Skip to main content

Figure of speech, Dog. That's why I put it in quotes.

You guys are SO literal! LOL.

 

HIFLYER: I have no disdain for southern people. I wasn't always a nor'easter. I was an Alabamian and a West Virginian before that and an Upstate New Yorker before that. Guys like me, no place is home.

I do have disdain for insecure guys that turn into swaggering asshats as soon as they get behind a pistol.  

 

News flash for these guys-If I could whup ya before ya bought that gun, chances are I can still do it while you're carrying it.

 

Douchebaggery isn't exclusively a southern trait, but there is an abundance of it around here in places.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

Figure of speech, Dog. That's why I put it in quotes.

You guys are SO literal! LOL.

 

HIFLYER: I have no disdain for southern people. I wasn't always a nor'easter. I was an Alabamian and a West Virginian before that and an Upstate New Yorker before that. Guys like me, no place is home.

I do have disdain for insecure guys that turn into swaggering asshats as soon as they get behind a pistol.  

 

News flash for these guys-If I could whup ya before ya bought that gun, chances are I can still do it while you're carrying it.

 

Douchebaggery isn't exclusively a southern trait, but there is an abundance of it around here in places.

 

 

 

 

 No, Joe...you nail it every time.

Southerners. Can't drive. Can't talk. Ignorants? 

In Connecticut yawl "Do it right" ? Huh!

Too bad you're stuck "down here".

Maybe we should start a FUND for you?

 

 

 

I guess "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I don't think I'd rather live anywhere in the US but right here, and it's not because I've never spent any time anywhere else either. Road rage? Very little. Road rude maybe, or road absent mindedness, but not enough to give too much thought. Any time someone does do something stupid/rude someone will say, "check the tag, bet they're yankees!" I know plenty of people that carry guns. It's not that they're arrogant, full of themselves, or fancy themselves bad "*****" either. I've never seen any of them threaten anyone or make any remarks about what they'd do to this one or that one with their big bad guns blah blah blah. Maybe there is "douchebaggery" in the south, but I disagree that we have more than our fair share. Far from it. 

Every been to New Jersey, or watched Jersey S*h*o*r*e?  For a true crew of douches-in-training and a nearly unintelligible local patois, Kim and company can't be beat.  California Valley Girl or surfer slang, another couple of near unintelligible patoises.  The worst stories of road rage come from California,  NYCers qualify as true provincials.  They think upstate is foreign.  (Personally, the Finger Lakes vinyards produce some of the best sauternes and ice wines in the world.).

No, thankfully I've never watched. There was a guy on "parking wars" with weird hair he was always "fussing with", and he thought he was super hot. He wasn't. Some one said to him, "you look like pauly from jersey s****s".He goes, "thank you", so I had to see who pauly was and why anyone would think looking like him was a compliment. Well, I STILL don't see how that would be a compliment. Isn't this the same show with those kartrashian cows?

 

Exercisinf your RIGHT and CHOOSING to go armed is a HUGE responsibility. It's MUCH easier to go out into the world UNARMED and expect Big Brother to protect your a s s. Speaking as a former LEO and certified firearms instructor, I can tell you for a FACT that LEOs CANNOT  'protect you'. There simply aren't enough LEOs to assign one to each and every citizen. Self-defense is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

From the Library of Congress:

 

"On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right."

 

More:

 

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

 

And from the June 28, 2010 NYT "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling"

 

"WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The ruling came almost exactly two years after the court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller, another 5-to-4 decision."

 

More:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html

 

From the White House: "The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."

 

More:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-...ent/the-constitution

 

And from Yahoo news hours ago:

 

"The White House signaled today that President Obama, who has seldom shown much appetite to fight with the powerful National Rifle Association, did not intend to make a push for stricter gun controls in the wake of the shootings in Aurora, Colo.

 

" ‘ The president's views on this are, as he has stated and as he spelled out in the op-ed that was published in an Arizona newspaper, which is that he believes we need to take steps that protect Second Amendment rights of the American people but that ensure that we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by existing law, obtain those weapons," White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Air Force One as the president flew to Colorado."

 

More:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/white-ho...c-news-politics.html

 

IMO, Obama really doesn’t want to pick a fight with the SCOTUS [not in this term]. I mean can you imagine suffering not one but two beat downs on someone claiming to be a constitutional scholar? What? You don’t think that reflected on him? Why?

 

Because "it’s the agenda, stupid."

