The Republican Party

[Charon]

As for bringing the constitution into it, you do know that in 1770's they didnt have "short-barreled shotguns, machine guns and silencers" So to say that those rights are protected is a little bit of a stretch. For all we know the founders figured fire-arms wouldnt get much more powerful than they were. I seriously doubt our founding fathers want us walking around with Grenade launchers and rpgs and machine guns. That kinda sounds like Iraq/Afghanistan not America.

From a letter to the editor I am sending out today regarding more AWB attempts in Illinois. I may post it in a new thread to avoid a hijack and get some feedback. Probably just get another same old same old though  

A fundamental misconception being used to confuse the general public about assault rifles and split the shooting community, is the implication that a weapon’s usefulness for hunting or sporting is somehow relevant to the 2nd Amendment. Individual firearm ownership revolves around the basic premise that the average person may be required to stand up to a tyrannical government, just like our founding fathers did against British rule. In the age of tanks and air strikes it may be more symbolic than practical today (though maybe not, given the trouble caused by the insurgents in Iraq), but it is important symbolism none the less. The 2nd Amendment also provides for our individual ability to protect ourselves from immediate, violent crime. A call to 911 is, of course, the best policy, but it helps to be alive when the police finally arrive. Ironically, you will find that many strong political opponents of the 2nd Amendment ensure they have the protection of firearms, either through special exemptions or armed security that their constituents are denied.

By the way, anyone who strongly believes that a “well regulated militia” is an organization like the National Guard is out of touch with a recent 103-page report by the Department of Justice. By looking at how the term militia was commonly used during our founding, it became clear that all individual white males (by extension, that now includes all races and genders) were encouraged to own and be at least somewhat proficient with a firearm. And assault weapons, frankly, are the modern extension of the type of weapon the founding fathers had in mind.

[Charon]

The problem Raider, is that there is no middle ground. If my rights were broadly and clearly assured to be comparable to, say, to those in Arizona today, I could support general regulation that would require some degree of training to get a personal license to own firearms. Even some additonal training to allow for Class III weapons while making the tax cheaper and opening up impostrs and new sales. Nothing that would register specific guns though, since that is the first tool used in confiscation.

However, the anti 2nd Amendment people are not moderate. They are pushing for as close to a total ban as possible, and any moderate concessions are just the foundation for more restrictions. Assault rifles made up less than 1 percent of homicides before the 1994 ban, so why demonize them? Simple, they are low hanging fruit. Most gun owners don't own them, so they can divide the shooting community by promising not to touch those semi automatic hunting rifles and automatic and pump 12-gauge shotguns (at least not today....) and it's easy to scare the public. Once assault weapons are out of the way it's on to the next until your choices are Airsoft bb guns, black powder muzzleloaders or hunting bows, and 20-gauge double barreled shotguns with only bird shot for ammo. I don't think I'm really being paranoid here where Feinstein, Daley and Sarah Brady are concerned.

Charon

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Charon
From a letter to the editor I am sending out today regarding more AWB attempts in Illinois. I may post it in a new thread to avoid a hijack and get some feedback. Probably just get another same old same old though  

 "And assault weapons, frankly, are the modern extension of the type of weapon the founding fathers had in mind."

Pure speculation on your part.

I can't even fathom a militia getting together and attacking the hypothetical "tyrannical" government, much less having a chance of victory. Lets face it, you can have all the MGs, Shotguns, and sniper rifles you want, but you are not gonna win in a struggle vs. the US Government.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Key word being "regulated".

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Charon
The problem Raider, is that there is no middle ground. If my rights were broadly and clearly assured to be comparable to, say, to those in Arizona today, I could support general regulation that would require some degree of training to get a personal license to own firearms. Even some additonal training to allow for Class III weapons while making the tax cheaper and opening up impostrs and new sales. Nothing that would register specific guns though, since that is the first tool used in confiscation.

However, the anti 2nd Amendment people are not moderate. They are pushing for as close to a total ban as possible, and any moderate concessions are just the foundation for more restrictions. Assault rifles made up less than 1 percent of homicides before the 1994 ban, so why demonize them? Simple, they are low hanging fruit. Most gun owners don't own them, so they can divide the shooting community by promising not to touch those semi automatic hunting rifles and automatic and pump 12-gauge shotguns (at least not today....) and it's easy to scare the public. Once assault weapons are out of the way it's on to the next until your choices are Airsoft bb guns, black powder muzzleloaders or hunting bows, and 20-gauge double barreled shotguns with only bird shot for ammo. I don't think I'm really being paranoid here where Feinstein, Daley and Sarah Brady are concerned.

