Gun Grabbers Wasting No Time After Giffords Shooting

[saddlebum]

Looking at introducing new gun laws as early as next week!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/congress-reacts-dems-propose-gun-restrictions-ban-on-threatening-language-or-symbols/

What is it that the progressives say? "Never waste a good crisis"

[Pat/Rick]

The liberal left will not be wronged. They can do anything, report anything about anybody, smear campaign their agendas through, lie, cheat, and steal, but any tactic they have issue with they scream bloody murder over, and want to pass laws against. The map that palin had on her website is as relevant to this incident as was a slab of corn bread covered in sorghum. Do they really want to push more BS onto the public? Our politicos are running some aspects of our nation directly in violation of our Constitution. Maybe this incident was a watering of the tree of Liberty?  Want my guns? Molon Labe.

[bigbird09]

" exclaimed that “guns kill” and that “those who glamorize gunplay or worship gun ownership do no service to humanity.”"

I couldn't help but lol when I read this, and then get very upset.  Cars kill people but I don't see people screaming to ban them.  I did a project in school and one of the things I put in it was top 10 emergency room visits, and gun related accidents didn't make the list,  but what did was sports like football, baseball, and basketball, as well as a couple other things that people do everyday.  One thing that I don't do is "worship" gun ownership, and I kinda find that very insulting.  We have a right to own guns just like they have a right to express their political "expressions", but some people just have to much of the want to control people for there own good.

[saddlebum]

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
George Washington.

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.”
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions (1787-88).

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788).

“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, The Federalist #46.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776), Jefferson Papers 344 (J. Boyd, ed. 1950).

“The great object is, that every man be armed…Everyone who is able may have a gun…”
Patrick Henry, 3 Elliott Debates 386.

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
Patrick Henry, during Virginia’s ratification convention (1788).

“To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them…”
George Mason, 3 Elliott Debates (on the Constitution) 380.

“The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society.”
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America can not enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
Noah Webster, An Examination Into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution (1787).

[Redhawk1]

Does this mean that they would be in favor of restrictions on Muslims flying?

[saddlebum]

Nope!

[LunaticFringeInc]

Nope!

The founding fathers wanted its citizenry to be as well armed as the nations standing army.  It was a way for the citizenry to ensure their ability to maintain their freedom and keep a government in check that might one day want to test the boundries of law and over step it.

Now dont take this too far and to the extreme.  While our fore fathers were quiet the intelectuals and obviously had a lot of foresight into where they wanted this country to go in the future, I am not sure they ever dreamed when there would be a day and age of Nuclear Weapon, Chemical or Biological Weapons.  So I am kinda thinking they might have a little reservation about me stepping out in the back yard with a six pack of beer and a nuclear armed Minuteman Missle.  On the other hand a citizenry thats comparably as well armed as the average soldier of the nations standing army makes it difficult for a over reaching government to over step its authority unchecked!

[saddlebum]

Yep!

[saddlebum]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"right of the PEOPLE", not militia

Refer to reply #3

[Cheesehead]

I am going to buy a Glock 17 while I can.

Cheese

[Pat/Rick]

anyone in the mood for a differing opinion:

a wacko should not be able to purchase a weapon and clips who'se only useful purpose is to
efficiently kill a maximum amount of people.    he was tackled while he was changing clips.
his intention was to kill even more.

i really enjoyed the member's post quoting washington, the adams boys, the federalist papers, etc.
in their day, the weapon of choice was the musket.  the musket took time to reload.  if i am correct here are the steps:

#1
Pull back on the firing striker so it is in the half-cocked position, exposing the flash pan where the flint spark ignites the shot. Pour a little gun powder directly into the flash pan, then return the striker to the start position, closing the flash pan.
#2
Turn the musket so the barrel is pointing up and the butt of the rifle is resting on the ground for support while loading. Pour the remaining powder from the measurement or cartridge into the end of the musket.
#3
Put a minie ball, a musket ball, into the end of the musket barrel. Place the paper from the cartridge, or the wadding cloth, in the barrel as well.
#4
Pull the rammer, or ramrod, from the insert on the musket. Line up the rammer with the barrel opening and push the rod into the barrel, jamming the minie ball and wadding all down into the musket and packing it in. Return the rammer to its spot on the musket and the weapon is read to fire.

4 time consuming steps. 

washington, adams and jefferson were smart. 
do you think if they are dealing with tec 9s, ar 15s, uzis etc with 40 round mags ; that
they might have seen the need for a bit of control?

Well the military musket at the time was arguably the best technology available at that time. I do not believe their thinking nor reason would change one bit had our technology been available. The control was and is expected to be self control, and not commit vile acts upon your fellow man.  However should we take that point one step further and visit it on the other rights listed in the BOR's, should we only use the power of speech with no amplification or transmission? Should our freedom of the press be limited to the quill pen and the hand press?

