PDA

View Full Version : Let it begin



Cody Covey
12-27-2012, 10:50 PM
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

Start calling representatives NOW!

MooseGooser
12-28-2012, 11:55 AM
Incremental steps.......

They will,, in the end,,, confiscate...

I made the call this Morning to my representative in Congress..

Where I live was redistricted in 2012. My new representative is Diana DeGette.. A very Left Democrat.. My call to her this morning, I'm sure fell on deaf ears.
It really and truly was a total waste of time....

My VOTE now will also be a waste of time, considering the fact I am a registered republican,, and the district Miss degette represents has been a Heavy democrat distric for ages..
It would be a Total Miracle if that 1st congressional district of Colorado ever went anything but Democrat.

You responsibel Gun Owners that live in that 1st district,, and are registered Democrats,, are you aware of how your representative wants to represent you??
Have you seen her emotional stance on gun rights?? You voted for her!!!! Again.... You Voted for her!!!! Congrats!!!!


Gooser

MooseGooser
12-28-2012, 12:27 PM
It seems to me its the Idotic lefties that own guns who VOTED these Democrats in office that have an "F" rating by the NRA,, be the ones that take the time to call the dude or dudette they voted for,, and try and convince him/her to get their head on straight..

Gooser

charly_t
12-28-2012, 11:09 PM
It seems to me its the Idotic lefties that own guns who VOTED these Democrats in office that have an "F" rating by the NRA,, be the ones that take the time to call the dude or dudette they voted for,, and try and convince him/her to get their head on straight..

Gooser

Sorry to say that I have relatives who don't have their head on straight. Can't tell them a durn thing !
Mass Hypnosis ! Nothing else explains the blind lemming rush to the destruction.

Susie Royer
12-28-2012, 11:24 PM
$200 tax on specified guns AND when you die your family has to surrender those guns to the US goverment? Husband upgraded his NRA membership to life today and I'm joining tomorrow...e-mails sent to representatives but as Gooser said they will fall on deaf ears here in CO...it has begun :(

Andy Symons
12-29-2012, 04:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pItiypwjHx4&feature=share

Brad Turner
12-29-2012, 06:18 PM
Senator Feinstein will introduce this bill in the Senate. Contact your Senators so that this bill never makes it to the House.

You are probably going to get the same response from Udall and Bennet, but it can't hurt to contact them Gooser.

MooseGooser
12-29-2012, 08:00 PM
already done! Contacted them both...,,and had to listen to the condescending smirk from the"aid" that answed the phone..

Gooser

MooseGooser
12-29-2012, 08:15 PM
Here is what I said:

I reminded thier aids they took this Oath:

Keeping the Promise?The Senate Oath of Office:I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

This is the central commitment of every member of the United States Senate: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not to support and defend the American people. Not to support and defend the land itself. To support and defend the binding contract we Americans make with ourselves and each other, the American Constitution.

In my opinion... Any Elected official that took this oath,, and votes or takes action that dis-regards the second ammendment,, should Immediatly be thrown out of office... They swore to this Oath....
Miss Fienstien> you payin attention???

JDogger
12-29-2012, 08:45 PM
Here is what I said:

I reminded thier aids they took this Oath:

Keeping the Promise?

The Senate Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

This is the central commitment of every member of the United States Senate: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not to support and defend the American people. Not to support and defend the land itself. To support and defend the binding contract we Americans make with ourselves and each other, the American Constitution.

In my opinion... Any Elected official that took this oath,, and votes or takes action that dis-regards the second ammendment,, should Immediatly be thrown out of office... They swore to this Oath....
Miss Fienstien> you payin attention???

I am a gun owner. I'm what would be considered here on PP as a liberal. I support and believe in the 2nd amendement.
However, if we gun owners wish to prevail... it might be time to disassociate ourselves with Ted Nuggent (he does not serve us well), and the NRA, who's political narrative goes way beyond gun-owners rights.

