Firearms Section

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by PQ

You red necks with all your guns.

Give me ONE reason why you need all those guns. JUST ONE.

I was born in Boston. I worked landscaping a while...sure, I had a sunburn from time to time

You know it's funny. You've asked a question, but by your demeanor, you wouldn't accept an answer, would you? I'll try anyway.

I don't have an immediate "need" for any "guns" in the definition you likely have in mind. You don't "need" a house. Or a car. You also don't need a computer or a cellphone. You want all those things, don't you? Why do you "need" a supercharged Camaro? Are there any laws that say you can own any of those things? Think about that. No laws say that you can own a Supercharged V8 car with enough power to let you lose control and run down a pedestrian.

But in the abstract, and by that I mean the larger picture, here in the USA we do have things called law. We are a nation of laws. Right now I don't "need" my 5th amendment or my 3rd, let's say. And you don't need to keep troops from being quartered in your home at the moment, either, do you? I don't right now either. But that is one of your rights. Did you know what? You may, I don't know. But the car, the house, the phone...none of those have a law that says you can't be kept from owning one. The constitution is the law of the land, and it has a section called the Second Amendment that is pertinent to the document as a whole..

Some people say "well the second amendment means for a militia". Well, let's take that route for a moment. What's a militia for? The founding fathers had two things in mind. One was foreign invasion. the other was protection from tyranny.

A government oppressing people isn't going to supply material for a militia that opposes it, logically. Can we agree on that point? I hope we can. In the USA we have a document that says we can and will be prepared against that.

OK, no troops are banging down my door. Ever wonder why? Look, just because you don't need a right at this moment doesn't mean you should abandon it.

Rights are funny. Some people think that because they don't like a thing, it's not constitutional. Doesn't work that way at all. You're free to not like anything you want to in the USA. But your rights to disagree with me end at where you impact my rights. Can we also agree on that? I think that any reasonable person can. I may not like you burning an American flag- that's an example, I'm not calling you a flag burner. But my disagreement about that is one thing, the legality of it is another thing.

I legally own firearms. Jumped through hoops to do it, too. I own several relics that took part in history, and I own some things that I like to take target shooting. I own one firearm for the 'just in case' event I never want to experience.

One of the things I enjoy about owning forearms is the repsonsibility that comes from ownership: I am an adult. I do adult things.

Now, the recent events at Sandy Hook, etc, are a serious concern. Look at the facts: the shooter at Sandy Hook could not legally own firearms, and did not. he murdered to obtain them, and then used those stolen firearms to commit evil acts. Would telling him that he couldn't buy an AR15 or a 30 round magazine have stopped him? How could it- he didn't buy them but he still used guns. Look at the suspect that shot the cops in NJ- he stole the gun from a cop. He didn't have a legally owned gun either. The nut that shot the firefighters? Well, we both know the story there, don't we?

Look at that dummy reporter that used the high-cap mag as a prop. What further evidence does the country need that people that mean to commit crimes with illegal things are gonna do them anyway, laws or no laws? When people ignore the laws, they commit crimes. Murder, by the way, is illegal with or without a firearm.

Did Timothy McVeigh need "guns"? He killed well over a hundred, 19 of them children. Did Ted Bundy need a gun? Did Jeff Dahmer?

I have "guns" because I am a citizen of the USA and it is my legal right. I fully support your right to not like guns, but I will damn with great vigor your suggestion that I am wrong for doing so. That is merely your opinion, which it seems to me is ill-formed and lacking full detail, since you don't seem to understand the reason that "guns" are legal, and that "guns" are not responsible for crimes, any more than Jack Daniels' distillery is responsible for liver disease or drunk driving fatalities. It is my opinion that every high school senior be required to take a course on US constitutional law and to have to pass an exam on the impact of precedent on the constitution; how a negation or limitation on one right can have a future detrimental effect on an unrelated right, because the legal roadmap to limiting a right has been forged. Do you like your rights? Good. Then support the whole constitution, please. That's sorta your duty. Don't own a gun, that's your clam bake.