[Pat/Rick]

and there's the rub:

the gun lobby and gun proponents only recognize 1/2 of the 2nd amendment.

Militia act of 1792   

[bigbird09]

a wacko should not be able to purchase a weapon and clips who'se only useful purpose is to
efficiently kill a maximum amount of people.    he was tackled while he was changing clips.
his intention was to kill even more.

while yes this guy was a wacko by most everyone everyones standards,  when he went in to purchase the firearm he cleared his FBI background check, which is all you need.  It is a very unfortunet think and honestly I'm sick of listen to all the bs phsyco babble on the news right now.  This morning they had the president guy from the brady champaign on talking about "common sense gun laws" and blah blah,  the only real thing I heard was "I wanna ban guns".  He was also complaining about how the federal government stands on gun laws and says they are limited and have various gray areas,  I think this is they way it needs to stay.  The states should make there own laws according to the populous of their state,  but since 95% of government legislators don't really care about the people only their own agenda we are basically screwed all the way around.

[Pat/Rick]

There's only ONE gun law and it is the God given Right of self defense.

[teddy12b]

do you think if they are dealing with tec 9s, ar 15s, uzis etc with 40 round mags ; that
they might have seen the need for a bit of control?

Believe it or not, the old muzzleloader was the Glock 9mm of it's day.  Don't forget that those things had a bayonett on it almost as long as some people's arms, and it's not like people still didn't go old school with swords back then.  Back in those days they had just won a war with the most modern weapons in history up to that point.  They knew what they were saying and they wrote the constitution to reflect that. 

If you see the armed public as having too much weaponry on them to be regulated by police, maybe the police need to start carrying carbines instead of pistols.  I think that'd be a fair move.

I look at what happened in two scenario’s.  Scenario A is what actually happened.  Some crazy SOB went into an unarmed crowd and killed unarmed men, women, and children.  The only reason he was stopped was because people jumped him when they had the chance.  Or scenario B, imagine what would have happened if Americans were required to carry guns and everyone in that crowd would have been carrying that day.  How many lives would have been saved if half the crowd would have turned and fired immediately?

I have a permit and I don’t carry.  Never have, but this may encourage me to start as I feel some obligation to keep those around me safe.

[GRAMPS 94]

Yesterday I ordered a Ruger GP100 6"  357mag... Why? cause I wanted one. Also. the SP101 2 1/4" that I carry is not much good at any distance. By me anyway. When I am at our cabin up in the woods with our grandkids I need to able to hit a bear or cougar further than 10feet away. The short Ruger is not shootable with a 180gr. 357mag, but the GP100 would handle that or larger at more than 10'. Now I will have something else to practice with and when in the woods I feel I might be able to protect my family. Every time there is a horrible event happen with a gun and it gets blamed on the gun, prices go up and availability goes down. So now is the time to buy.

[teddy12b]

I am going to buy a Glock 17 while I can.

Cheese

I'm also going to look into either a 17 or 19 also.

If I buy one, I'd probably buy a couple of the 33rd mags because I believe we have every right to own them.... for the time being anyway.

[bigbird09]

I have a permit and I don’t carry.  Never have, but this may encourage me to start as I feel some obligation to keep those around me safe.

If I was able to get a permit to carry I would do it everyday, knowing that if something ever did go down, I would be able to protect me and those around me to the best of my ability.

[lakota]

and there's the rub:

the gun lobby and gun proponents only recognize 1/2 of the 2nd amendment.

And the liberal gun grabbers only recognize part of one word in the 2nd Amendment: REGULATEed as in BAN BAN BAN!

[tcencore3006]

Jersey,
Statistics might say that but are these "statistics" referring to those who legally conceal guns?
Politicians and gun haters love to use their stats to lie.

[lakota]

lakota

what's banned?
even from liberal minded nj, it seems like you can get whatever you want whenever you want.

Are you serious? Liberals have attempted to ban(successfully in many cases) and will continue to attempt to ban owning firearms period because they hate freedom and liberty.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
-- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/CA) speaking of her authorship of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on "60 Minutes" 2/5/95

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
-- Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
-- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer (D/NY) on NBC 12/8/93

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-- U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993


"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns..." Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993.

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
--U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93

"With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence."
--U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Washington Post 11/4/93

I'm sure I can find more if you would like

[thxmrgarand]

"Statistics" don't say anything of the kind but the Brady Campaign tells us that we are more likely to hurt ourselves with our own guns than we are likely to defend ourselves and our families.  In fact, I regularly see estimates that law-abiding Americans use guns to protect themselves about 2 million times each year, most often without firing a shot.  And my actual observation is that if the Brady Campaign says it then you can safely conclude that it is not true.