If you wish for the gun-control lobby to win... keep posting Uncle Ted. Keep posting NRA La Pierre. They will re-enforce you. However they will not change the minds you need. The normal everyday, hunting gun owner. JD

MooseGooser
12-29-2012, 08:55 PM
I am a gun owner. I'm what would be considered here on PP as a liberal. I support and believe in the 2nd amendement.
However, if we gun owners wish to prevail... it might be time to disassociate ourselves with Ted Nuggent (he does not serve us well), and the NRA, who's political narrative goes way beyond gun-owners rights.

If you wish for the gun-control lobby to win... keep posting Uncle Ted. Keep posting NRA La Pierre. They will re-enforce you. However they will not change the minds you need. The normal everyday, hunting gun owner. JD

Doesnt have anything to do with Celebs,, NRA presidents,, O'donnels, The late night show, everyday Hunter,,ect,,
What is has everything to do with,, is the Supreme law of the land.. The Constitution.

I think that the act of taking the Oath of office really isnt a serious matter anymore..

I Found this article a Bit interesting....

I agree that Both men are highly Intelleigent,, and shouldnt have had a problem getting through a 25 second ceremony.


The Strange Case Of Obama's
Inaugural Oath Of Office
A Cryptogram From The Cryptocracy?
By Michael Hoffman
1-23-9

Jan. 23, 2009 RevisionistHistory.org "For a couple of smooth-talking constitutional experts, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and President-elect Barack Obama sure had a hard time getting through the constitutional oath of office...The chief justice seemed to say 'to' rather than 'of,' but that was not the main problem. The main problem was that the word 'faithfully' had floated upstream...Mr. Obama seemed to realize this, pausing quizzically after saying 'that I will execute ­' "The chief justice gave it another go, getting closer but still not quite right: "faithfully the office of president of the United States." This time, he omitted the word 'execute.' Mr. Obama now repeated the chief justice's initial error of putting 'faithfully' at the end of the phrase. Starting where he had abruptly paused, he said: 'the office of the president of the United States faithfully." ("I Do Solemnly Swear(Line, Please?," NY Times, Jan. 20, 2009) Yes, indeed these two "smooth-talking constitutional experts" couldn't manage to recite the brief oath as it was written. This was largely Chief Justice Roberts' fault. We can believe that this flub was due to human fallibility and that may very well be the case, or we can also wonder whether the very intelligent Chief Justice deliberately mishandled the oath so that it would be administered a second time, under very different circumstances. Here's how the media reported the second rite: ...After a day's worth of chatter over whether the president had been properly sworn into office...(i)n 25 seconds, President Obama became president again. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administered the oath to Mr. Obama on Wednesday evening, one day after the two men stumbled over each other's words during the inauguration ceremony at the Capitol. For their do-over, the two men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m. for a brief proceeding that was not announced until it was completed successfully...Only hours after aides told reporters there was no reason to administer the oath again, they concluded it was easier to do it on the first day, rather than have someone challenge the legitimacy of his presidency...Mr. Obama raised his right hand and did not use a Bible....only nine people witnessed the do-over. There were four aides, four reporters and a White House photographer..." (NY Times, Jan. 22, 2009). This second-time-around doppelganger oath was the real oath, since the flawed first one, done in the sight of millions and upon the Bible of assassinated President Abraham Lincoln was a "challenge (to) the legitimacy of his presidency..." There was no Bible the second time and with Obama having been compared to John F. Kennedy during the campaign, and with all of the macabre parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln (Lincoln was killed in Ford's theatre, Kennedy was killed in a Ford automobile; Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy, Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln; Lincoln and Kennedy were both succeeded by vice-presidents named Johnson, etc.), I'm not sure that if I were Barack Obama I would have wanted to step into the middle of such a highly charged symbol palimpsest -- unless of course the first inaugural oath-taking was little more more than shadow-play. What appears to be the authentic inauguration took place in a basement, and was an elite rather than a populist rite, with just nine witnesses. It occurred in former President Franklin Roosevelt's secretive, war-era "map room." Before FDR, under presidents from Chester Arthur through Wilson and Coolidge, it was reputedly used to play the game of billiards. The omission of the Bible is not invalidating since the father of our country did not use one at his inauguration and Lyndon Johnson, on the plane to Washington after's Kennedy's killing, used a Roman Catholic mass book ("missal"), rather than a Bible. Hence, the absence of a Bible per se does not invalidate the oath, but the peek-a-boo nature of the inaugural Bible may be deliberate, in that its momentous presence at the botched inauguration is all the more glaring in its inexplicable absence at the real inauguration. If symbolism is a language, what is being signaled by this apparently deliberate omission? Another equally striking aspect of the second oath are the photographs of the ceremony, which feature the looming presence of a vintage portrait above the mantle on the wall behind the president and the chief justice. The oath is a ritual and this ritual has an icon hovering over it, as if by way of spiritual benediction and patronage. As of this writing, in all the prominent photos of the second oath which this writer has seen, no caption has been provided by the establishment media that identifies the enigmatic man in the portrait. Yet, symbolically, he is the "genius loci," the presiding spirit of the authentic inaugural ceremony of Barack Obama as President. Like the omission of the Bible after so much was made of its presence at the first oath-taking, the omission of any identification of the figure in the painting at the second oath-taking would seem to be significant. Let us recall that the second oath was performed in secret: "...the two men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m. for a brief proceeding that was not announced until it was completed..." In Freemasonry the god of the secret societies is covertly substituted for the One True God. This false god is identified in the masonic lodges as "the Great Architect." The mysterious man in the portrait who silently presides over the authentic inauguration of Barack Obama as Commander and Chief, is Benjamin Latrobe, the great architect of the U.S. Capitol. Copyright 2009