Charon

The Ban didnt get renewed. Another victory for guns. I am sorry I don't see the threat to fire-arms.

So you believe in Regulating/licensing guns but not registrtation? What about background checks? What about the people on terrorist watch lists? Would that be part of the licensing process?

Yeah the anti-2nd are some extremists but luckily they are few in number and they can't pass bills/laws without help from more "moderate" senators/representatives. Like I said to repeal the 2nd would be next to impossible.

Assault weapons were "already out of the way" and nothing of the sort you mention occured.

As for why they are/were banned, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Do you think an individual should be able to own Gatling Guns?

It is paranoia. The NRA has enough members and lobbyist to keep you guys in guns for a long time. So relax, they aren't going anywhere.

[DrDea]

Yeah, you kinda did just say "an anarchist like me". that doesnt leave a whole lot of room to manuever. The fact that you receive a paycheck from a government, any government disavows you from anarchy. You can say your one, but your gonna get laughed at everytime, especially when they find out you vote. lol

  I dont see where drawing a paycheck negates anyones personal beliefs.The only option to that is just senceless.Give up a paycheck just to prove a point?Sure Im going to let my family starve and live under a bridge just so I dont have to take well earned $ from "The Man" Thats just idiotic.One can have beliefs and still work with those that they oppose.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by DrDea
I dont see where drawing a paycheck negates anyones personal beliefs.The only option to that is just senceless.Give up a paycheck just to prove a point?Sure Im going to let my family starve and live under a bridge just so I dont have to take well earned $ from "The Man" Thats just idiotic.One can have beliefs and still work with those that they oppose.

It's like a black guy working for the KKK. Or a Jew who is a Nazi. It's too extremely opposite viewpoints. But he clarified what he said, so let it drop. I also disagree that Lasz only has 1 skill and this is his "only option".

So your saying Lasz is willing to take money to go against what he believes in? I highly doubt that.

[DrDea]

So your saying Lasz is willing to take money to go against what he believes in? I highly doubt that.

  Nope.Im saying that being more of a Liberterian,if the only job in town was to answer phones at the GOP convention ticket office Id do it.Doesnt mean I support em,just that  staying alive is much more important than being a knothead.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by DrDea
Nope.Im saying that being more of a Liberterian,if the only job in town was to answer phones at the GOP convention ticket office Id do it.Doesnt mean I support em,just that  staying alive is much more important than being a knothead.

Look, being a libertarian and answering GOP phones is not the same as being an anarchist and employed by the Government. THEY ARE COMPLETE OPPOSITES. One is a government employee and the other would like to destroy the government, not help it grow. You guys keep comparing things that have nothing to do with the situation. Lasz is not really getting involved in this conversation though so I don't see the point in continuing it. He said he may have mispoke so lets just leave it be.

[Charon]

The Ban didnt get renewed. Another victory for guns. I am sorry I don't see the threat to fire-arms.

An AWB just narrowly missed passing this year in Illinois. It will be brought up next year. There will be an expansion of the Cook County ban in a month (unincorporated areas). In some states it is a continual process. I live in one of those states. If I lived 20 miles north I would have dramatically different individual rights as an American.

So you believe in Regulating/licensing guns but not registrtation? What about background checks? What about the people on terrorist watch lists? Would that be part of the licensing process?

I don’t have a problem with regulating and licensing gun owners. Some people shouldn't own guns -- felons, mentally infirm, under age -- and I would personally expand it (if all else were protected) to required gun education for those who do not grow up around fireams and who have not been in the military. You could test out if you already owned guns. There are certainly those who would disagree, but I have no problem with that.

The issue with registering the firearms themselves, is that if the government does come for them they know exactly what to look for and what to take. (like they have done in NY and NJ I believe after requiring registration for legal types of firearms then making them illegal)

Yeah the anti-2nd are some extremists but luckily they are few in number and they can't pass bills/laws without help from more "moderate" senators/representatives. Like I said to repeal the 2nd would be next to impossible.

