.
With the growing amount of terrorist in our countries, men need to be able to have a fighting chance it the moment presents itself. But some government want defenseless people that way they have to totally rely on government for the answers. That's the kind of regime we have in our congress right now. Socialism at its best.:neutral:

[4nik8]

:panic:

[gigman]

NRA University--

Coming To Your Campus This Spring?


In an effort to educate the next generation of gun rights advocates on exercising and maintaining their constitutionally-guaranteed Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the NRA has developed a comprehensive program for college students called “NRA University”-- NRA U for short.



NRA U is a two-hour training seminar for college students interested in learning more about NRA, the Second Amendment, gun safety, legislative threats to gun rights and the gun control debate. NRA-ILA staff will travel to a college campus and provide seminar attendees with the tools they’ll need to become more effective activists in the fight to protect our freedom, both on and off campus.

Staff will address the myths of gun control, covering topics such as the history of the Second Amendment and the use of guns for self-defense, and provide the NRA’s solutions to reducing gun crime and accidents.

Law-Abiding, Honor Roll High School Student Faces Expulsion--Support from NRA members needed! Demari DeRue is a 16-year-old junior at Columbia Falls High School in Columbia Falls, Montana. She is an honor roll student, a cheerleader and a hunter. On Monday, December 13th, she faces expulsion from school because, after a recent weekend family hunting trip, she inadvertently left her unloaded and secured hunting rifle locked in her trunk, and then drove to school Monday morning and parked on school property.

[Stormcrow]

Pew pew pew!!!! Gunz is teh kewlness!!!

[4nik8]

Pew pew pew!!!! Gunz is teh kewlness!!!

You'll pay for that.


:xd:

[gigman]

Pew pew pew!!!! Gunz is teh kewlness!!!

This is coming from a guy that plays with Star Wars figures.:neutral:

[Stormcrow]

This is coming from a guy that plays with Star Wars figures.:neutral:

Correction. I sculpt replica props from Star Wars & other Sci-Fi films & shows. If your gonna bust on my geekiness, get it RIGHT dammit!

[gigman]

Correction. I sculpt replica props from Star Wars & other Sci-Fi films & shows. If your gonna bust on my geekiness, get it RIGHT dammit!

Ohhhh, Ok. You play with Star Wars STUFF.:wink:

[Stormcrow]

Ohhhh, Ok. You play with Star Wars STUFF.:wink:

THANK you!

[gigman]

Communism at it's best!!! Fuckers!!!

Vol. 17, No. 50 12/17/10
BATFE Requests “Emergency” Authority To Track Semi-Automatic Rifle Sales

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has proposed that it be given emergency authority for six months, beginning January 5, to require about 8,500 firearms dealers along the border with Mexico “to alert authorities when they sell within five consecutive business days two or more semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines.” A Washington Post story reporting on the BATFE proposal described that definition as being applicable to “so-called assault weapons,” but it would also apply to many rifles that have never been labeled with that term.

The reporting requirement will apparently be imposed under the “authority” the BATFE has used in the past to demand reporting of other types of transactions from certain limited groups of dealers over the past 10 years, but the new proposal is far broader than any previous use of this authority. Of course, there's no law today that prevents dealers from reporting suspicious transactions (or attempted transactions) to the BATFE, and dealers often do so. The BATFE is also free to inspect dealers' sales records—either for annual compliance inspections or during a criminal investigation.

[Deems]

HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2010
___________________________________


Scenario 1:


Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.


1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.


2010 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
___________________________________


Scenario 2:


Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.


1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies


2010 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault, get criminal records and both expelled even though Johnny started it.
___________________________________


Scenario 3:


Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.


1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.


2010 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD The family gets extra money (SSI) from the government because Jeffrey has a "disability."
___________________________________


Scenario 4:


Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.


1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.


2010 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison.. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.


___________________________________


Scenario 5:


Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school...


1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock


2010 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons..
___________________________________


Scenario 6:


Pedro fails high school English.


1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.


2010 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
___________________________________


Scenario 7:


Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.


1957 - Ants die.


2010 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
___________________________________


Scenario 8:


Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.


1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.


2010 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
___________________________________

[gigman]

HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2010
___________________________________


Scenario 1:


Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.


1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.


2010 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
___________________________________


Scenario 2:


Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.


1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies


2010 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault, get criminal records and both expelled even though Johnny started it.
___________________________________


Scenario 3:


Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.


