Laws involving the second amendment or firearm issues - Page 2

Well....someone has to ride the short bus.......cause "ole SOCIETY frowns on killin off the dumb ones.."

people that stupid---I don't think they know they are voting--they are probably just looking for postage stamps to come out after they pull the handle...



-w

No matter how many times I watch this I am uplifted with the humor...


-w

Sarcasm?

Nice! I almost bought a Sig recently but opted for the Walther PPS for concealed carry. It disappears real easy and is incredibly accurate.

Excellent choice! My Walther P-22 is VERY accurate as well. Mine is the clone to your 9 MM...and carries invisibly inside my waist band, or coat pocket during cooler weather.
Although a .22 cal is 'minimum' in stopping power, it's better than being empty handed... In winter, the .45 is preferred for it's penetrating power through heavier clothing.

I don't understand why they want our guns. The only reasons that make sense to me are nefarious. Charlotte is under a home invasion crime spree it seems lately. If I'm not home my wife is perfectly able to put a criminal out of his misery. I couldn't sleep at night if I knew I didn't have the ability to defend my family. November 2010 can't come fast enough.

which is?

I'll take it you don't vote.

I used to use a Browning and PPK 9mm's for Gov't
work and switched to the P22 when it became
available. I was very impressed by the results
done by Mafiosi that I had investigated on some
consultant jobs for Spec Ops. They used .22's
for lightness and quiet. The P22 with a silencer
makes it so quiet you are actually concerned the
constant CLICKING of the slide during rapid fire is
too loud. Any .22 can have more than MINIMUM
stopping affect if you use stinger LR loads. Those
are the best of the readily purchasable ammo.
Everything else will draw too much attention to YOU.



.

'Stingers' were mentioned but edited out because I was in the process of writing another post.
They're used exclusively for self defense carry in my .22 Walther and for practice at the range.
Flawless reliability and rapid expansion of stingers makes them my favorite for sub-cal defense.
After literally thousands of rounds...none have failed to function and are exceptionally accurate.
When it was purchased in 05' the price was $259...today they're nearly $400!... Democrats!...

just shoot me now so i dont have to explain shoe lace tying and urinal use for the next 50 years...

Question? Why in Arizona do they think that it is a good idea to allow guns into bars?

Why are people worried about losing their guns when the trend of gun laws is exactly the opposite? (example: Letting guns on Amtrak, not renewing the assault gun ban, not letting municpalities have their own gun laws, and Obama not making guns part of his agenda) I remember athe early 90's when the talk was about banning all handguns across the country!

You answered your own question.
Complacency to those that want
to ban freedoms isn't admirable...
It makes you obsequiously submissive.



.

HE HAD A GUN AND NOTHING HAPPENED

By Larry Pratt

From New Hampshire to Arizona, Americans openly carrying firearms have been seen outside presidential appearances.
The most remarkable thing about this is that some find this behavior to be remarkable.

American citizens are the sovereigns in our system of government.
Indeed, We the People created the government which, at least in theory, only does what we tell it to do in the
Constitution.

Sovereigns are expected to be armed.

The Second Amendment was added to our Constitution to ensure that the individual right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
Infringement would impair the proper functioning of the militia which had been America’s homeland security system all through
colonial times and well into our republican era.

The armed attendees made it clear that they were exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
Zero tolerance of firearms has become so extreme that even a picture of a gun can get a student kicked out of school.
The presence of armed citizens helps correct the notion that guns are inherently dangerous.

Americans are increasingly deciding to go about openly carrying firearms even when they might legally carry concealed.
Some would like to say that this constitutes disturbing the peace.
It is a strange view that accepts as normal a police officer openly carrying a firearm but finds it alarming when a sovereign
citizen -- the cop’s boss -- does the same.

In addition to the educational value of going about openly armed, the presence of such citizens has another positive impact.

Real homeland security is being maintained.

The Secret Service is tasked with protecting the president and other select individuals -- and nobody else.

For those who object to openly armed citizens being present near presidential events,
do they have any concern for the well being of those who do not benefit from Secret Service protection?

A few years ago, I was at a conference where the governor of the state of Arizona was to speak.

Shortly before the appointed time a member of the governor’s security detail came
into the room from a service entrance, looked around the audience which included at least
a dozen people openly carrying sidearms, ducked out of sight and returned with the governor.

The governor’s security was aware of the armed attendees, and was also aware that the guns
were holstered and obviously under control. They evidently thought that was proper gun control.