Just like it's impossible to imagine the massive support of the people and legislators for a war that could be anything but proper? As many people support a ban on assault weapons (percentage wise) as believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The process that got those opinion to that point are based on much the same type of media campaign and selective use of information for people who, in many cases, don't care about firearms in general and don’t care all that much to dig for details. Around here, a state rep just circulated a petition claiming that a .50 caliber Barrett rifle was a .50 caliber machine gun, and that an "assault rifle" was a m240 machine gun (text and pictures). The Chicago police commissioner recently stated that assault weapons can "empty a 30 round magazine with a couple of pulls on the trigger...” There are NUMEROUS similar statements, hype, hyperbola etc. that are not grounded in fact but that are pumped out and eaten up like gospel. Assault weapons were called "the weapon of choice" among criminals before the 94 ban when in fact they were used in gun crime at about 3 percent and in homicides at a rate less than 1 percent.

As for why they are/were banned, you have to draw the line somewhere.

How about drawing that line at reality? It would make more sense to ban hunting rifles. In 1993 in Chicago you were 67 times more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death than killed with an assault rifle.

Pure speculation on your part.

I can't even fathom a militia getting together and attacking the hypothetical "tyrannical" government, much less having a chance of victory. Lets face it, you can have all the MGs, Shotguns, and sniper rifles you want, but you are not gonna win in a struggle vs. the US Government.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Key word being "regulated."

The weapons our founding fathers used to fight the British were the equal or superior to their Brown Bess military issue muskets. Why would they put in a right for this purpose and not expect us to be armed with appropriate rifles as technology marched on? Also, the Iraqi insurgents seem to be doing pretty well on the cheap. Regardless, it is also a symbolic right at least suggesting that we are free to achieve our individual destiny in the face of tyranny. Here's what the DOJ has to say about militias:

The Militia Clauses therefore suggest that the Second Amendment, to the extent that it furthers the States' authority to maintain organized militias, does so indirectly, as we discussed in the previous subpart (II.C.2&3), by ensuring the minimum of a "well regulated Militia" - that the States' people, the pool for the citizen militia, would continue to be able to keep and to bear their private arms, having them ready and being familiar with them. Thus the Militia Clauses, along with the structure of the Bill of Rights and the preface of the Second Amendment, all support the personal, individual right to keep and bear arms that the Amendment's operative text sets out.

Charon

[lazs2]

raider... you are making too much of it... I am simply more of an anarchist or libertarian than anything else... I want no government but will work toward getting less and less of it.  If that means I have to vote to get less government then so be it...

As for the second... you seriously do not understand it..  a militia is needed to defend the country from tyranny from within and without... not having modern weapons (being well regulated) would make it useless well regulated meant  being well equipped when the amendment was written.   It was expected that the militia man would have modern weapons in good repair.

My (and most everyone elses) voting for republicans has indeed turned back the tide of the democrat party gun grabbing/banning agenda... and agenda shared by 90% or better of the democrat representitives that vote as evidenced by the protection of gun manufacturers bill just passed and the allowing of the assault and magazine ban to lapse.... if we had elected kerrie..... we would not have had these things happen.... we would have had even more restrictions instead.

The only restrictions I would put on guns would be sanity and maturity.   I have no problem with a machine gun in every closet... we would not be the first country to do so..  My right to bear arms is constantly under attack by democrats.... in Kalifornia I am restricted in how I bear them all the time... some cities seek to ban them altogether.... these are not republicans seeking these restrictions or bans.

Try driving across country with a loaded pistol and  AK47 on the seat or in the rifle rack if you think that the democrats aren't really hurting our right to keep and bear arms.

lazs

[Charon]

This is turning into a 2nd amendment hijack and I'm certainly participating, but one final point. Raider, this is some of the stuff legal gun owners have to put up with in some states where guns are a political issue.  It is not at all that uncommon. CNS News isn't my first choice as a source, but this is just a telling of a factual incident, not editorial.

ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 23, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The federal agency that regulates U.S. gun dealers stands accused, along with at least three Virginia law enforcement agencies, of trying to shut down legal gun shows through alleged intimidation of gun buyers and sellers. The law enforcement organizations also allegedly broke the law by sharing gun buyers' information with members of the public.

Annette Gelles, owner of gun show sponsor Showmasters.us, told Cybercast News Service that at least 30 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) along with nearly 500 Virginia State Police, Henrico County Police and Richmond City Police officers were assigned to the ATF operation targeting her gun show on Aug. 13 and 14 at the Richmond International Raceway and Fairground Complex, outside Richmond, Va.

Gelles said four marked police cars were stationed at the main entrance to the raceway parking lot and more than 50 marked and unlabeled but obvious law enforcement vehicles were positioned just outside the public entrance to the building. The officers' presence, Gelles said, was intended to intimidate her customers.