All Rights Reserved Michael Hoffman's latest book is "Judaism Discovered," now in its second printing; available from www.RevisionistHistory.org



I am not saying I agree with the article,, only that I found it interesting, that so many of what was considered so ceremoniously important in the original innaguration,,, The Bible for example was absent in the second "real" re=do.

Gooser

HPL
12-29-2012, 09:05 PM
If you wish for the gun-control lobby to win... keep posting Uncle Ted. Keep posting NRA La Pierre. They will re-enforce you. However they will not change the minds you need. The normal everyday, hunting gun owner. JD

Are you saying that the minds we need are the normal .............gun owner? If so I think that we probably have quite a few of them already. Of course, I live in a small town (approx 25,000) in a generally rural part of Texas where hunting is not just an avocation, but is actually pretty big business. Lots of guns and gun owners. Not really a lot of violent crime. I haven't heard many folks here espouse the opinion that gun control is the answer. Perhaps some of the liberal professors at the Univ, but even there a good percentage are either ag or wildlife majors and not so liberal.

Marvin S
12-29-2012, 10:00 PM
I am a gun owner. I'm what would be considered here on PP as a liberal. I support and believe in the 2nd amendement.
However, if we gun owners wish to prevail... it might be time to disassociate ourselves with Ted Nuggent (he does not serve us well), and the NRA, who's political narrative goes way beyond gun-owners rights.

If you wish for the gun-control lobby to win... keep posting Uncle Ted. Keep posting NRA La Pierre. They will re-enforce you. However they will not change the minds you need. The normal everyday, hunting gun owner. JD

In your left leaning mind vs those of us who are more of the moderate leaning, you see your position as reasonable whereas we see the position of eliminating gun free zones with the rest of the restrictions presently in place as reasonable.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of negotiation - there needs to be positions on both sides that are beyond reasonable. The left has taken their extremist position, it is up to those of us on the reasonable side to take an extremist position :confused:.

Facts are in place to back up our reasonable position & contrary to what LaPierre says IMO there is zero need for armed police officers & the resultant cost. Our country is broke & I certainly don't want another organization safeguarding little like the gropers at the airport.

But you could be of some use, contact your representatives in congress & ask that all Secret Service folks be riffed.