There are those who don’t like Americans owning guns at all, let alone carrying them openly.
They can be counted on to run around squawking like Chicken Little that the sky is falling
- a calamity brought about by the presence of an armed citizen in public.
We are warned that: “Somebody might grab the gun and do something bad! The armed citizen will intimidate others!
Tempers will flare and blood will run in the streets!”

The 2nd amendment is only one sentence yet the Founders took the time to debate every word. And revised it seven times.
And so, as a result of their debates and a desire to be abundantly clear, they changed a word here, another one there, added
and deleted, until they arrived at the final version, to make sure its meaning was crystal clear and would endure.

And so as a result of their debates they revised it seven times until there was unanimity. They did not rewrite it seven times
so people could pick and choose what words they wanted to hear and ignore the rest. Or make them mean what they wish they meant.
So keep in mind that every single word was important to the Framers and what they intended. Every word.





Barack...

REPEAL ALL GUN LAWS - PART 1


By John Longenecker

Most Americans do not make the connection between American Gun Control and today's scandals of bank bailouts, corporate takeovers, immense failures,
government intrusion and indifference, massive disrespect for the electorate, and other harassment of the sovereign. There is a connection.

For a long time, I have urged the repeal of all gun laws. Since the very inception of gun control in this country, abuses of powers has served the public servants
more than the electorate, and few of the promises have ever come true. The fears of liberty purists have all come true, right on schedule it seems.
All of this goes without saying, but how do we find our way back home again to a nation of Independence from our own servants?

Gun laws - more than 20,000 of them - serve officials by unwinding natural values and rights of armed defense of the person and permit massive transfers of
our wealth to others little by little. How gun control is related to modern crises is in how experiments and trials tested and proven on gun bans, restrictions and
regulations give valuable feedback to social engineers as to how far they can go against the electorate. It's not enough to say that citizens must be disarmed
first before any tyranny, it is more: it is a feature-rich test which surrenders valuable information.

The idea - the experiment - gauges how America's most vociferous defenders of liberty (gun owners) are actually very tolerant thanks to their respect for due
process and faith in the law. This is used against them in pushing back the borders of how far government can go in unreasonableness against protest.

Get it past gun owners first, and the rest of the nation is easy prey.

This is what we are seeing now in scandals seemingly unrelated to gun control.
All of the fighting we see in news media every day now between indifferent, stubborn officials and their resentful constituents is gleaned from what is learned
from gun control. They have a very high confidence level in how far they can go thanks to what they know about how far they have been able to go in gun control.

Gun control is Number One on the list of these tests and abuses because it yields up that sort of social engineering information: how far can you push the American
people on an issue that means so much to, say, oh.. 80 million?

What can you learn about dividing Americans?

This makes it the pressure point to push in unwinding these by the ton. Imagine how neighborhoods will someday soon embrace and thank the average armed citizen
for not only helping to regain control of their neighborhoods, but to once again have high expectations of public service and integrity of law enforcement, self-policing
and professional integrity in office, and perhaps, just perhaps, fewer laws passed.
Much of this would come from respect, respect which the official does not give the electorate at this time.

This is one of the best rewards of the repeal of all gun laws: the idea that so many anti-crime programs costing billions are simply not needed when the citizenry is armed.
So many costly programs thrive because they know how little attention non-gun owners will pay and ignore bigger government is a veritable gold mine of data up to now.
As it stands today, tens of millions are aroused as some officials have gone too far and aroused the sleeping giant.

After all, they also know form their data that some of the loudest complainers aren't even registered to vote.

Alright, so the sleeping giant is awake. But, then, what do we do next? How do we get our independence back again?

I write often that the armed citizen does not fight tyranny in eventual shoot-outs with our own American troops, but by every day impeaching the need for so many policies
which, themselves tyrannize Americans. Americans are tyrannized by coercive rules and penalties, by sweeping mandates, by takings, by taxations, by abuses of powers,
by bankruptcy in defending those cases, by education content, by zero-tolerance in schools and workplaces, and other paradigms of many who never consult the parent or
citizen, but so-called experts. All of these are groomed for success by a blueprint of what is learned from Gun Control.
All of these speak only to factions of America... such that one cannot count on understanding and support from other Americans.

All of these can be unwound for all by the repeal of all gun laws.

What's the payoff for the social engineers? How do officials gain from the tragedy of seemingly intractable violent crime? Moving America from a values system and
personal dignity of Independence into a nation of utter dependency with all exits closed is the payday for officials. It is the old Hegelian model of governance in presiding
over continuing crisis instead of presiding over prosperity and independence from servants, and nothing rouses cooperation better than violence.

But there is more to freedom that waiting for government to chase away thugs. Superb data works both ways: Lynch v. NC DOJ remarked that:

"Police have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others."