"It's just a persecution thing. It's not really an attempt to solve crimes or stop them," Gelles said. "It's their way of trying to get rid of gun shows. That's the only way you can explain that large a police presence at the gun shows."

Gelles said ATF Resident Agent in Charge Brian Swann told her that the officers were part of a "Virginia State Police, ATF task force" and represented the "same amount of force that we've used in all the shows." The only difference in Gelles' case, Swann told her, was that the command post was established at the site of her gun show.

Virginia State Police (VSP) spokeswoman Corinne Geller told Cybercast News Service that her agency does participate in a task force with ATF and other Virginia law enforcement agencies. As part of the agreement that created the task force, Geller said, VSP agreed to refer questions regarding its operations to ATF.

Richmond Police spokeswoman Kirsten Nelson e-mailed her response to questions about the apparent sting operation.

"I have done some checking and as I said on the phone, the gun show was not in our jurisdiction," Nelson wrote, "so I have no record of our officers' participation."

Gelles said the participation of Richmond Police officers in the
operation has already been documented, by Richmond Police officers.

"My own Richmond City Police officers that are there, that I hire for my security purposes, told me that they saw 14 (Richmond City Police officers) on Saturday in plain clothes," Gelles said.

Lt. Doug Perry with Henrico County Police acknowledged that his department's officers took part in the operation, but he would not say how many participated.

"We wouldn't normally release that anyway. That's part of our operational plan, the number of officers involved," Perry said. "We're not on overtime when we're doing that so it wouldn't be public information."

One gun show exhibitor said he counted 72 uniformed and plainclothes officers and agents in and around the vehicles near the entrance to the building. Gelles claimed that an unidentified officer tried to stop the exhibitor from counting the number of law enforcement personnel present, but walked away when the exhibitor refused.

While normal attendance at her two-day show is nearly 4,000, Gelles said she attracted approximately 2,300 the weekend of Aug. 13 and 14, costing Showmasters.us more than $7,000.

'There's no way that's legal'

"They did something else, which is highly illegal," Gelles charged. "They did something called a residency check."

Gelles explained that, when gun dealers took the paperwork to the Virginia State Police on-site office to complete the background checks on prospective buyers, ATF agents copied the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of the applicants.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told Cybercast News Service that he has received numerous complaints alleging that as handgun buyers were waiting for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background investigations to be completed, ATF was secretly conducting the so-called "residency checks."

According to the complaints he received, Van Cleave said officers were dispatched to the homes of the prospective gun buyers to speak with family members, asking for example: "Gee, did you know your husband was going to a gun show today? Do you have his cell phone number? Did you know he was buying a gun?

"If people weren't home they, in some cases, went to neighbors" to ask the same questions, Van Cleave said.

"I'm not an attorney but, I'll tell you what, in my opinion that would be a violation of federal law," Van Cleave said. "To go off on a fishing trip with that information, much less sharing information like that with neighbors, there's no way that's legal."

Title 18 Section 923 of the U.S. Code concerns the licensing of gun dealers and appears to support Van Cleave's position. It contains the following restrictions on the information collected during the process of a gun purchase:

"(g)(3)(B) Except in the case of forms and contents thereof regarding a purchaser who is prohibited by [federal law] from receipt of a firearm, the department of State police or State law enforcement agency or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction shall not disclose any such form or the contents thereof to any person or entity, and shall destroy each such form and any record of the contents thereof no more than 20 days from the date such form is received."

VSP's Geller could not comment on the "residency checks," but said the ATF did not get gun buyers' addresses from her agency. "I can assure you, they weren't getting it from our records," Geller said, "because we don't take addresses."

In fact, the "Department of State Police - Virginia Firearms
Transaction Record" form asks for the purchaser's name, date of birth, Social Security or driver's license number and citizenship status. No other identifying information, such as addresses or telephone numbers is requested.

But ATF Form 4473, the "Firearms Transaction Record Part I -
Over-The-Counter," does request the purchaser's address. Those forms are kept together as part of a "buyer's packet" when the VSP form is submitted for the NICS check.

Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Cybercast News Service that these types of allegations against ATF are exactly why GOA members opposed the NICS background check when it was initially proposed.

"Whenever you force good people to jump through hoops before they exercise their rights, you give rogue bureaucrats a chance to harass decent citizens," Pratt said.

"We have a Bill of Rights because government does not always act in our best interest," he continued. "Rather than being spied upon, the American people should be the ones questioning family members and neighbors - not of gun owners - but of these rogue bureaucrats."

