Author Topic: The right of the people to keep and bear arms... (Read 4272 times)

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #60 on:** February 24, 2013, 12:01:19 PM »

Jim, you are a sad person. I'm very sorry for you. I hope you get better and I hope you can disconnect yourself what ever it is that troubles you. You keep referring to my law enforcement carrer, saying you understand why I'm no longer there, if I ever was. You've said that 4 times. That is so sad for you. I will attempt to enlighten you, but I suspect you have had an "encouter" with law enforcement that left you bitter against anyone associated with the cops. I've seen that so many times.
But here's a candid description of my carreer. I started in 1970 as a Trooper. During that period, I received no discinplinary actions or warnings. In fact, commendations were several. In 1980, I was promoted to Special Agent, then Senior Special Agent working homicides, arson, robbery, rape. I was the first ever member of my department to make Senior Special Agent. After a few years experiecne and schooling, I became a specialist in crime scene forensics, polygraph, interrogation, bomb disposal, auto theft. I've solved no few murders, and the state prison houses several inmates yet today that I put there. In 1990 I was promoted to Sergeant and spent the remainder of my career in the Internal Affairs Section, working directly for the Superindentant. Never, not once, not ever, did my actions bring anything but praise and advancement. I was the "go to" person for advice. I retired after 32 years due to age and illness.
Now, you can take that as bragging if you want. I don't care. But you pushed me into it by bringing up that same old whiny complaint.
Your issues are deep-seated and probably irreversible. If you're baiting me to quit the forum, to say something bad enough you can do your little thing as a useless moderator, it won't work. I have other reasons to leave. You are not significant enough to mean anything to me; you flatter yourself to think otherwise.
Here's a personal challenge. Leave me alone. Find it in yourself to be a bigger man. It's obvious that whatever I post that's not in keeping with your opinion, you take personally, but please keep in mind that you and I will never ever have a personal relationship. You are not somebody I would want to know.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #61 on:** February 24, 2013, 12:13:44 PM »

This seems to be going personal. As author of OP I kinda like to see y'all take it to PM.

Useless moderater that I am!

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #62 on:** February 24, 2013, 01:08:34 PM »

Oldshooter, I did not mean any disrespect toward you. Forgive me if you were offended. Look for a new thread and my departure, which is in no way related to the rants of Jim. He's an idiot. He doesn't have the sense to take himself to the toilet. There, I said enough to get me banned. But if I can have a few more minutes to post my real reasons, I would appreciate it.

Deadeye63 · « **Reply #63 on:** February 24, 2013, 01:45:36 PM »

I`m sensing dissension among the ranks of fellow gun owners. Too bad.....Last thing we need is to show we cant even be civil amongst our peer`s....tisk,tisk,tisk.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #64 on:** February 24, 2013, 02:51:40 PM »

Quote from: Mike in Virginia on February 24, 2013, 01:08:34 PM

Oldshooter, I did not mean any disrespect toward you. Forgive me if you were offended. Look for a new thread and my departure, which is in no way related to the rants of Jim. He's an idiot. He doesn't have the sense to take himself to the toilet. There, I said enough to get me banned. But if I can have a few more minutes to post my real reasons, I would appreciate it.

Gonna say this here so you get it, you're not banned by me and I dont wanna see you banned. Its just a problem you and Jim are having so I just ask that it go to Private message. as the poster said its a poor time for decension amongst the Militia so to speak.

JonnyReb · « **Reply #65 on:** February 24, 2013, 04:23:09 PM »

Quote from: Oldshooter on February 24, 2013, 02:51:40 PM

Gonna say this here so you get it, you're not banned by me and I dont wanna see you banned. Its just a problem you and Jim are having so I just ask that it go to Private message. as the poster said its a poor time for decension amongst the Militia so to speak.

None of my business but darned well said and handled Sir, if I may say so myself.
Jeff

steelshooter · « **Reply #66 on:** February 24, 2013, 07:17:36 PM »

Quote from: Oldshooter on February 13, 2013, 05:21:17 PM

Second amendment states- 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.