There are two take-aways for thinking Americans to be derived from the Arizona shootings.  First, more law-abiding Americans need to carry their guns at all times.  Second, we need to continue to support the NRA (because if not for the NRA we would see Obama and many other politicians believing that because of this incident, being anti-gun would now propel them to victory in 2012).

No matter what laws are enacted against one type of gun or another, some sort of magazine, specific calibers, or who can legally own or carry guns, miscreants are going to have guns and police are going to arrive at the scene too late to protect anyone during an incident.  Carry your gun at all times, and practice shooting often.  Also, make sure you are active in political campaigns because democracy is not majority rule, it's rule by the majority who show up.

[saddlebum]

thxmrgarand;
I think Arizonans agree with you!

Gun sales skyrocket in Arizona;

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jump-in-arizona-handgun-checks-follow-shootings/

[saddlebum]

No argument that politicians lie, democrat and republican.  They all lie.  There’re people and people will lie when it suites their need.
 
It happens to be a fact that you or someone you domicile with is much more likely to harmed or killed by a gun you keep at home.

Even in the remote possibility that your home is invaded or you witness a Tucson-like shooting and you even know how to use the gun you bought (most people don’t), you are much more likely to shoot yourself, shoot your wife, shoot your child, or shoot an innocent bystander than you are to successfully immobilize the perp.

hunters talk about buck fever; times that by infinity and you will have an idea of what it is like to have another human being in your sights.

You speak for and about yourself, not me!

[lakota]

No argument that politicians lie, democrat and republican.  They all lie.  There’re people and people will lie when it suites their need.
  
It happens to be a fact that you or someone you domicile with is much more likely to harmed or killed by a gun you keep at home.

Even in the remote possibility that your home is invaded or you witness a Tucson-like shooting and you even know how to use the gun you bought (most people don’t), you are much more likely to shoot yourself, shoot your wife, shoot your child, or shoot an innocent bystander than you are to successfully immobilize the perp.

hunters talk about buck fever; times that by infinity and you will have an idea of what it is like to have another human being in your sights with only 2 3/4 lbs of pressure needed to send him to his Maker.

Where's the proof?

[GRAMPS 94]

To JERSEYVINNY,,If you are so set against GUNS, why are you wasting your time on a forum dedicated to people who like guns.

[saddlebum]

saddelbum, i had no intention to offend you or any other member.
if you took it that way, i'm sorry.

vinny

There's no need to apoligize for offending me. You just made a very general and un-substantiated statement/opinion that does not include myself and most other gun owners. But blanket gun regulations or bans don't keep guns out of the hands of those that do shoot themselves in the foot.

For me personally, I have proven myself several times to be responsible enough to defend myself with a gun without even having to fire a shot. So far all the situations I've found myself in where I needed the gun to defend myself, all I needed to do is present it and show a sober determination to use it if necessary. That ended the situation!

There was a dumb college kid I saw on the news the other day. He got drunk with a young woman in his dorm. He wasn't supposed to have a gun in his dorm, but he did. He took out a rifle and "accidentally" shot the girl in the chest. He was stupid and disobeyed the rules. The girl payed with her life and in a way, so will he. No laws or regulations would have prevented a guy that chose to break the rules and act stupidly from doing what he did.

What's that saying?.......''You can't fix stupid"  Especially not with blanket legislation that takes away everyone elses rights in the process!

[saddlebum]

Oh,BTW, vinny.

I see you are a little new here so I thought I'd just mention that some of us are plain spoken and not politically correct. Some of us have strong feelings and we express them that way.......I may be the worst. It's just a forum board and for me, my feelings don't get hurt too easily. I'm more likely to hurt yours. At least that's what some here would say!  

Happy posting!

[bigbird09]

Gramps,
Lakota,
you need proof.  Read the post about the dead girl.
Stupidity with no gun = a fun nite you will relive and laugh about when you are old.
Stupidity with gun = 1 dead girl and 1 boy who after he goes to prison will wish he was dead.

saddlebum,

it's all good!

No it probably just means that he would have beaten her, but hey maybe she would have lived through that, and then had emotional trouble the rest of her life, knowing what he did to her.

[saddlebum]

Stupid, is the problem. Not the gun!

Show me a solution or legislation that fixes stupid and I'll get on board. Will we ban cars from stupid people too. Stupid people in cars kill more than stupid with guns. How do we determine who is too stupid to drive? How will we find and control them?
Ah heck, lets just take everyones car and that will fix it!

This is going nowhere..........I'm done!