ATF agent allegedly 'got quite rude' with gun show customer

James Lalime, who works part time for a gun dealer, was attending the Richmond show on his own. He had brought two firearms and part of a third from his personal collection to offer for sale at the show, which is legal and does not require a federal firearms license (FFL) or local business license.

Lalime claims a man approached him and verbally identified himself as an ATF agent but did not show his credentials or badge.

"He was accusing me of running a business and telling me that I needed to get a business license if I was going to sell firearms," Lalime charged.

The agent allegedly had state police check Lalime's driver's license and learned that it was suspended. He said he was placed in the back of a police car and questioned by the agent while the suspension was investigated.

"He kept asking me all kinds of questions: 'How often do you buy guns? When do you buy guns? When was the last time you bought a gun? How many guns did you buy the last time you bought guns?'" Lalime continued. "All that is irrelevant and I told him that. I said, 'That's my personal business.'"

Lalime was released when it was learned that his license was valid and the alleged suspension was caused by a computer error. He went back into the gun show and told Gelles about the encounter and she suggested that Lalime get the agent's name.

When he found the agent, who identified himself as Special Agent Brian McComas, Lalime claims McComas tried to intimidate him.

Cont.

[Charon]

"He said, 'You know you're making a big deal about nothing,' and I said, 'No sir, I am not,'" Lalime explained. "Then he got right in my face, almost touching his chest to mine, in real threatening posture, and said, 'You're making a real big mistake.'"

Lalime claims Swann interrupted the confrontation and the two federal officers walked away. "Once I got over the initial shock, it really made me angry," Lalime said.

ATF is 'out of the residency check business'

Gelles and her attorneys were in Washington, D.C., Aug. 15 to meet with ATF officials and seek an explanation for what happened over the weekend. After talking with several people in the ATF headquarters, Gelles said she finally spoke with a supervisor, whom she would not identify, who assured her that ATF "is out of the residency check business, effective immediately."

She was hesitant to give further details about the meeting in the event that a lawsuit is filed over the agency's actions.

In addition to the $7,000 she said she lost from reduced attendance at the show, Gelles added that she has already spent more than $12,000 in legal fees trying to prevent a repeat of the ATF operation of Aug. 13 and 14 and other previous incidents of what she considers improper agency behavior.

Van Cleave said his groups will be "watching in Virginia with a microscope to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

"If they do it again, we'll get active in contacting the ATF, the police and the media," Van Cleave warned. "If they break their word on this and start this crap again, then we will be in touch with the media."

After more than a half-dozen calls by Cybercast News Service seeking comment for this article, an ATF spokesman said the agency was "still gathering information" about the events of Aug. 13 and 14 and would not be able to comment until sometime on Tuesday.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Charon
An AWB just narrowly missed passing this year in Illinois. It will be brought up next year. There will be an expansion of the Cook County ban in a month (unincorporated areas). In some states it is a continual process. I live in one of those states. If I lived 20 miles north I would have dramatically different individual rights as an American.

 

I don’t have a problem with regulating and licensing gun owners. Some people shouldn't own guns -- felons, mentally infirm, under age -- and I would personally expand it (if all else were protected) to required gun education for those who do not grow up around fireams and who have not been in the military. You could test out if you already owned guns. There are certainly those who would disagree, but I have no problem with that.

The issue with registering the firearms themselves, is that if the government does come for them they know exactly what to look for and what to take. (like they have done in NY and NJ I believe after requiring registration for legal types of firearms then making them illegal)



Just like it's impossible to imagine the massive support of the people and legislators for a war that could be anything but proper? As many people support a ban on assault weapons (percentage wise) as believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The process that got those opinion to that point are based on much the same type of media campaign and selective use of information for people who, in many cases, don't care about firearms in general and don’t care all that much to dig for details. Around here, a state rep just circulated a petition claiming that a .50 caliber Barrett rifle was a .50 caliber machine gun, and that an "assault rifle" was a m240 machine gun (text and pictures). The Chicago police commissioner recently stated that assault weapons can "empty a 30 round magazine with a couple of pulls on the trigger...” There are NUMEROUS similar statements, hype, hyperbola etc. that are not grounded in fact but that are pumped out and eaten up like gospel. Assault weapons were called "the weapon of choice" among criminals before the 94 ban when in fact they were used in gun crime at about 3 percent and in homicides at a rate less than 1 percent.

