|
Post by sandsman1 on Sept 30, 2009 16:29:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Sept 30, 2009 17:27:42 GMT -5
We'll see if Daley actually has all the power he thinks.
|
|
|
Post by Woodyrock on Oct 1, 2009 1:38:24 GMT -5
Woody fully understands gun control, control you breathing, know the barrel twist, the powder load, projectile weight, and most important...use both hands.
|
|
|
Post by montanamuskrat on Oct 3, 2009 1:03:14 GMT -5
As Woody Said - and keep both eyes on target. Tom
|
|
|
Post by docone31 on Oct 3, 2009 9:00:00 GMT -5
That these RIGHTS shall not be infringed.
|
|
|
Post by sandsman1 on Oct 4, 2009 12:28:14 GMT -5
|
|
brent
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since November 2008
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by brent on Oct 4, 2009 13:30:09 GMT -5
IF I read that correctly, it sounds like they don't want any restrictions when it comes to firearms.
|
|
brent
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since November 2008
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by brent on Oct 4, 2009 13:57:36 GMT -5
I actually found the survival seeds article more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by sandsman1 on Oct 4, 2009 15:08:11 GMT -5
if you looked at the first one they wanted to push chicagos no hand gun laws on all the states -- the one you just read is a fight against it-- and yes some find seeds intresting i go more for the pot seeds myself hahaha
|
|
brent
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since November 2008
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by brent on Oct 4, 2009 18:50:44 GMT -5
Ok, so now we have both sides. The no guns side and the welcome mat for every terroist and criminal side. Going to be an interesting fight to watch.
I think food security is a more important(my opinion). I have a farm back ground, so growing food is a big part of me.
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Oct 5, 2009 7:15:21 GMT -5
Do you REALLY believe gun laws will keep terrorist and criminals from getting guns?
Curt
|
|
brent
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since November 2008
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by brent on Oct 5, 2009 7:52:17 GMT -5
Not at all. But what is in the article about no criminal checks or wait times just invites the criminals to go on a shopping spree. Nothing will stop criminals from getting guns, but why make it easier.
|
|
|
Post by docone31 on Oct 5, 2009 10:15:47 GMT -5
Man, someone sold you the horse and cart. You must be Canadian.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Oct 5, 2009 13:40:27 GMT -5
Those who would like to disarm law abiding citizens realize that they must sneak in the back door. I believe the initial push will be to require all firearms to be registered. They will then impose a fee that must be paid yearly, and it will be very expensive. This way, they will have a list of gun owners that will come in handy if and when they take the next step of taking guns away from law abiding citizens. All they will need is an excuse such as they had during Katrina when they burst into homes to take guns away from citizens. If we have a nationwide "emergency" they will have the option to disarm the people. For Brent, I too am concerned about the food supply. Especially the push to remove open pollinated seed. Monsanto's Seed company has a terminator gene they are breeding into crops. this alone could cause mass starvation, not to mention the ability to control the world's food production. yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/monsanto-and-terminator-genes.htmlwww.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml
|
|
brent
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since November 2008
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by brent on Oct 5, 2009 15:36:15 GMT -5
docone, yes I'm Canadian. Doesn't make my statement less true. A criminal will find the easiest way to get what they want. If one state requires criman checks and another doesn't, then the criminal will go to the state without criminal checks.
Greyfingers, the way the long gun registry worked, or didn't work, is they did a registration form and a one time fee of $10. Hand guns have been resticted here for as long as I can remember. I have never seen the need for hand guns.
The problem I have with the gun registry is that it started with a massacure in Quebec. A bunch of women were gunned down by a man with an assault riffle. What gets me is that assault riffles are banned to begin with. Makes no sense to register hunting riffles. The police don't even see the sense in it.
|
|
|
Post by docone31 on Oct 5, 2009 15:45:14 GMT -5
Assault rifle, a rifle with a caliber of .50 or greater capable of sustained fire of 500rds a min. It takes two people to lug one of those around. The term assualt rifle is a gun control term. There is a point. We have a Constitution. Untill the Constitution is eliminated, either in part or in whole, ANY abridgement is unconstitutional. If someone does not like that, they can leave. They can complain as they leave, but they can just leave. We already have several states that have town in practice that make your statement invalid. In the states where they have open carry, crime is down. Those who want a different country can leave this one.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Oct 5, 2009 16:06:19 GMT -5
docone31, well said. An armed society is a polite society. If a burglar, would-be murderer, mugger or rapist has reason to believe that their potential victim has the means to blow them away they think twice before committing the crime. The following is exercpts from a essay I saved some time back.
"In a time of need a person left defenseless from a gun control law feels no solace at the thought that someone somewhere might not be killed because of that law. The result of gun control is a society in which peaceful, law-abiding citizens are disarmed, while violent, unfriendly people are armed. Once a person has decided to commit a crime, no amount of gun control laws can alter their intentions. Many countries across the world enact radical gun laws however, their crime rates do not diminish. Gun control is not effective in reducing crime."
"Israel, which has the most heavily armed population, has a negligible crime rate. There is no reason to begin a war on guns that will rid society of guns any more than the war on drugs has eradicated drugs from our society. Laws intended to keep criminals from possessing guns' end up keeping guns from thousands of people who could use them to defend themselves. The British Broadcasting Company reported in the year two-thousand, that the United Nations convinced the residents of Sierra Leone to surrender their private weapons for UN protection during their civil war. In future years to come gun control laws will not deter crime but, rather encourage it. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms report that ninety-three percent of the guns used in crimes are not obtained through lawful purchases, so licencing, registration, and waiting periods do not work for crime prevention. In Switzerland, every male that is of age to be eligible for the draft is required to posses a firearm in their home, yet Switzerland's murder rate is only fifteen percent of the U.S."
And there is another reason for the public to be armed with free speech as well as other items of self defense. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
I do not advocate violence of any kind, but I am a big believer in the right to defend myself as well as my property.
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Oct 5, 2009 16:39:40 GMT -5
And not to beat a dead horse, but Hitler and Stalin also disarmed their population before caryying out atrocities.
|
|
stefan
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,113
|
Post by stefan on Oct 7, 2009 10:34:18 GMT -5
Remember the Nazis started with gun control.
|
|