JDogger
12-29-2012, 10:05 PM
Think now... We wish to perpetuate our 2nd Amendment rights. Will this be done by in your face procalations by Uncle Ted, and the NRA? They might sound good to you and me. But will they get us to were we want to be? JD

HPL
12-29-2012, 10:15 PM
Think now... We wish to perpetuate our 2nd Amendment rights. Will this be done by in your face procalations by Uncle Ted, and the NRA? They might sound good to you and me. But will they get us to were we want to be? JD

I don't think "in your face" works very well on the national stage, but I want to know where you think "we want to be". I am pretty concerned over this. The article about what has happened in England is particularly troubling. How many law abiding citizens will refuse to obey confiscation legislation especially if the penalties for refusing are draconian?

huntinman
12-29-2012, 10:23 PM
Think now... We wish to perpetuate our 2nd Amendment rights. Will this be done by in your face procalations by Uncle Ted, and the NRA? They might sound good to you and me. But will they get us to were we want to be? JD

If "Uncle Ted" sounded good to you, you wouldn't be complaining about him...would you?

Buzz
12-29-2012, 10:24 PM
I don't think "in your face" works very well on the national stage, but I want to know where you think "we want to be". I am pretty concerned over this. The article about what has happened in England is particularly troubling. How many law abiding citizens will refuse to obey confiscation legislation especially if the penalties for refusing are draconian?

What happened in England? I have read the breathless proclamations so I did a little searching of my own.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384

Buzz
12-29-2012, 10:27 PM
What happened in England? I have read the breathless proclamations so I did a little searching of my own.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384

And for what it's worth, I think Nugent makes gun owners look bad.

JDogger
12-29-2012, 10:27 PM
I don't think "in your face" works very well on the national stage, but I want to know where you think "we want to be". I am pretty concerned over this. The article about what has happened in England is particularly troubling. How many law abiding citizens will refuse to obey confiscation legislation especially if the penalties for refusing are draconian?

I think, "where we want to be", is to allow 2nd Amendment gun rights to be respected for the resonpsible citizen. The question know asks, "who is responsible?"

Lately there seems to be a lot of irisponsible (sp) gun owners?

JD

MooseGooser
12-29-2012, 10:31 PM
Is it YOUR OPINION whether it is leaning in either direction,whats important,, or is it the Bill of RIGHTS specifically the second ammendment..

If you want to change something in the constitution,, dont you have to Ammend it???

Or are our Constitutional RIGHTS as Americans based on Public opinion?

Gooser

MooseGooser
12-29-2012, 10:34 PM
I think, "where we want to be", is to allow 2nd Amendment gun rights to be respected for the resonpsible citizen. The question know asks, "who is responsible?" JD





There are already laws that wont allow a convicted felon to own a gun.
Domestic abusers either.
There are age limitations. ect..


If you want to Qualify or REGULATE a Bill of RIGHTS ammendment,, dont you have to follow article V

The Fienstien bill talks of excessive tax,, and upon death,, confiscation!! WTH!!!


Gooser

Marvin S
12-29-2012, 10:36 PM
What happened in England? I have read the breathless proclamations so I did a little searching of my own.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384

You leave one wordless at times - I read that article & it says we did a random survey & folks believe they are safer - just what does that mean?

Buzz
12-29-2012, 10:47 PM
You leave one wordless at times - I read that article & it says we did a random survey & folks believe they are safer - just what does that mean?

Every source I have been able to find shows dropping crime relates and MUCH lower murder rates than ours. But you all can keep believing what you want.

JDogger
12-29-2012, 10:49 PM
There are already laws that wont allow a convicted felon to own a gun.
Domestic abusers either.
There are age limitations. ect..


If you want to Qualify or REGULATE a Bill of RIGHTS ammendment,, dont you have to follow article V


Gooser

OK, Mike.., I think any Tom, Dick, or Mike, should have access to any weapon they choose. Don't you? JD

MooseGooser
12-29-2012, 10:53 PM
OK, Mike.., I think any Tom, Dick, or Mike, should have access to any weapon they choose. Don't you? JD

This gets rid of many diry Dicks, Toms or Harrys:


The Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch44.html) prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:


Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

Pay CLOSE attention to bullit 4


You do understand Mr Dogger,,, that all this regulation only regulates the LAW ABIDING. Its against the Law to commit Murder!