I feel it is willfully ignorant to associate legal firearm ownership in the USA with crime. That's my opinion, and the fact that I am not arrested when somebody else commits a crime with a gun is supportive of that

But another funny thing is that a lot of anti-gun types actually enjoy going to the range and shooting.

[BullF-16]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

I was born in Boston. I worked landscaping a while...sure, I had a sunburn from time to time

You know it's funny. You've asked a question, but by your demeanor, you wouldn't accept an answer, would you? I'll try anyway.

I don't have an immediate "need" for any "guns" in the definition you likely have in mind. You don't "need" a house. Or a car. You also don't need a computer or a cellphone. You want all those things, don't you? Why do you "need" a supercharged Camaro? Are there any laws that say you can own any of those things?

But in the abstract, and by that I mean the larger picture, here in the USA we do have things called law. We are a nation of laws. Right now I don't "need" my 5th amendment or my 3rd, let's say. And you don't need to keep troops from being quartered in your home at the moment, either, do you? I don't right now either. But that is one of your rights. Did you know what? You may, I don't know. But the car, the house, the phone...none of those have a law that says you can't be kept from owning one. The constitution is the law of the land.

Some people say "well the second amendment means for a militia". Well, let's take that route for a moment. What's a militia for? The founding fathers had two things in mind. One was foreign invasion. the other was protection from tyranny.

A government oppressing people isn't going to supply material for a militia that opposes it, logically. Can we agree on that point? I hope we can. In the USA we have a document that says we can and will be prepared against that.

OK, no troops are banging down my door. Ever wonder why? Look, just because you don't need a right at this moment doesn't mean you should abandon it.

Rights are funny. Some people think that because they don't like a thing, it's not constitutional. Doesn't work that way at all. You're free to not like anything you want to in the USA. But your rights to disagree with me end at where you impact my rights. Can we also agree on that? I think that any reasonable person can. I may not like you burning an American flag- that's an example, I'm not calling you a flag burner. But my disagreement about that is one thing, the legality of it is another thing.

I legally own firearms. Jumped through hoops to do it, too. I own several relics that took part in history, and I own some things that I like to take target shooting. I own one firearm for the 'just in case' event I never want to experience.

One of the things I enjoy about owning forearms is the repsonsibility that comes from ownership: I am an adult. I do adult things.

Now, the recent events at Sandy Hook, etc, are a serious concern. Look at the facts: the shooter at Sandy Hook could not legally own firearms, and did not. he murdered to obtain them, and then used those stolen firearms to commit evil acts. Would telling him that he couldn't buy an AR15 or a 30 round magazine have stopped him? How could it- he didn't buy them but he still used guns. Look at the suspect that shot the cops in NJ- he stole the gun from a cop. He didn't have a legally owned gun either. The nut that shot the firefighters? Well, we both know the story there, don't we?

Look at that dummy reporter that used the high-cap mag as a prop. What further evidence does the country need that people that mean to commit crimes with illegal things are gonna do them anyway, laws or no laws? When people ignore the laws, they commit crimes. Murder, by the way, is illegal with or without a firearm.

Did Timothy McVeigh need "guns"? He killed well over a hundred, 19 of them children. Did Ted Bundy need a gun? Did Jeff Dahmer?

I have "guns" because I am a citizen of the USA and it is my legal right. I fully support your right to not like guns, but I will damn with great vigor your suggestion that I am wrong for doing so. That is merely your opinion, which it seems to me is ill-formed and lacking full detail, since you don't seem to understand the reason that "guns" are legal, and that "guns" are not responsible for crimes, any more than Jack Daniels' distillery is responsible for liver disease or drunk driving fatalities. It is my opinion that every high school senior be required to take a course on US constitutional law and to have to pass an exam on the impact of precedent on the constitution; how a negation or limitation on one right can have a future detrimental effect on an unrelated right, because the legal roadmap to limiting a right has been forged. Do you like your rights? Good. Then support the whole constitution, please. That's sorta your duty. Don't own a gun, that's your clam bake.

But another funny thing is that a lot of anti-gun types actually enjoy going to the range and shooting.

I believe chrisBlairs sarcasm meter is broke! Lots of emotion running rampant here! This energy is served best by writing our reps....not elaborate, eloquent shakesperian letters but simple to the point "shall not be infringed"



The interns only categorize it by for or against America. Make it short and to the point, then it will be read and filed into the for or against!

