Barack H. Obama and your Second Amendment Rights !

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

I keep a stash of Fish Mox & Fish Flex just for that reason...speaking of sinus infections.

Damned doctors won't give me antibiotics any more.

Chas

Speaking of honesty, you'd tell the Pope if he had a booger hanging out.

Regards,

D-Ray

[RamblinE]

The logic I'm operating under goes like this:

The rifles I want are desperately obsolete. High-powered and designed to kill yes, a hundred years ago. By today's standards they're large, heavy and cumbersome. Low capacity magazines with a relatively low rate of fire. Bolt action and stuff. Not to mention, not so easy to find anymore.

Handguns? Why, I could go buy one right now. No reason why I personally wouldn't qualify. Handguns are small, compact and concealable. They are easy to use and have a high rate of fire. Yet, they don't have the range or the velocity to take properly take down animals. If you can't hunt with it what else are you supposed to shoot with it then?

I live in the Philadelphia metro area which includes such places as Trenton and Camden NJ, where the police forces are being systematically cut even in the face of increasing crime rates. Hell, the crime rates in the entire area are rising, which goes against the national trend. In light of that, I view handgun ownership as doing more to put the people around you in jeopardy than defend yourself. You get robbed on the street, you can replace your cell phone, your wallet, your band cards, your media player, etc. No reason to start a shoot out and to take a life over material stuff.

And you know what? We don't have enough control over our own fates to prevent ourselves from falling victim to violent crime in the first place. Anyone who thinks they can prevent it are deluding themselves and firearms are a false tonic creating a false sense of security that they can't possibly enforce.

Also, the way I understand the 2nd Amendment, long arms were surely covered as they're pretty close to what colonial militias themselves used.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by Big_Bill

I don't know why I am surprised that you believe that rifle and pistol cases are "Sensitive Munitions" ?
Or that you would believe that this is their concern, as the abandoned a "Super Secret Stealth Observation Aircraft" in Iran, without trying to destroy it before it could be sent to Russia and China to reverse engineered and study.

Ammunition cases have not changed in over 100 years ! I have examined them, weighted them, checked their volumes and hardness and ounce fired cases are all within the acceptable normal variances, depending on the type of weapon they are fired from. So their secrets are already revealed.

And if this was a situation of National Security, they would have our troops in the Sand Box police their cases before they left the battle field.

The politicians lie, the government confirms their lies, what else is new.
But I am sure you will continue believe what you wish. Or believe what ever they tell you to believe.

Sincerely,

Bill

This morning after reading your source material, then looking for another article. Just to see what you were talking about. This is due to the fact the NRA is biased in their reporting.

No where did I say I was in agreement with the article posted. Was just trying to get some of the facts. From the article it appears to state it was first purposed and implemented by the former President prior to this administration.

The jest of the article was to generate a feeding frenzy benefiting the manufacturing of ammo industries.

I am a gun owner and remember the scare when Obama was elected causing shortages on ammo. Driving up the prices and making some calibers scarce.
I have not seen anything by this administration done to curtail my gun rights to date. I can still go and buy the same guns and ammo today as four years ago.

Selling surplus Military brass on the open market could be used to supply foreign entities of some kind we should agree. So someone saw a need for this in the nations interests.





Barney

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by bhunter

What criteria are you using to compare the two countries?

How do you mean?

[painter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You're pretty good with euphemisms, ya know that?

Regards,

D-Ray

Thanks D-Ray. It's the anesthetic. Once it wears off who knows?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Big_Bill

I have a few Mensa Puzzle Books

Bill

lol


good stuff billy!

[Big_Bill]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

See, this is the part that bugs me. Although I believe the 2nd Amendment does not refer to individual ownership at all, rather it clearly refers to "the state" and "the people" in a plural (collective) context. IMHO, I am not against reasonable gun ownership, by sane, carefully vetted individual citizens.

Fortunately for us all Dave, the SCOTUS has decided differently, otherwise the First, second, fourth, ninth and tenth Amendments would all be Collective Rights and Not Individual Rights.