HPL
12-29-2012, 10:55 PM
What happened in England? I have read the breathless proclamations so I did a little searching of my own.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384


When did the gun confiscation occur in England. One interesting datum is that the spike in the bar graph is due to the actions of a single serial killer who did his work with drug overdoses, no firearms involved at all.

JDogger
12-29-2012, 10:59 PM
This gets rid of many diry Dicks, Toms or Harrys:


The Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch44.html) prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:


Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

Pay CLOSE attention to bullit 4


Well, that's worked well now....

# 4 regards...JD

Buzz
12-29-2012, 11:04 PM
When did the gun confiscation occur in England. One interesting datum is that the spike in the bar graph is due to the actions of a single serial killer who did his work with drug overdoses, no firearms involved at all.

What year is that? I can't read the a is labels on my phone. I assumed it might have been a spike right after the ban. Don't anyone get me wrong, I am sure not in favor of gun bans etc. I just wonder if the UK is everything it is blown up to be. I had breakfast with a friend this morning and he was practically rabid in his anger over the prospect of us becoming ENGLAND, so I started doing a little looking. He was actually scaring me a little with his talk of stocking up on guns and ammo for the coming meltdown and revolution. Very unhealthy outlook, he sorta seemed to be going all Glen Beck on me.

Buzz
12-29-2012, 11:06 PM
When did the gun confiscation occur in England. One interesting datum is that the spike in the bar graph is due to the actions of a single serial killer who did his work with drug overdoses, no firearms involved at all.

Oh, I think the gun ban took place on 1998.

MooseGooser
12-29-2012, 11:06 PM
So,, Mr Dogger,,

What good do MORE Regulations and Laws do,, when we dont enforce the ones we have now????

The Main Goal for the left is confiscation.... They are synister in the way they work in incremental steps... totally ignoring present unenforced laws, but workingback door methods to circumvent the constitution..

We pretty much dont do anything for the mentally Ill. Seldom are deemed crazy by courts,, seldom are institutionalised/

# 4 regards Indeed!!

Gooser

HPL
12-29-2012, 11:08 PM
Every source I have been able to find shows dropping crime relates and MUCH lower murder rates than ours. But you all can keep believing what you want.

I believe that the stats that I have been reading lately say that violent crime in the US is trending down also even with gun sales and ownership up, so what's your point? I still want to see the definitive report on what weapon/s actually caused the deaths at Sandy Hook, although it doesn't really matter to me personally.

JDogger
12-29-2012, 11:15 PM
So,, Mr Dogger,,

What good do MORE Regulations and Laws do,, when we dont enforce the ones we have now????

The Main Goal for the left is confiscation.... They are synister in the way they work in incremental steps... totally ignoring present unenforced laws, but workingback door methods to circumvent the constitution..



# 4 regards Indeed!!

Gooser

Soo... Mr Mike....? based on your personna, your posts, your pictures in the past, should you be granted a gun permit based on these....? JD

PS Please cite some recent back-door incremental steps at gun confiscation that have been implemeneted.

AR15' s are now readily availble at my local Walmart w/ammo and extended magazines.

JD

Buzz
12-29-2012, 11:28 PM
I believe that the stats that I have been reading lately say that violent crime in the US is trending down also even with gun sales and ownership up, so what's your point? I still want to see the definitive report on what weapon/s actually caused the deaths at Sandy Hook, although it doesn't really matter to me personally.

Just pointing out that I am not finding much to support claims I am hearing about how dangerous it is now in the UK since they lost their guns.

HPL
12-29-2012, 11:29 PM
What year is that? I can't read the a is labels on my phone. I assumed it might have been a spike right after the ban. Don't anyone get me wrong, I am sure not in favor of gun bans etc. I just wonder if the UK is everything it is blown up to be. I had breakfast with a friend this morning and he was practically rabid in his anger over the prospect of us becoming ENGLAND, so I started doing a little looking. He was actually scaring me a little with his talk of stocking up on guns and ammo for the coming meltdown and revolution. Very unhealthy outlook, he sorta seemed to be going all Glen Beck on me.