 

And everyday, lib/Dem/gun grabbers remind us. How can you ignore Bloomberg screaming at the top of his lungs? Words you will never hear him or any lib gun grabber ever say..."hey it says right there on the federal form a person with a mental defect cannot purchase a gun. So a nut case comes in to buy a gun and we know they sometimes lie, but we can't do a background check on crazy people.  Courts block it. I want to be able to do background checks on those with a history of mental issues!!!"

 

Nope, you’re not going to hear that from any PC liberal gun grabber. That question on the 4473 is meaningless and we independent conservatives want to know why.  Does that make me a bad person?

 

Lib gun-grabbers try to deflect by tap dancing around what the meaning of militia is when the the real issue is the rights of the people. The say we forget the first half of the Second Amendment while they oppress the second half. Or they try to lull us to sleep with reassurances such as nobody’s going to interfere with the Second Amendment.

 

Know what they say about letting a camel get his nose in the tent?

 

Let’s pretend the First Amendment was treated like the Second. What if you had to have a background check to buy a book? Chip. Or a tax was levied on that books and the words in them that went to support public libraries. Chip. Or certain hard cover books were so restricted that you could only get them in certain states and only after paying a hefty federal transfer tax. Chip. And that liberals were routinely calling soft cover books "hard cover" to get them restricted as well. Chip, chipping away. Or if you wrote a book, you were limited in the number of words you could use. Chip. Or you couldn’t buy books in a state in which you weren’t a resident. Chip. Or you had to apply for a permit to carry books. Chip. Can’t carry a book in certain establishments. Chip. And OMG what if you used a book to defend your re****tion and the book police kicked in your door and found an untaxed, unlicensed private library? Crash!!!

 

If anyone thinks the Second Amendment has the same strength it once had as written, they’re a fool. If there weren’t defenders, it wouldn’t even exist even in its diluted state.

 

Nope, nobody’s going to mess with the Second Amendment...not our cities like Washington, DC, not the Clinton clown clones, not the Brady Bunch....they just happen to be liberals and we know the libs’ got our backs. And Brutus is an honorable man.

 

Any time anyone with ideas restricting legitimate ownership of firearms opens their mouth...BOHICA

I sit here reflecting on what I just posted, I hope y’all picked up on the significance of the two 5-4 splits. Do y’all appreciate how close a call that was? Had this been an Obama Court [as it could be] most likely the vote would have gone the other way and any state could then outlaw handguns, especially for self-defense as identified specifically in the SCOTUS ruling.

 

And yet there are those on this forum who are so naive as to think our right to keep and bear arms is not teetering on the brink of extinction. Or that is what they would have us believe.

 

@ Dog. When asked why a carry a sidearm, I reply "because a cop is too heavy."

 

@ Interventor. Good advice. Got to protect yourself from "backstabbers."

Originally Posted by budsfarm:

I sit here reflecting on what I just posted, I hope y’all picked up on the significance of the two 5-4 splits. Do y’all appreciate how close a call that was? Had this been an Obama Court [as it could be] most likely the vote would have gone the other way and any state could then outlaw handguns, especially for self-defense as identified specifically in the SCOTUS ruling.

 

And yet there are those on this forum who are so naive as to think our right to keep and bear arms is not teetering on the brink of extinction. Or that is what they would have us believe.

 

@ Dog. When asked why a carry a sidearm, I reply "because a cop is too heavy."

 

@ Interventor. Good advice. Got to protect yourself from "backstabbers."

=======================================================================

 

You might also add that if you carry a cop, he'll steal your money. The cops have now become the thieves. 

Referring to the post about the tn cop who stole the $23k from that man in Tn. 

The talented Ms. Judith Miller said it all and said it well:

 

By Judith Miller

I have a dream to counter the nightmare ofAurora. I see three or four ex-presidents standing together, speaking truth to the American people. Here is what they would say: "Our fellow Americans, we have come together not as Democrats or Republicans, but as men who have been privileged to lead this great country.

"We all treasure the Constitution and the Second Amendment. We believe that Americans have the right to own guns. But that amendment does not entitle citizens to own combat weapons like the assault weapon that theAurorashooter used to kill 12 and wound 58 more in aColoradotheater.=

"The AR-15 assault rifle is a military-style weapon designed to feature high-capacity ammunition magazines capable of firing up to 30 rounds of ammunition without reloading. You don't need an assault weapon to protect your family or shoot a deer. No one should own an assault rifle except our folks in the military and the law enforcement officers who protect us.

"For 10 years, assault weapons like these were banned in all 50 states until Congress let the Federal Assault Weapons Ban 'sunset.'

