Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by gonefishinagain, Dec 5, 2013.
Multi-clip gun owners sent packing as NYPD begins to enforce 2010 law | Fox News
The police will come for their gun or magazines? There must be a mistake.
Haven't we heard that the majority of the LEOs are Pro-2nd Amendment and Pro-Constitution? They would not really enforce the anti-2nd and anti-Constitution laws now would they?
"The New York City Police Department is taking aim at owners of certain shotguns and rifles, telling them all long guns with more than a five-round capacity must be turned in, altered or taken out of town."
No, that cant be.
Not in NYC. Most people there, including the LEO's are NOT pro-freedom or pro U.S. Constitution in general.
Given that NYC is a leftist sewer and the center of bankster cartel, why were we so ticked off at Al-Quida for taking down the very buildings that house these bansters?
Because George Bush told us to be.... and if the renewed AWB were to have crossed his desk, he said he would have signed it into law.
Well they missed that one too as SCOTUS says it's an individual right to own guns.
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member
"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"
I wonder if SCOTUS thinks its an individuals Constitutional right to have their firearms loaded and concealed?
Yeah, that would probably be asking to much. We can firearms, just not loaded or concealed, that is the Multnomah county way. :lolbeat:
BTW, The Constitution of The United States of America and The Bill of Rights mean squat when any state, county or city can regulate your rights away.
:gun08: ....:chairfight: "Hey stop that! You don't have a permit to do that."
And that is called, TYRANNY.
Most of the voting population seem to like it that way,,Obama 2016!!
I'm pretty sure if all the people who didn't vote at all in 2012 would write in Mickey Mouse, we would have a president with much bigger ears today.
United States Elections Project
I think there are a lot of inaccuracies in that picture. For example, Gandhi.
What Gandhi really thought about guns - Waging Nonviolence
That's actually what the article I've linked is talking about - taking particular quotes out of context. It also talks about how one's views evolved over time.
Point is there are a lot of anecdotes and inaccuracies circulated on behalf of the pro-gun cause, while all that is needed is adherence to the Constitution and the legal framework around it.
Another interesting fact is that Stalin did not actually disarm Soviet people - they were never armed. One of the major disarmaments in Russian (Russian Empire at the time) history took place in 1906. In 1907 by imperial decree the rules were slightly softened, allowing handgun ownership to the officers of the Imperial Army. After revolution in 1917 the criminalization continued, with the first law being passed in 1918. Technically a lot of Soviet people were armed as the result of WWII, but they turned most of those weapons in without being forcefully disarmed. The way I see it, Stalin's tyrannical regime has little to do with the gun control.
You're not the only person here who "had a grandfather". Now my point is that various historic anecdotes aren't necessarily useful to the cause. Gun culture (as are many other things) in US is very unique, and doesn't require a comparison to any other nation.
I just puked. How could you even put that in print :-/
ghandi is on record, circa the battle for Indian independence, acknowledging the futility of nonviolence (carrot) without the implementation of violence (stick). other criticisms of ghandi aside (pretentious misogynist racist classist jerk) he was no dummy when it came to recognizing real material social/political conditions and strategizing accordingly. in other words he believed in freedom too much to throw away certain circumstantially useful tactics for mere ideological interpretations. iirc, there's something where ghandi admonishes people not to judge those physically fighting the British.
as far as Stalin, if he wasn't anti gun he would have reformed gun laws. just because he inherited an effective and genocidal system of control doesn't mean he is morally superior to his predecessors. on the contrary. furthermore, he was a part of the party when those systems were created so.
as far as the constitution and the American people today, when you read the papers the framers wrote and what they were reading, it gets clearer that they 1 expected social systems (family, church, community, whatever) to do a lot of the "Americanizing" of each new generation 2 they did not see this country as a Government, but as a People, who would in turn create a small utilitarian orginization, an employee or subcontractor, to more cheaply do some few needful things. 3 they had no illusions about government, and intended the revolution to be perpetual in spirit and therefore hopefully rarely so desperate as to need violent insurrection but knowing that the constant real possibility of insurrection would keep the government and moneyed interests from attempting a coup. they knew the government could never be a check on itself so the 2nd amendment is like a hint, that the 4th branch of government cannot be government but must be the people armed and organized for themselves and not for it.
Separate names with a comma.