2002-2003

Looking at the bar graph, I don't really see anything very dramatic. The murder rate of the most recent year on the graph seems to be about what it was about 1982. Numbers moved up and down over the entire period of the graph. I think we need to know exactly when the draconian gun laws went into effect before even looking at the graph. It would also be nice to know what other factors might have been in play (economy, employment, etc).

HPL
12-29-2012, 11:33 PM
Soo... Mr Mike....? based on your personna, your posts, your pictures in the past, should you be granted a gun permit based on these....? JD

PS Please cite some recent back-door incremental steps at gun confiscation that have been implemeneted.

AR15' s are now readily availble at my local Walmart w/ammo and extended magazines.

JD

You mean today?
Have the prices gone up noticeably?
I was in a Bass Pro Shop over the weekend and there were NO AR type (using that term as opposed to AW) weapons on the shelves, actually looked like pretty much nothing but bolt actions to me, and certainly no .223 ammo.

Buzz
12-30-2012, 12:11 AM
You mean today?
Have the prices gone up noticeably?
I was in a Bass Pro Shop over the weekend and there were NO AR type (using that term as opposed to AW) weapons on the shelves, actually looked like pretty much nothing but bolt actions to me, and certainly no .223 ammo.


Are they sold out? I heard from a guy who owns a gunship today that in the last week he sold 500 guns. Completely sold out of many semi automatics, and getting more stock is a problem. He admitted to me before that Obama has been great for business.

JDogger
12-30-2012, 01:16 AM
I havent been in to my local walmart for a week or two now. But, since there are no firearm restrictions put in place yet that I know of, I imagine if manufacturer's are on the ball we will see a ready supply shortly on the market. Soon, discounted AR's on Ebay and Craigslist, as those who over bought try to dump. Only concern is ammo restrictions or taxes, and I only foresee ammo as spot shortages.
Any gun resrictions to come out of congress will take years if ever.

Calm down regards, JD

Brad Turner
12-30-2012, 10:19 AM
If Congress and the POTUS can pass gun legislation, when they haven't been able to pass a budget in 4 years, every single one of them should be kicked out of office!

MooseGooser
12-30-2012, 10:22 AM
Soo... Mr Mike....? based on your personna, your posts, your pictures in the past, should you be granted a gun permit based on these....? JD

PS Please cite some recent back-door incremental steps at gun confiscation that have been implemeneted.

AR15' s are now readily availble at my local Walmart w/ammo and extended magazines.

JD


Mr Dogger Open your eyes!!!!

This is the example of what the people of Chcago have had to live under for many years. It took a person who understood his right to be free and own a gun to fight his Local government, and take his case to the Supreme Court. That court has ruled laws of Chcago Unconstitutional just ecently as last year...

Think of the numbe of people who lived under Opressive, Uncostitutional law for years!

If you read the Fienstein Bill,, you will see their main objective is confiscation....... Our elected leaders shouldnt even be talking laws that are CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL... They CAN and DO get passed, as you can see fom Chicagos history...

The current trdgedy at Sandy Hook, has emotions High.. The left is taking advatage of this emotion,, and stressing that thay want to enact "serious Change" before the end Of January. Hence,, the publics run on the purchasing of guns....

Below is the example of RECENT people living under Unconstitutional guns laws....