"Our fellow Americans, it's time to reinstate this law. We call upon the men who lead, or want to lead this country, and the Congress, to do the right thing: Protect American citizens by restricting the sale of such weapons to those who have been authorized to use them."

Is such a group presidential statement a pipe dream?

Former President Jimmy Carter has long called for reinstating the assault weapons ban. So, too, did President Bill Clinton.

In 1994Clintonsigned two bills that became the hallmark of such efforts. The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act required a five-day waiting period and background check for the sale of handguns and created a National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The Assault Weapons bill he signed banned the production and importing of 19 types of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and other guns with similar features, as well as ammunition magazines containing more than 10 rounds.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein remains in the Senate. She led the campaign for the ban after a series of shootings in her state ofCalifornia, including a 1993 rampage in aSan Franciscooffice building that left eight dead and six wounded.

She could help lead the charge in the Senate. And Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, ofLong Island, has never stopped trying to ban high-capacity ammunition clips, like the one used to kill 6 people and wound 14, including Rep. Gabby Giffords, in yet another Wild West rampage.

McCarthy's own husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on aLong Islandcommuter train.

President George H.W. Bush signed an executive order making it illegal to import Uzis and AK-47s. Even his son, President George W. Bush, whose opposition to gun control may have helped him eke out victory over Al Gore, indicated in 2004 that he would have signed an assault weapons ban reauthorization had Congress approved it.

If not now, when? How many more massacres must Americans endure — the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the tragedy of Columbine, the Amish girls killings, the Virginia Tech murders, the Fort Hood tragedy, the Gabby Giffords shootings? Can't we do more than pray for families of victims and carry flowers to their graves?

I believe that most Americans would welcome a call to arms against combat arms protection from our former presidents.

I think that many have yearned to hear a speech like that from President Obama and Mitt Romney, his would-be replacement. But neither had the guts to mention the "g" word.

Instead, they stopped campaigning for two whole days and spoke of the "horrific and tragic" massacre and of coming together as "one American family" to pray and grieve about the "senseless violence," as if we had just suffered a tsunami rather than a historic failure of political courage.

It was pathetic.

OnlyNew York's Mayor Mike Bloomberg called upon Obama and Romney to join him in restricting such weapons. "Soothing words are nice," he said, "but maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it."

Amen.

OK. Guns don't kill people. But inAurora, the undoubtedly unhinged person who struck had four of them — an assault rifle, as well as a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and two .40 caliber Glock handguns.

In the last 60 days, police said, he bought more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition — more than 3,000 rounds for the assault rifle, 3,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for the two Glocks, and 300 rounds for the 12-gauge shotgun — all on the Internet.

When is enough enough? When will our politicians be moral and principled enough to do more than utter empty platitudes and challenge the gun lobby on what should be a no-brainer?

(Judith Miller is an author and a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter formerly with The New York Times.)

 

Guess this won't make sense to anyone, but, why are we not allowed to travel in a car without wearing seat belts? Why can't we go out on boats without wearing life vests? Why, in most places, are we required to wear helmets when riding motorcycles, bicycles, go carts etc? Why are we  urged to have working smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in our homes, and by law in our businesses? Why do we have emergency exits in public buildings, CLEARLY marked? I could go on and on but hopefully what I'm saying is clear. All that is considered common sense and a good thing. Yet IF you have/carry a gun/other weapon for protection, there is suddenly something wrong with you. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Guess this won't make sense to anyone, but, why are we not allowed to travel in a car without wearing seat belts? Why can't we go out on boats without wearing life vests? Why, in most places, are we required to wear helmets when riding motorcycles, bicycles, go carts etc? Why are we  urged to have working smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in our homes, and by law in our businesses? Why do we have emergency exits in public buildings, CLEARLY marked? I could go on and on but hopefully what I'm saying is clear. All that is considered common sense and a good thing. Yet IF you have/carry a gun/other weapon for protection, there is suddenly something wrong with you. 

Traveling bia any mode of transportation in America IS NOT a 'constitutionally protected right'. The Founding Fathers didn't forsee a need to legislate 'common sense' (BOY! Were THEY wrong!), but DID see a need to PROTECT our right to self defense, expecially so after England tried to confiscate the colonists weapons. Without the means to fight a tyrannical government, men are little more than slaves.

Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Guess this won't make sense to anyone, but, why are we not allowed to travel in a car without wearing seat belts? Why can't we go out on boats without wearing life vests? Why, in most places, are we required to wear helmets when riding motorcycles, bicycles, go carts etc? Why are we  urged to have working smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in our homes, and by law in our businesses? Why do we have emergency exits in public buildings, CLEARLY marked? I could go on and on but hopefully what I'm saying is clear. All that is considered common sense and a good thing. Yet IF you have/carry a gun/other weapon for protection, there is suddenly something wrong with you. 

Traveling bia any mode of transportation in America IS NOT a 'constitutionally protected right'. The Founding Fathers didn't forsee a need to legislate 'common sense' (BOY! Were THEY wrong!), but DID see a need to PROTECT our right to self defense, expecially so after England tried to confiscate the colonists weapons. Without the means to fight a tyrannical government, men are little more than slaves.

=========================================================================

 

One thing apparently you and Ben Laden agreed on - you could fight the United States 'government' , tyrannical or not, with an ak47 or a squirrel rifle, or a 9mm handgun with a 20 round mag.

@ Best

 

"So, he wasn't referring to the case/cop in TN even though he posted that he was?"

 

The way I took it, Weed was referring to a previous post on a different thread. Not so much as a topic of discussion, but more by way of a humorous example.  His reply bears that out.

 

I didn’t mean to sound rude if I did. I would have provided you a link to it, but Weed is going to have to count me among the "challenged" as I could not remember it either.

 

But all good. We cool.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Guess this won't make sense to anyone, but, why are we not allowed to travel in a car without wearing seat belts? Why can't we go out on boats without wearing life vests? Why, in most places, are we required to wear helmets when riding motorcycles, bicycles, go carts etc? Why are we  urged to have working smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in our homes, and by law in our businesses? Why do we have emergency exits in public buildings, CLEARLY marked? I could go on and on but hopefully what I'm saying is clear. All that is considered common sense and a good thing. Yet IF you have/carry a gun/other weapon for protection, there is suddenly something wrong with you. 

Traveling bia any mode of transportation in America IS NOT a 'constitutionally protected right'. The Founding Fathers didn't forsee a need to legislate 'common sense' (BOY! Were THEY wrong!), but DID see a need to PROTECT our right to self defense, expecially so after England tried to confiscate the colonists weapons. Without the means to fight a tyrannical government, men are little more than slaves.

=========================================================================

 

One thing apparently you and Ben Laden agreed on - you could fight the United States 'government' , tyrannical or not, with an ak47 or a squirrel rifle, or a 9mm handgun with a 20 round mag.


What makes you think I'd be alone?

I personally don't think outlawing "assault weapons" would prevent something like this.  He injured and killed as many with the shotgun in that close range as he did with the assault rifle.

The problem is not the availability of weapons.....the problem is the lack of moral turpitude in this country, and the total lack of regard for human life and personal property.  This guy was bat-**** crazy, yet he was highly educated and living in a fantasy world.  he could just as easily made a big bomb or poisoned a salad bar.  until we address the real root of these types of activities banning assault weapons will not stop them.

Now, do I think everyone needs an AK-47 or an SKS? Not necessairly, but I know plenty of responsible people who own them and enjoy shooting them.  Clinton's ban did little to stop the entry of these weapons in the public, as I could probably open up the paper and find two or three for sale almost every day.

And RP your disdain and mockery of "southern boys" is becoming quite dull and predictable. Maybe we should start that fund for you after all.....haha.....besides it might be safer for all of us southern folks if we didn't have to worry about a Yankee Ninja Chuck Norris like yourself who is considered lethal within 21 feet!!!! Come on you can tell us, is your real name Jason Bourne?????

Originally Posted by teyates:

This guy was bat-**** crazy, yet he was highly educated and living in a fantasy world.  he could just as easily made a big bomb or poisoned a salad bar.

What do you mean "could"?  Try "did".
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/24/...index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Sounds like he was perfectly willing to kill other residents of his apartment complex in order to cover up his plans.  Fortunately, not everything worked out for him.

@ Contendah,

 

BFred’s post written by him makes a heck of a lot more sense than your cut & paste job.

 

Ms. Miller writes

 

"How many more massacres must Americans endure — the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the tragedy of Columbine, the Amish girls killings, the Virginia Tech murders, the Fort Hood tragedy, the Gabby Giffords shootings?"