DO THIS DAILY!!!! CALLING IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT!

If this process fails us, then we move to the next step!

MOLON LABE!!!!!!!

[BullF-16]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

I was born in Boston. I worked landscaping a while...sure, I had a sunburn from time to time

You know it's funny. You've asked a question, but by your demeanor, you wouldn't accept an answer, would you? I'll try anyway.

I don't have an immediate "need" for any "guns" in the definition you likely have in mind. You don't "need" a house. Or a car. You also don't need a computer or a cellphone. You want all those things, don't you? Why do you "need" a supercharged Camaro? Are there any laws that say you can own any of those things? Think about that. No laws say that you can own a Supercharged V8 car with enough power to let you lose control and run down a pedestrian.

But in the abstract, and by that I mean the larger picture, here in the USA we do have things called law. We are a nation of laws. Right now I don't "need" my 5th amendment or my 3rd, let's say. And you don't need to keep troops from being quartered in your home at the moment, either, do you? I don't right now either. But that is one of your rights. Did you know what? You may, I don't know. But the car, the house, the phone...none of those have a law that says you can't be kept from owning one. The constitution is the law of the land, and it has a section called the Second Amendment that is pertinent to the document as a whole..

Some people say "well the second amendment means for a militia". Well, let's take that route for a moment. What's a militia for? The founding fathers had two things in mind. One was foreign invasion. the other was protection from tyranny.

A government oppressing people isn't going to supply material for a militia that opposes it, logically. Can we agree on that point? I hope we can. In the USA we have a document that says we can and will be prepared against that.

OK, no troops are banging down my door. Ever wonder why? Look, just because you don't need a right at this moment doesn't mean you should abandon it.

Rights are funny. Some people think that because they don't like a thing, it's not constitutional. Doesn't work that way at all. You're free to not like anything you want to in the USA. But your rights to disagree with me end at where you impact my rights. Can we also agree on that? I think that any reasonable person can. I may not like you burning an American flag- that's an example, I'm not calling you a flag burner. But my disagreement about that is one thing, the legality of it is another thing.

I legally own firearms. Jumped through hoops to do it, too. I own several relics that took part in history, and I own some things that I like to take target shooting. I own one firearm for the 'just in case' event I never want to experience.

One of the things I enjoy about owning forearms is the repsonsibility that comes from ownership: I am an adult. I do adult things.

Now, the recent events at Sandy Hook, etc, are a serious concern. Look at the facts: the shooter at Sandy Hook could not legally own firearms, and did not. he murdered to obtain them, and then used those stolen firearms to commit evil acts. Would telling him that he couldn't buy an AR15 or a 30 round magazine have stopped him? How could it- he didn't buy them but he still used guns. Look at the suspect that shot the cops in NJ- he stole the gun from a cop. He didn't have a legally owned gun either. The nut that shot the firefighters? Well, we both know the story there, don't we?

Look at that dummy reporter that used the high-cap mag as a prop. What further evidence does the country need that people that mean to commit crimes with illegal things are gonna do them anyway, laws or no laws? When people ignore the laws, they commit crimes. Murder, by the way, is illegal with or without a firearm.

Did Timothy McVeigh need "guns"? He killed well over a hundred, 19 of them children. Did Ted Bundy need a gun? Did Jeff Dahmer?

I have "guns" because I am a citizen of the USA and it is my legal right. I fully support your right to not like guns, but I will damn with great vigor your suggestion that I am wrong for doing so. That is merely your opinion, which it seems to me is ill-formed and lacking full detail, since you don't seem to understand the reason that "guns" are legal, and that "guns" are not responsible for crimes, any more than Jack Daniels' distillery is responsible for liver disease or drunk driving fatalities. It is my opinion that every high school senior be required to take a course on US constitutional law and to have to pass an exam on the impact of precedent on the constitution; how a negation or limitation on one right can have a future detrimental effect on an unrelated right, because the legal roadmap to limiting a right has been forged. Do you like your rights? Good. Then support the whole constitution, please. That's sorta your duty. Don't own a gun, that's your clam bake.