Local restrictions on the possession of handgunsSome Illinois municipalities have laws restricting the possession of handguns.
[edit (http://www.retrievertraining.net/w/index.php?title=Gun_laws_in_Illinois&action=edit&section=7)] Current lawsIn Chicago (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Chicago), gun owners are required to have a Chicago Firearm Permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every three years.[24] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-24) Before getting the permit, the resident must complete a training course that includes at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time. Each gun must be registered with the Chicago Police Department at a one-time cost of $15 per gun, and an annual registration report must be filed every year.[25] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-25) Gun possession is permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. Only one gun at a time may be kept in a usable state.[26] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-ChiNewLaw1-26)[27] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-ChiNewLaw2-27)[28] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-28) Chicago's ordinances are being challenged in court, with plaintiffs alleging that they are so restrictive and burdensome as to interfere with citizens' Second Amendment (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) right to keep and bear arms.[12] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-TribuneLawsuits-12)[29] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-29)[30] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-30)
Highland Park (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Highland_Park,_Illinois) bars handgun possession unless the resident has obtained a permit from the Highland Park Police. The permit must be renewed every year, and the resident must attend a gun safety and training session, given by the police, every three years.[31] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-31)
[edit (http://www.retrievertraining.net/w/index.php?title=Gun_laws_in_Illinois&action=edit&section=8)] HistoryBy the late 1980s, several Illinois municipalities had banned the possession of handguns. Chicago required the registration of all firearms but did not allow handguns to be registered, which had the effect of outlawing their possession, unless they were grandfathered in (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Grandfather_clause) by being registered before April 16, 1982.[32] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-32)[33] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-33) Additionally, several Chicago suburbs had enacted outright prohibitions on handgun possession.
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller).[34] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-34) Chicago and the other municipalities came under legal pressure to change their laws.[35] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-35)[36] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-36) In the months following the Heller decision, handgun bans were repealed in the suburbs of Wilmette (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Wilmette,_Illinois),[37] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-37) Morton Grove (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Morton_Grove,_Illinois),[38] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-38) Evanston (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Evanston,_Illinois),[39] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-EvanstonRepeal-39) and Winnetka (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Winnetka,_Illinois),[40] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-40) but Chicago and Oak Park (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Oak_Park,_Illinois) kept their laws in effect.[39] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-EvanstonRepeal-39)[41] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-41)
On June 28, 2010, in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the handgun bans of Chicago and Oak Park to be unconstitutional.[42] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-42)
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police. Chicago's gun registration requirement is still in effect.[26] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-ChiNewLaw1-26)[27] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-ChiNewLaw2-27)
On July 19, 2010 Oak Park amended its town ordinance to allow handgun possession in one's home, leaving no remaining town in Illinois that completely bans handguns.[43] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-43)

MooseGooser
12-30-2012, 10:47 AM
I havent been in to my local walmart for a week or two now. But, since there are no firearm restrictions put in place yet that I know of, I imagine if manufacturer's are on the ball we will see a ready supply shortly on the market. Soon, discounted AR's on Ebay and Craigslist, as those who over bought try to dump. Only concern is ammo restrictions or taxes, and I only foresee ammo as spot shortages.
Any gun resrictions to come out of congress will take years if ever.

Calm down regards, JD


So,,,, You being a Senior fellow,,, as long as the laws take YEARS to enact,,, Its Ok with you, because it wont directly affect you personally??

I"m Glad my forefathes didnt have your attitude!!!!

Our Constitution defines us as Americans. Its the Backbone of our Culture and our Spirit.. It is very unique in the sense of it makes mans desire to be FREE a right Regulated by its Foundation..

You must not have read the early post of what Fienstien is proposing in her Bill..... Californias laws are already very strict,, She wants those laws made more strick,, and applied nationally.. It does Indeed include a confiscation clause upon death of owner . It does include a heavy Tax on ownership of such curently owned guns... It does include an increased Oppessive registration (sales are already registered)

Is Miss Fienstien's proposal the Spirit of the constitution? or is it an Agenda to destroy what this country was founded under?? Our Soul???

If you personally find the Constitution of the United States,, and it Culture disgusting,,,,, Dont live here...

There are Inherient risks of living in a Free society,,, If we mandate very restrictive laws regulating our God given rights to that Freedom,, we ae no longer Americans as defined by the Countys foundation,,, its Solid base,,,, the Constitution.. Our Counrty will be lost... and the people who have died previously defending it,, will be in vain
..

Remember.... Miss Fienstien took an Oath!!!!!!

kip
12-30-2012, 10:59 AM
If Congress and the POTUS can pass gun legislation, when they haven't been able to pass a budget in 4 years, every single one of them should be kicked out of office!

Exactly!!!!