 

What does Columbine, Amish, Va Tech, Gifford, and maybe even Ft. Hood shootings have in common? They all involved mentally defective people who, if they purchased their guns through an FFL dealer, lied on question 11 [f] on their 4473 application and there’s no way to do a background check on these people. Criminal checks, yes. Medical records including mental defectives, NO And I’ll bet anyone a dollar to a donut that this psycho Aurora shooter is going to be another.

 

The laws are in place but politicians both Democrats and Republicans will not push through any effort to enforce them. Make medical records having to do with mental illness available to law enforcement for God’s sake.  Quit putting this on the backs of FFL dealers.  They're not shrinks.

 

And why penalize folks like Jank and BFred? So long as they use their firearms responsibly and acquire them legitimately as millions of gun owners do, whose darn business is it how many they have.  Someone may have one or two for home defense.  A collector may have hundreds.  So what?

 

Here’s the link to the application...On page 1, please read question 11 [f] and the instructions for it on page 4. And realize very little of this information can be checked out.

 

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

 

Just occurred to me some of you might be looking at a 4473 for the very first time.

@ teyates,

 

Good post.

 

"He injured and killed as many with the shotgun in that close range as he did with the assault rifle."

 

Just want to point out the semi-auto S&W AR-15 the psycho was using was not an assault rifle any more than the stock car you drive is what NASCAR races at Talladega.

 

RiP’s last words before running at an elderly Southern lady armed with a .22 purse gun: "Hey youse guys, watch dis."

If you go to my post of 21 July in this thread, you can see the damage done at the Oklahoma City bombing with no shots fired.  Once again, the monster who did shot the 12 people is educated in chemistry and physics.  Two relatively uneducated people made the Oklahoma City bomb.  To my knowledge, there are at least three types of extremely deadly chemical weapons he could have devised and thrown in the theater instead of tear gas.  Or, he could have made a bomb that  could have leveled the theater.

 

The murder rate in the US has plummeted, as gun ownership has risen.  In London, the murder and violent crime rate have risen as gun ownership had dropped.  The UK, once known for it peaceful ways, now has a violent crime rate worse than most places in the US.

 

I haven't weighed in on this yet. I am a liberal, but I believe in gun rights. I have owned quite a few different guns in my life and although I have never shot a living creature, I sure do enjoy target shoothing.

 

I have even shot an AK47. It was FUN watching the gallon milk jugs DISINTEGRATE in less than a second!  But I suppose a ban on assault weapons like that is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with guns, but weapons like that are the weapons of choice for most of the nuts who want to kill massive numbers of people. And while it won't stop them from trying, it might make it possible for more people to escape if they have to use a shotgun or other weapon instead.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

So just to be clear everyone here in this discussion is for a certain amount of gun laws, or government control, right?

===========================================================================

 

... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed .

I'm going to let the part about a militia slide for now, because I believe it is necessary to have some sense of Article 2, sec 2 of the Constitution and a rudimentary grasp of the history of how the Militia was used for defense in those days, even being the main fighting force in some cases, and I seriously doubt that can be intelligently discussed here. 

However, the part of the 2nd Amendment I posted begs the question "What exactly constitute "arms" ?   Technically, I guess, everything from a rock and a slingshot to nuclear weapons can be considered "arms". Do we have the right to (personally ) own nuclear weapons, C4 explosive, RPG's , a tank , heavy artillery .. on and on.

So yes, I think there should be some line drawn as to just how much "firepower" an individual should lawfully be able to personally own.  I think personally, the line should be drawn at fully automatic weapons, and basically regular magazine sizes - 6 - 9 rounds or so. Basically, I agree with the Brady Bill which expired under Bush 2's tenure with nobody apparently giving a tinkers damm.  It would mean that some bats**t crazy person would be able to get off less shots in some case like this one in Co, or the Columbine massacre, or the Gabby Giffords shooting. 

The continuing failure of our nation to rationally address this growing problem could end up having dire consequences in the long run. Sooner or later, enough people will say "enough" and as always too much may be done . 

Remember this?

 

Sarah Brady, Gun Criminal?



Posted on Friday, March 22, 2002 

 

Move over, Rosie O'Donnell: The newest "celebrity" anti-gun hypocrite is Sarah Brady.

 

 

 

Mrs. Brady "bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements," the New York Daily News reported Thursday.

 

 

 

Some people will do anything to tell a book. No doubt to increase interest in what otherwise would be a boring memoir, the gun rights opponent writes that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06, "complete with scope and safety lock," at a gun shop in Lewes, Del.

 

 

 

"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."

 

 

 

According to her book, the store ran federal Brady Law and state background checks with much ado. But the book suggests she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware law.