Lynch went on to say that their duties lie elsewhere in keeping the peace,
in enforcement of the law. This means after-the-fact, friends. Dependency is a terrible thing.

How many have to die before the sleeping giant has his coffee and makes the connection of gun control to dependency on our servants?

Repeal all gun laws as the beginning of getting out from under bigger government and away from dependency on our very own public servants.

More to come.

REPEAL ALL GUN LAWS - PART 2

By John Longenecker

What would happen if we repealed all gun laws in 2010?

In the last edition, I posted how 20,000 gun laws and other programs cloned from American Gun Control have furnished valuable information as to how far officials
can push all Americans. I wrote how armed citizens do not fight tyranny with a gun directly, but how armed citizens impeach those abusive, costly anti-crime programs
which, themselves tyrannize Americans. There is a difference. Disarm America and abusive programs are made to seem necessary.
Restore the second amendment, and dozens of programs are proven to be utterly worthless boondoggles.

Modern America’s experience of abuses of process which crescendoed in 2008 and 2009, national scandals and takings right down to verbal abuses of the electorate
from officials in town hall meetings were made possible and emboldened purely by what is learned from gun control: American tolerance and patience to a fault.
Chief among the targets is citizen sovereign authority over officials which has been forgotten, insulted and vexed, more likely erased from American education.
The moment we try to assert our rights over servants, the servants are taken by surprise, offended and baffled.

The very idea of quarreling with the electorate is an exquisite betrayal of intent to go against the electorate. They have a high confidence in how far they can go from
what they have learned from gun bans and other gun control.

The question was: Despite what servants think they know about how far they can push the electorate, how do we recapture our independence from under our public servants?

I advocate the repeal of all gun laws as the very first item on the agenda of Conservatives, Libertarians and Independents who will run for public office in 2010.
The Republicans aren’t going to do it, are they? For them, the concept of an armed electorate as integral to fighting crime is uncouth, bad taste, and unseemly.
Like spoiled kids, they have no knowledge of everyday problems, no knowledge of the most straightforward solutions for meeting violent crime and respecting the voter.
They have no comprehension as to our legal authority to act when confronted by violence. They have no knowledge that each citizen may stop a crime in progress and do so
more than Police do. They do have knowledge, however, as to how being disarmed makes predatory political programs sound necessary. That, they know.

But what would happen if new freshmen Senators and U.S. Representatives began to repeal unreasonable gun laws? A lot would change in favor of the electorate and no longer
in favor of the public servants. There would not be change because some servant feels they have a gun to their head — there would be change in the name of propriety, oath,
and loyalty to the republic. It would be a lot easier with a selection of candidates who understand the authority we all have to fight crime without any need for those programs
which for decades tied our hands in fighting crime. And which transferred our wealth out of our hands.

Example: crime is lower in states where concealed carry of handguns is affirmed throughout the state, but crime is higher and more vicious in their major cities where gun rights
are frustrated and ignored.

I’d say to do the math, but it’s already been done.

These candidates would have to run on the understanding that they do not go to Congress or any other office to get rich in retirement or special privilege, but to serve, and that
would mean smaller government, perhaps even soon talking themselves out of a job. That would be public service.

And if they are made to know that they have a constituency of registered voters in Libertarian, Conservative and Independents along with all sorts of other support, then it will
more likely become a you-build-it-and-they-will-come.
Voter turnout would be critical to the success of a due process retaking of the United States from her servants back to the sovereign.

Gun laws go against the interests of the United States, but what would change... if we repealed this adverse, predatory practice?

Americans would have a higher confidence in government overall; trust of the electorate would replace the morbid insistence that the electorate trust officials.
Courts would be less choked. Police would be less burdened, funding would go further, boondoggles would diminish, crime would come more under the control of the victim,
and crazy anti-crime programs such as excessive electronic surveillance would be more obviously discredited.

One of the greatest benefits would be in how the government perceives the citizen. At this time, not only do 20,000 gun laws abuse all taxpayers, but dozens and dozens of
programs and policies consider the citizen a pest, a nuisance to the ‘governance’ work of officials. Look at how officials are treating constituents in the health care reform town halls:
the liberals are attacking the constituents and the conservatives are so even-handed, you’d think they were holding their coats for them. Oh, well, go along to get along, I guess.

This is why we need a whole new generation of candidates and the constituency to summon them. With the right constituency – Libertarians, Independents and Conservatives
registering to vote and voting – the right candidates will have a chance of winning. The best chance of winning office would be to make the repeal of gun laws a plank on their
liberty platform, and to announce it early. It would begin with consulting liberty purists on the subject. I’m available.

ran out of space - - continued