HPL
12-30-2012, 11:03 AM
If Congress and the POTUS can pass gun legislation, when they haven't been able to pass a budget in 4 years, every single one of them should be kicked out of office!

Well, unfortunately, we just missed our chance in that regard.

PamK
12-30-2012, 01:33 PM
I think a lot of our rights have been infringed on since 9-11, specifically warrantless searches. But don't you think any gun legislation will be over turned by the supreme court?

HPL
12-30-2012, 01:43 PM
I think a lot of our rights have been infringed on since 9-11, specifically warrantless searches. But don't you think any gun legislation will be over turned by the supreme court?

Depends on the makeup of the court. The two justices most likely to leave the court next are both more conservative, republican appointees. If Obama gets to replace even one of these two, the philosophy of the court will likely change radically (I use that word intentionally) and then we all better watch out.

MooseGooser
12-30-2012, 01:44 PM
I think a lot of our rights have been infringed on since 9-11, specifically warrantless searches. But don't you think any gun legislation will be over turned by the supreme court?

+1 on what HPL Stated annnnnd


Again ask the people of Illinois how long they lived under a law banning their right to own a gun..

It was just recently deemed unconstitutional..
By the late 1980s, several Illinois municipalities had banned the possession of handguns. Chicago required the registration of all firearms but did not allow handguns to be registered, which had the effect of outlawing their possession, unless they were grandfathered in (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Grandfather_clause) by being registered before April 16, 1982.[32] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-32)[33] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-33) Additionally, several Chicago suburbs had enacted outright prohibitions on handgun possession.
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller).[34] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-34) Chicago and the other municipalities came under legal pressure to change their laws.[35] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-35)[36] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-36) In the months following the Heller decision, handgun bans were repealed in the suburbs of Wilmette (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Wilmette,_Illinois),[37] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-37)Morton Grove (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Morton_Grove,_Illinois),[38] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-38)Evanston (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Evanston,_Illinois),[39] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-EvanstonRepeal-39) and Winnetka (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Winnetka,_Illinois),[40] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-40) but Chicago and Oak Park (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Oak_Park,_Illinois) kept their laws in effect.[39] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-EvanstonRepeal-39)[41] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-41)
On June 28, 2010, in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the handgun bans of Chicago and Oak Park to be unconstitutional.[42] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-42)
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police. Chicago's gun registration requirement is still in effect.[26] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-ChiNewLaw1-26)[27] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-ChiNewLaw2-27)
On July 19, 2010 Oak Park amended its town ordinance to allow handgun possession in one's home, leaving no remaining town in Illinois that completely bans handguns.[43] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-43)

MooseGooser
12-30-2012, 02:41 PM
President Coolidge delivered this speech on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Rejecting Progressivism root and branch, he defends America’s founding principles.
July 5, 1926




"If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed."

road kill
12-30-2012, 06:22 PM
Soo... Mr Mike....? based on your personna, your posts, your pictures in the past, should you be granted a gun permit based on these....? JD

PS Please cite some recent back-door incremental steps at gun confiscation that have been implemeneted.


AR15' s are now readily availble at my local Walmart w/ammo and extended magazines.

JD

Pretty funny stuff coming from you.........make any "wishes" lately??????

MooseGooser
12-30-2012, 07:26 PM
I actually think I am more dangerous legally driving my truck,, than I am with a gun,,, legal or not!!

Gooser

HPL
12-30-2012, 07:31 PM
I actually think I am more dangerous legally driving my truck,, than I am with a gun,,, legal or not!!

Gooser

Certainly, even as a gun owner, you are much more likely to be in an automobile accident than in a shooting incident.

JDogger
12-30-2012, 07:56 PM
Pretty funny stuff coming from you.........make any "wishes" lately??????

It depends....

huntinman
12-31-2012, 04:12 PM
I think a lot of our rights have been infringed on since 9-11, specifically warrantless searches. But don't you think any gun legislation will be over turned by the supreme court?

Who the hell knows after the way they botched the call on Obamacare...

BuddyJ
01-04-2013, 02:49 PM
If we don't support the Nugents and the NRA how else can we come together collectively to stand up the liberal left?