1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.


2010 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD The family gets extra money (SSI) from the government because Jeffrey has a "disability."
___________________________________


Scenario 4:


Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.


1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.


2010 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison.. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.


___________________________________


Scenario 5:


Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school...


1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock


2010 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons..
___________________________________


Scenario 6:


Pedro fails high school English.


1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.


2010 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
___________________________________


Scenario 7:


Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.


1957 - Ants die.


2010 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
___________________________________


Scenario 8:


Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.


1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.


2010 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
___________________________________
KUDOS SWEETHEART.

[Laney]

...

[Laney]

I found this interesting...

"The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either... The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental."

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

3. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

4. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'

5. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my shotgun.'

6. Beware the man who only carries one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!' To which I said, of course it is loaded, it can't work without bullets!' She then asked, 'Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?' My reply was, “No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too”.


sorry if i interrupted important stuff...:smile:

[gigman]

I found this interesting...

"The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either... The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental."

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

3. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.[

4. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'

5. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my shotgun.'

6. Beware the man who only carries one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!' To which I said, of course it is loaded, it can't work without bullets!' She then asked, 'Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?' My reply was, “No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too”.


sorry if i interrupted important stuff...:smile:

I love that one Laney.


Vol. 18, No. 1 01/07/10
BATFE Request To Track
Semi-Automatic Rifle Sales Delayed


As we reported on December 17, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has proposed that it be given emergency authority for six months to require about 8,500 firearm dealers along the border with Mexico "to alert authorities when they sell within five consecutive business days two or more semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines." A Washington Post story reporting on the BATFE proposal described that definition as being applicable to "so-called assault weapons," but it would also apply to many rifles that have never been labeled with that term. The rule change was to have started this week, but has been delayed by the White House.

According to an article on TheUSDaily.com, the White House Office of Management and Budget was expected to approve the rule change on Wednesday, but an official told Reuters that "ATF's information collection request is still under review," and declined further comment until the "deliberative phase is concluded."

NRA Strongly Opposes Obama's Re-nomination Of Anti-Gun-Leaning Andrew Traver To Head BATFE: This week, President Obama re-nominated Andrew Traver to be director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Obama first nominated Traver on November 17, 2010, but the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act on his nomination.

[Laney]

ouch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZT6q0KHZP0

[4nik8]

There's nothing like the sight of a tough guy, shaking like a leaf, sweat beading on his forehead, and a puddle of piss growing around his feet...all brought on by the surprise of a meek, mild, timid old lady pointing a larger caliber weapon at the center of his forehead....smiling in a way that lets the punk know she means business....

I'll never bum rush ma ever again.

:xd:

[gigman]

Tucson Tragedy Prompts Renewed Calls For Gun Control


This week, the NRA and countless Americans offered prayers and condolences for those killed and wounded during the senseless assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Yet while those of us who defend the Second Amendment were respecting the heartache of the people of Tucson and waiting to learn the full facts of the case, anti-gun activists were renewing their push for more gun control laws. ("In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly," the Violence Policy Center 's Kristen Rand told MSNBC.)

Rand and other gun ban advocates were quick to push several schemes.

The most widely publicized is the proposal by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) to re-impose the 1994 ban on new manufacture of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and to criminalize the transfer of existing magazines between law-abiding gun owners. These magazines are standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding private citizens choose them for many reasons, including the same reason police officers do: to improve their odds in defensive situations.

Also, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) proposed to ban possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or federal judges. Obviously, this proposal would be ignored by anyone who intends to harm a government official. But it would impose extraordinary burdens on honest gun owners, creating potentially hundreds of square miles of roving "gun free" areas throughout the United States .
There's no question that the debate over gun control will continue after the Tucson attack. Please rest assured that the NRA will, as always, stand front and center in defense of the rights of gun owners. And, as always, watch your NRA-ILA alerts for the latest news and calls to action on these critical issues.

[4nik8]

Control the mentally ill...

how about reversing what Reagan did to funding for mental institutions?

[Laney]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=OQnU1t7UzgM

[4nik8]

I lubs my ability to tote a bang stick...

it keeps the creepier folks at bay.

[Laney]

I thought this might be of interest to you...
The world's largest army...America 's hunters!
I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:


There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .

Allow me to restate that number.

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran .

More than in France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.


Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

Food for thought when next we consider gun control.

[CULPRITE_INC]

HMMPT
awesome