Shouldn't that include full auto "assault weapons" ( I use that term only because the anti gun lobby would) After all, the enemies of the free state, whether foreign or domestic will certainly have them. Since the S.A. was to ensure the capability of combating such aggression which would challenge the free states security, it only seems logical that the founding fathers expected the arms "we" carry to be equivalent to what the militia might face. Right? You guys with law degrees feel free to weigh in. as well as you arm chair attorneys.

Wouldn't this be an argument the Supreme Court should hear in the event the celebrity in chief Dictates proposed gun legislation.

[size=78%]The second amendment does not mention firearms or any other type of arms with good reason, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They did not specify the types of arms because they knew the despots would attempt to control ALL arms, and they have done so. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They did not exclude any weapon from the peoples armory. Boiling oil, boiling water, boomerangs, crossbows and arrows, pits, maces, clubs, swords, knives, ship mines, landmines, snares, deadfalls, Tazers, tear gas, three ball bolas, whips, catapults, battering rams, war hammers, microwave, high frequency sound, rock and roll, Rap music, fighter jets, air to air missiles, ground to air rockets, miniature armed drones, etc., etc., etc.. Simply put, the second amendment recognized the right of the people to self defense by any means possible, without exception. They did not specify because they knew they weren't able to imagine the arms of the future. [/size]
But let's suppose they had said "the right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed" Would the gun grabbers insist that our defense forces be armed with muskets? That is the reason there is no mention of specific arms, it is the right of the individual to choose what arms he wishes to bear in order to defend himself.

bulletstuffer · « **Reply #67 on:** February 25, 2013, 01:53:06 AM »

Now that makes some sense!

Thank you,

Bulletstuffer

Oldshooter · « **Reply #68 on:** February 25, 2013, 02:08:16 AM »

Yea!! What he said, I'm gonna get me a mace and some boiling oil when they come for my musket.

Seriously, Thanks for the post. for your first post that was a doozey.

Deadeye63 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 25, 2013, 06:19:04 AM »

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((steelshooter))))))))))))))))))))))))))).......WELCOME! Thats a mighty fine exercise of the 1st explaining our 2nd. Well done my friend.

dpastordan · « **Reply #70 on:** February 25, 2013, 08:05:45 AM »

The second amendment just reaffirms the natural right of a person to defend self that existed before the formation of government. Government is just a social contract between people. In some instances a few strong-willed persons force their form of government on other, weaker folks. The founding fathers knew man's nature was such that checks and balances were needed to stand against tyranny. They intentionally did not specify "arms" for good reason - 'arms' have changed from clubs to spears to muskets and now to the wonderful variety we have today. It is interesting that Switzerland mandates that all who are eligible for military service keep arms at home - to include fully auto.
I personally believe the control laws of the 1930's and the 1960's are unconstitutional. And they did not really solve any problems. Though I can't buy a full auto firearm, the drug dealers and gangsters don't seem to have a problem getting their hands on 'em.
The bottom line of the current resident of the office of the president is this - he wants to make us all victims dependent upon the govt. Confiscate all arms and the criminals will have a field day (like in the U.K.). We will become injured or killed. The survivors will beg for help from the govt (our new lords and masters) who in turn will dole out a few perks to us serfs to shut us up and keep us in check. Feudalism is back! (Or we can just organize a million armed man march on DC and throw all the bums out at gun point.)

Oldshooter · « **Reply #71 on:** February 25, 2013, 12:54:25 PM »

Some people get it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=evEg1VNfX3o&NR=1

1marty · « **Reply #72 on:** February 25, 2013, 01:46:24 PM »