I feel it is willfully ignorant to associate legal firearm ownership in the USA with crime. That's my opinion, and the fact that I am not arrested when somebody else commits a crime with a gun is supportive of that

But another funny thing is that a lot of anti-gun types actually enjoy going to the range and shooting.

Chris, very eloquent indeed sir

May i present the cliff notes version for those with ADHD:

DON'T TREAD ON ME

[camaro99]

Regardless of origin or nationality, every human being has the potential to hurt another but every human being also has the potential to help another.

Areas where young people are assembled seem to be targets of deranged humans from time to time around the world.

These so called youth areas need to be secured. We secure our banks ,our airports , let's secure our kids too.

Let every community do its own thing. The remedies must come from within each community.

It does not have to be complicated but the need to improve is now.

Let's just make it much more difficult to hurt defenseless young people

[Mr Twisty]

[11BEE]

I refrain from ever posting about tragedies. I firmly believe that we should not be using any tragedy in the days immediately afterwards to further our own political aspirations. I think those that do so are the lowest form of life. With that said, I will simply point out that if guns are not available, a person bent on killing will find a way.

Lets look back to OKC. 168 people murdered, with 19 under the age of 6. This was a devastating action. Last I looked, I can still buy diesel fuel and fertilizer. No gun was used at all.

Now lets look at all those that are screaming about gun control. Brady, Bloomberg and Feinstein! These are the lowest forms of trash alive. Using a tragedy where people need to grieve to further their own cause, one that they have been lobbying towards for years, is an act of domestic terrorism itself. Lets look at the definitions:

Terrorism - The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Domestic Terrorism - Terrorism practiced in your own country against your own people

Using the media and our pain to further their long time political agenda's is Domestic Terrorism. The continued reminder of our pain and suffering caused by one lunatic to further their own cause is Domestic Terrorism. Can we not see these people for who they are, terrorists?

I beg them to stop pushing any legislation, let the hurt begin to subside then we may begin to look at this objectively. Until then, those named earlier and those like them are as worse terrorists than McVeigh through their continued use of intimidation against millions of Americans.

I own many weapons, have my FFL C&R and my Concealed Handgun License. I know where I stand on the issue, and I do not support a ban on my guns or my 2nd amendment right. If it is in the best interest of my country to enact laws, I will comply. But at this time none of us can objectively determine this. Please, Obama, Brady, Bloomberg and Feinstein, please do the right thing for our people. Stop your terrorism, let us heal and THEN we can look at the topic of gun control objectively.

[Maxspeed]

Good read

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrence...med-citizenry/

[Russo]

my dealer called me today.. ATF is having an issue with my company's state filling status, so they put my transfer on hold.. it looks like i overlooked a $35 Certificate of Existance tax this year.. no big deal, but it's probably gonna set me back about three more weeks

[whemming]

Originally Posted by BullF-16

You must be new here! There is no one more ready to defend my God given rights granted me by the great founders of this once great country. MOLON LABE!

Good enough

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by Maxspeed

Good read

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrence...med-citizenry/

Well written

[Camaro_Corvette]

Originally Posted by BullF-16

Chris, very eloquent indeed sir

May i present the cliff notes version for those with ADHD:

DON'T TREAD ON ME

Thank you!

[Mr Twisty]

A comment from a reader on the Huffington Post in regards to the conservative gun owners "FReAkiNg OuT" over Ms Feinsteins ideas.....

Their irate behavior is tyipcal of most drowning victims. They're going under and they know it.

Just to let you know..... If you keep silent now, they WILL have the last word, and you, your guns and the 2nd amendment will be trampled underfoot.

[67RS2010SS]

Originally Posted by Maxspeed

Good read

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrence...med-citizenry/

Thanks Max that was a good read and very well said.

[GaBoy25]

Originally Posted by Mr Twisty

A comment from a reader on the Huffington Post in regards to the conservative gun owners "FReAkiNg OuT" over Ms Feinsteins ideas.....



Just to let you know..... If you keep silent now, they WILL have the last word, and you, your guns and the 2nd amendment will be trampled underfoot.

Yes my guns will have the last words....or echo