 

 

 

Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler said the purchase could be illegal if Mrs. Brady did not say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for an inquiry.

 

 

 

"You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler told the Daily News. "That would be a 'straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there."

 

 

 

Gun rights advocates were surprised to hear of Mrs. Brady's antics.

 

 

 

"We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone."

 

 

 

Seniors United Supporting the Second Amendment told NewsMax.com it was asking Delaware and the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate "what appears to be a criminal act" by Mrs. Brady.

 

 

 

"Sarah Brady is infamous for her radical anti-Second Amendment positions and her work to strip the citizens if the United States of their civil rights. She is the head of an extremist group that is working to gut the Bill of Rights," the group said in a statement.

 

 

 

"Sarah Brady is typical of the anti-civil rights radicals," noted John Bender, executive director of SUSSA. "She wants to ban private transfers of guns for everyone but her and her elitist friends. If a black mother in a Delaware public housing apartment did this she would already be charged with a crime. I’m wondering if Delaware has different enforcement standards for rich white women.”

 

 

 

The group concluded: "Sarah Brady is one of the leaders in the anti-civil rights movement’s attempt to make all private transfers of firearms illegal. Along with other extremists she pushed Congress to make this type of straw purchase illegal. Law enforcement should show her what her work has accomplished."

 

 

 

Mrs. Brady became a media-adored opponent of the Second Amendment after her husband, James, White House press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, was shot in a 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/651781/posts

It makes me smile whenever I hear of a liberal enjoying guns. [There’s no reason why they shouldn’t. Conservatives shouldn’t have all the fun.] But then it’s short-lived because I just know the other shoe is about to drop...like this. Happens every time.

 

"I have even shot an AK47. It was FUN watching the gallon milk jugs DISINTEGRATE in less than a second! But I suppose a ban on assault weapons like that is a good thing." ~ O No!

 

O No, and everyone else, please! There is a ban on assault weapons like the AK47. First in the 1930's and beefed up in the 1980's. In Alabama, it is illegal for a private citizen to own or possess one.

 

Want a link? How about pages of them. Here...pick one

 

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fully+automatic+gun+laws+alabama&oq=alabama+gun+laws+automa&gs_l=hp.1.2.0i30l2j0i8i30.26110.27297.2.32375.7.7.0.0.0.0.1375.7546.6-3j4.7.0...0.0...1c.s7tPiJ63dkc&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=68ae98b817855936&biw=1016&bih=563

 

Or if the link doesn’t work, simply google "fully automatic gun laws Alabama."

 

Yes, an AK47, being that it is a selective fire weapon capable of full automatic fire, is classified as a machine gun.

 

So O No! either you shot a semi-auto rifle mistakenly thinking you were shooting an AK47 assault rifle or if you live in Alabama, you’re admitting to a felony. I’m a non-attorney spokesperson so I’m going to advise you as hard as it is for you being a liberal to admit you’re wrong, it’s better than going to prison.

 

How many times do folks [not picking on O No here but a whole lot of folks] have to be told - with supporting facts - that semi-auto look-alikes are not assault weapons? No matter how many times you call an apple "an orange" it is still an apple. Why is that do difficult to understand? Like the old saying, tell a lie often enough and some folks will begin to think it’s the truth. It this what it’s all about?

 

O No!, I’m glad you enjoyed your experience. Just like many folks on this forum and millions nationwide do too. But if one psycho misuses the gun, as I understand it you would be in favor of banning the gun from everyone else rather than trying to weed out the psycho first.

 

Why is that?

Please let me add as a caveat that ban is too strong a word especially since fully auto firearms are allowed by paying a hefty federal transfer tax and only after an extensive background check.

 

So if O No actually shot a fully licensed full-auto, I apologize to her and to anyone else I may have misled.  Excuse me while I wipe the egg off my face.

 

That gun would be a rarity in Alabama these days. And expensive, too. Might as well be banned.

@ O No

 

You rock.    And roll.

 

As side note, in the history of legally privately owned Class III weapons dating back to the 1930's, only a couple have been used by owners in criminal activity...

 

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=class+III+weapons+used+in+crimes&oq=class+III+weapons+used+in+crimes&gs_l=hp.12...1203.19500.1.22609.38.31.3.4.4.2.1890.31500.5-3j19j4j5.31.0...0.0...1c.UItBi0qI_E4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=68ae98b817855936&biw=1016&bih=563

 

which says a lot for your friend and others who subjected themselves to a thorough background check, don’t you think?

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×