I sent one of those NRA emails to all my uber liberal representitives in NY. This is the reply I got from Chucky Schumer. Sounds like he's one of us now??
Thank you for writing to voice your opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban. Like you, I believe that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court decisions reinforced this fact, but I believed that this was the case prior to those decisions.
While the right to bear arms is enshrined by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that we have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance. I have long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, I proposed S. 436, the Fix Gun Checks Act to provide more funding to states to compile required background data for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This legislation builds on the National Rifle Association-supported NICS Improvements Amendment Act, passed by Congress in 2007. Ensuring that this information is comprehensive and up to date will protect law enforcement from criminals with illegally obtained weapons while speeding up the process for law abiding citizens. You may also be pleased to know that I have successfully fought to create new opportunities for gun owners to exercise their right to use guns. For example, in the 109th Congress, I secured federal money to expand the scarce hunting grounds in New York State by creating a financial incentive for private landowners to allow hunters access to their property. Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #73 on:** February 25, 2013, 02:10:34 PM »

as with all liberals he has mastered talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. Do not listen to what he says, watch what he does.

1marty · « **Reply #74 on:** February 25, 2013, 02:43:47 PM »

If, anyone believes this jerk chucky he needs his head examined.

steelshooter · « **Reply #75 on:** February 25, 2013, 10:31:20 PM »

Quote from: 1marty on February 25, 2013, 02:43:47 PM

If, anyone believes this jerk chucky he needs his head examined.

OK everyone, please share the number of times that you have heard an actual criminal admit that a NICS check has prevented him from obtaining a firearm or weapon and committing a crime. I'll go first. Hmmm, Uhhhh, Well, Ahhhhh. OK, give me a month or two.

tom548 · « **Reply #76 on:** February 26, 2013, 04:26:52 AM »

The first time I got that letter from Schumer, I sent a second letter with a copy of the 2ND Amendment in it The went on to explain how well it had been written in simple words that even an uneducated person could understand. Then I asked how come so many politician can not under such simple sentence? I got the same reply again no one is reading past the first sentence, but keep writing.

DDZ · « **Reply #77 on:** February 26, 2013, 11:57:40 AM »

I'd bet a paycheck ole communist Chucky knows exactly what the 2nd Amendment says and means. He's all for a centralized state ruling over us peons, and for that to happen for him and his like. Us peons can't be allowed to own guns. There are anti's that are just plain ignorant. They really don't know the meaning of the 2nd, but you can be assured that any politician that is trying to make laws around the 2nd, knows exactly what it says, and means.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #78 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:52:35 AM »

Mike,

It is strange that at the time the Constitution was written there were not any restrictions on the weapons could possess. Cannon, warship, all okay as long as you could afford them.
I personally would be willing to accept limits on nukes, biological weapons, and lethal chemical weapons. My reasoning is that it is too difficult to control these weapons or to limit the extent of their effect. That is why countries have been so reluctant to use them. To use them against the enemy almost guarantees one's own destruction. I am interested in defending myself and my country not in enetering a mutual suicide pact. It is difficult to use mass weapons in a purely defensive situation. With conventional weapons the effects are much more limited in both space and time. It is possible to use them selectively.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #79 on:** March 05, 2013, 10:09:14 AM »

What we must understand is that the "ruling class" thinks it preposterous that "we the people" might need to keep them in check my means other than "the vote". They are only trying to protect the chirrens by limiting our weapon selection. What in the world would we do without them?

They just wanna be a good gooberment and produce their products, bankruptcy, more government and of course war .............on us if we get outa line.

jhm · « **Reply #80 on:** March 06, 2013, 06:27:53 AM »

Of the 13 yrs. in the pawn business we had several denied to either buy a firearm or to redeem their pawned weapon the majority of them did get to buy or redeem their weapon as the reason they were denied was a unpaid traffic ticket that resulted in a warrent being issued, after taking care of the ticket they were released to go, and the other reason was behind on their child support and a warrent for their arrest being issued, one was from New Mexico and NICS contacted the Chief of police in our town and he came and arrested him, but New Mexico REFUSED to extridite him so he was released, 2 wks. later he came in and was able to redeem his weapon, so I would bet that all of those delayed/denied people are counted as being REFUSED to buy a weapon per. the Govt. Jim

SharonAnne · « **Reply #81 on:** March 06, 2013, 02:51:33 PM »

the politicos know what the 2nd Amendment means and who it is aimed at. That is the exact reason they are against it. Put the 2nd away and they have unopposed control of all the slaves in the USA