 

How about drawing that line at reality? It would make more sense to ban hunting rifles. In 1993 in Chicago you were 67 times more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death than killed with an assault rifle.



The weapons our founding fathers used to fight the British were the equal or superior to their Brown Bess military issue muskets. Why would they put in a right for this purpose and not expect us to be armed with appropriate rifles as technology marched on? Also, the Iraqi insurgents seem to be doing pretty well on the cheap. Regardless, it is also a symbolic right at least suggesting that we are free to achieve our individual destiny in the face of tyranny. Here's what the DOJ has to say about militias:



Charon

1)Sounds like you need to write your congressmen on the AWB.

2)I agree with your plan for fire-arms. Sounds good and fair.

3)Well see that's the thing about the Constitution, if the people want it changed then it will get changed. That is how America is. If majority of Americans want guns banned (which I doubt) then they will go through and get rid of the 2nd amendment. And there would still be an argument even though it was done within the confines of how the Constitution sets out. I am under the understanding that any Amendment to the constitution can be repealled. We might not like it, but we don't have to live here.

4)Again the NRA has enough Money and Lobbying power to stem off such attacks.

5)Where is the answer to my question on Gatling Guns? Do you think ALL Guns should be legal? Yes or No please.

6)I think and this is just my opinion that AWB was put in place to stop 1 Criminal from killing lots of people. Not to stop lots of criminals from killing lots of individuals. 1 bad guy with AW is a helluva lot more dangerous than 10 with pistols. IMO

7)Best defense I have heard yet for letting Automatic Weapons be legal. I also agree the 2nd has become more symbolism than meant for actual modern use to protect us from tyrrany.

8)The militia, that is exactly what I am talking about. A state militia, not some group of guys who get together in the woods and drink beer and practice being GI Joe. That is what I mean by well-regulated. I see what it says about individuals and guns but I don't know, seems like it could be interpreted in a number of ways. 2nd amendment that is not the DOJ report

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
raider... you are making too much of it... I am simply more of an anarchist or libertarian than anything else... I want no government but will work toward getting less and less of it.  If that means I have to vote to get less government then so be it...

As for the second... you seriously do not understand it..  a militia is needed to defend the country from tyranny from within and without... not having modern weapons (being well regulated) would make it useless well regulated meant  being well equipped when the amendment was written.   It was expected that the militia man would have modern weapons in good repair.

My (and most everyone elses) voting for republicans has indeed turned back the tide of the democrat party gun grabbing/banning agenda... and agenda shared by 90% or better of the democrat representitives that vote as evidenced by the protection of gun manufacturers bill just passed and the allowing of the assault and magazine ban to lapse.... if we had elected kerrie..... we would not have had these things happen.... we would have had even more restrictions instead.

The only restrictions I would put on guns would be sanity and maturity.   I have no problem with a machine gun in every closet... we would not be the first country to do so..  My right to bear arms is constantly under attack by democrats.... in Kalifornia I am restricted in how I bear them all the time... some cities seek to ban them altogether.... these are not republicans seeking these restrictions or bans.

Try driving across country with a loaded pistol and  AK47 on the seat or in the rifle rack if you think that the democrats aren't really hurting our right to keep and bear arms.

lazs

Sorry but your either an Anarchist or your not. There are no "voting" anarchists. Anarchist vote by burning things down, blowing things up, and causing general chaos. You can feel free to label yourself one, but that doesnt make you one.

I understand the 2nd just fine. I know all about "defending us from tyranny far and near". I just don't think it applies any longer. Haven't we gotten civilized enough to where we aren't stockpiling weapons and the like just in case "the government gets a little uppity"?

Well-regulated as I interpret it means, the men are well trained and are not a bunch of loners, but part of an organized "state" militia.

So any sane, mature person could own machine guns and walk down the street with them? LMAO try getting the police to sign on with that. Have you ever seen a gang in Dixon? You think things are bad now, give them free and open access to Huge Firepower and its gonna be a bloodbath with lots of innocents getting hurt, But I guess that is the anarchist agenda speaking up.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Charon
This is turning into a 2nd amendment hijack and I'm certainly participating, but one final point. Raider, this is some of the stuff legal gun owners have to put up with in some states where guns are a political issue.  It is not at all that uncommon. CNS News isn't my first choice as a source, but this is just a telling of a factual incident, not editorial.

I am not even gonna read all that because I have been to gun shows and if you have too then you know that all types of "illegal activity" occurs there.

You know what your best defense is when the Government steps out of line? Its not a gun, its a lawyer.