He makes a lot of sense.
IMO
Eric Sharp: Aim for gun laws that will work | Commentary | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
IMO
Eric Sharp: Aim for gun laws that will work | Commentary | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
Aim for gun laws that will work
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
Not being a gun owner or hunter myself, I wouldn't know. Care to elaborate?
moose
Veteran Expediter
He seams to mist the point of gun ownership. limiting magazines capacity, and registering, will only help the Gov. to collect those guns by force.
then there's the HR15 dictatorship law on the congress floor now, that's goe's hand in hand with gun control.
Third Term for Obama Backed by Usual Suspects - Smart Girl Politics
he also mist the point about Hollywood. Hollywood is full with stunning actors that got to be who they are without participating in even one Sex shot. yet they will come and tell us that sex sales and they don't have a choice. it's all about choices. they can make and sale quality movies without violence, sex or food for that matters.
he seams to be a good hunter though...
then there's the HR15 dictatorship law on the congress floor now, that's goe's hand in hand with gun control.
Third Term for Obama Backed by Usual Suspects - Smart Girl Politics
he also mist the point about Hollywood. Hollywood is full with stunning actors that got to be who they are without participating in even one Sex shot. yet they will come and tell us that sex sales and they don't have a choice. it's all about choices. they can make and sale quality movies without violence, sex or food for that matters.
he seams to be a good hunter though...
It has nothing to do with being a gun owner or a hunter. The words are "Shall not be infringed" Period. The Federal government CANNOT legally register our guns. PERIOD. ANY law that requires that invalidates the Bill of Rights.
AR 15 or M4 clones ARE used for hunting and target shooting. Not that it matters, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
The government IS setting up for violent confrontations with U.S. citizens who they intend to make criminals by outlawing or restricting something that they cannot, IF THEY WERE TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. Which they have NO intention of doing.
One either supports the Constitution or one is an enemy of it. Obama has drawn the line in the sand. There are somewhere between 80 MILLION to 100 Million LEGAL gun owners in this country. The government is BADLY outgunned, as it should be. MILLIONS will stand their ground.
AR 15 or M4 clones ARE used for hunting and target shooting. Not that it matters, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
The government IS setting up for violent confrontations with U.S. citizens who they intend to make criminals by outlawing or restricting something that they cannot, IF THEY WERE TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. Which they have NO intention of doing.
One either supports the Constitution or one is an enemy of it. Obama has drawn the line in the sand. There are somewhere between 80 MILLION to 100 Million LEGAL gun owners in this country. The government is BADLY outgunned, as it should be. MILLIONS will stand their ground.
I understand all that and support you. My question is, to a person such as me, with no knowlege of the weapons, what are his falsehoods?
Not so much about the guns themselves, but his LIES about the Constitution. RIGHTS, in the United States, are NOT granted by the Federal Government. The government cannot, therefor, take them away nor restrict them.
ALSO, just a little fact. He mentions car registration, number one, it is a STATE function, not a Federal Function. Second, FAR more people are killed every year by REGISTERED cars than are killed by unregistered guns.
I promise one thing, make me a criminal or invalidate the Constitution and I WILL stand against those who did it. PERIOD.
ALSO, just a little fact. He mentions car registration, number one, it is a STATE function, not a Federal Function. Second, FAR more people are killed every year by REGISTERED cars than are killed by unregistered guns.
I promise one thing, make me a criminal or invalidate the Constitution and I WILL stand against those who did it. PERIOD.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Here's one: he claims the government, in writing the Second Amendment, wrote the first gun control law. Actually, "they" weren't the government yet, being that states wouldn't even ratify the constitution without the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Second Amendment, like the others, is a government control law, quite the opposite of a gun control law. And you'll notice that it doesn't say, "unless we want to" or "subject to reasonable restriction" our any other exception or disclaimer. So it's an anti-gun-control law.
He follows that up by saying "(they) made it clear by the wording that the federal government has authority," when the reverse is true.
Third, he terms some of the members of the NRA "extreme." The NRA are the biggest bunch of compromisers ever. The NRA is the nation's largest gun control organization that's been stabbing gun owners in the back for decades. I applaud their work on gun safety and shooting courses, but that's all they do well. My back still hurts from where they put the knife 20 years ago.
This isn't strictly a falsehood, but it's hypocritical nonetheless for him to call the gun crowd radical for guarding a right that's unquestionably under attack, while you can bet he'd feel a lot different if it were the First Amendment under attack.
His last paragraph is a false comparison between a war zone and normal society. More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott proves categorically that more guns are, indeed, the answer to maintaining a safe society--and a free one.
He follows that up by saying "(they) made it clear by the wording that the federal government has authority," when the reverse is true.
Third, he terms some of the members of the NRA "extreme." The NRA are the biggest bunch of compromisers ever. The NRA is the nation's largest gun control organization that's been stabbing gun owners in the back for decades. I applaud their work on gun safety and shooting courses, but that's all they do well. My back still hurts from where they put the knife 20 years ago.
This isn't strictly a falsehood, but it's hypocritical nonetheless for him to call the gun crowd radical for guarding a right that's unquestionably under attack, while you can bet he'd feel a lot different if it were the First Amendment under attack.
His last paragraph is a false comparison between a war zone and normal society. More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott proves categorically that more guns are, indeed, the answer to maintaining a safe society--and a free one.
Flashbang Bra Holster as seen on NCIS LA, NCIS Los Angeles - YouTube here is a gun law that works, just be prepared.....imho
It just scares the beejeevees outta me to think of a Monger running around with a gun....OMG....no wonder America is doomed.....According to the B.A.U. of the FBI...American culture is one of the most paranoid cultures next to the Romans....
thought that was the purpose of our weekend warriors?....the NG....
very good question...
so HOW many of you guys actually are part a well regulated militia? as called for by the Constitution?
Where do you train?
how often?...
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
You know so little about me. Your attack is based on ignorance. But I'm hardly surprised.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Look back to your lessons about dependent & independent clauses. That a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state doesn't limit gun rights to that militia. I remember a linguist being asked for his opinion about that sentence, and he concurred, based on how the sentence is phrased.
Also, the writings and statements of the Founding Fathers make it clear. I forget which one said this, but he said, "Anyone who is able may have a gun." And iirc, there was something in the 3 recent court cases (MC Donald, Heller, and one more that I'm forgetting) that addressed this. It's an individual right, beyond question.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
According to US Code Title XII, Section 311, chapter 313, the militia is composed of 2 parts: the organized militia and the unorganized. The organized militia is, indeed the national guard. The unorganized militia is composed of every able bodied male between the ages of 17 & 63.
What the heck, decided to quote it:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are -(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I don't recall the chapter & verse where the 45 was extended to 63.
Some states have actually outlawed militia training. They mention things like banning training in groups of more than 2 or 3, banning marching in groups, drill, wearing camo, etc.
Last edited:
I never thought you be such a sensitive person....me saying about you and a gun together and say it is an attack?....come on now....
I see what is typed and draw conclusions....that is all I can go by....the same as your opinion of me....as you've made posts before that could be construed as attacks of my nationality....and I let it go by the wayside....
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Canuck-bashing is mere repartee, except where I point out how individual rights aren't as respected there, our how Canada is more socialistic than us, though we're catching up.
Yes, I consider what you said to be an attack, not just harmless 'nad busting among guys.