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Well Dave, not if you are a hunter and/or a target shooter. Not to mention if you just like to collect guns, you might benefit from a few more guns.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

If you remember your history, the British went to Concord, MS. on April 19, 1775 ordered to seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. Note CANNONS, a weapon of mass destruction of their day. While I can not see any reasonable person wanting a thermo nuclear device, I believe that the Second Amendment wanted the American People to have every weapon required to be able to stop any attack on America, like the 1776–1777 - Second Cherokee War, 1776–1794 - Chicago Wars, 1785–1795 - Northwest Indian War, 1786–1787 – Shays' Rebellion, 1791–1794 – Whiskey Rebellion, 1799–1800 – Fries's Rebellion, a Pennsylvania protest against war taxes, 1806 – Spanish Mexico – A platoon under Captain Zebulon Pike invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from General James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present-day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers., 1812–15 – War of 1812. On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war against the United Kingdom. Among the issues leading to the war were British impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, interception of neutral ships and blockades of the United States during British hostilities with France., 1813 – West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus U.S. troops advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting., 1806–10 – Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Captain John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter., etc. information from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wars



Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for? We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Well Dave, I can think of a few reasons that the purchase of more than one gun a month might be necessary, like buying a personal collection, or or going on a hunting trip and requiring a back-up rifle, or just wanting to get you and your child a matching rifle to hunt with, I know that you can get a better price when buying in quantity.

Dave

Sincerely,

Bill

[Big_Bill]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

It even comes up here. We have pretty serious laws controlling the sale and possession of handguns, but whatever the bad guys need just comes across the border.

Erik,

Many things cross the border from both sides.

Anything that is banned, will always cause a market, people just don't like their governments to tell them what they can do, and what they can have.

And for the right price, I'm sure someone will sell anyone, anything.

Bill

[Charles]

Originally Posted by RamblinE

The logic I'm operating under goes like this:

The rifles I want are desperately obsolete. High-powered and designed to kill yes, a hundred years ago. By today's standards they're large, heavy and cumbersome. Low capacity magazines with a relatively low rate of fire. Bolt action and stuff. Not to mention, not so easy to find anymore.

Handguns? Why, I could go buy one right now. No reason why I personally wouldn't qualify. Handguns are small, compact and concealable. They are easy to use and have a high rate of fire. Yet, they don't have the range or the velocity to take properly take down animals. If you can't hunt with it what else are you supposed to shoot with it then?

I live in the Philadelphia metro area which includes such places as Trenton and Camden NJ, where the police forces are being systematically cut even in the face of increasing crime rates. Hell, the crime rates in the entire area are rising, which goes against the national trend. In light of that, I view handgun ownership as doing more to put the people around you in jeopardy than defend yourself. You get robbed on the street, you can replace your cell phone, your wallet, your band cards, your media player, etc. No reason to start a shoot out and to take a life over material stuff.

And you know what? We don't have enough control over our own fates to prevent ourselves from falling victim to violent crime in the first place. Anyone who thinks they can prevent it are deluding themselves and firearms are a false tonic creating a false sense of security that they can't possibly enforce.

Also, the way I understand the 2nd Amendment, long arms were surely covered as they're pretty close to what colonial militias themselves used.

I suppose that since you're a bright, progressive college student from Philly, and I'm an old, ignert hillbilly from Bugtussell, who has been using firearms for 45 years, we are bound to disagree to a certain extent.

We may as well be from different planets.

Concerning handguns, I've been hunting with them for years. Rifles and shotguns become boring after awhile.

Now I can appreciate the fact that you wish that no one is the metro areas, such as you live, had possession of a handgun. And I would like to commend you for your lack of desire to kill someone over a simple robbery, I'm not so sure that I would care to do so as well.

But I'm hardly deluded in thinking that a firearm, in a dangerous situation, would not offer me at least a certain tactical advantage.

Take care, I have to run,

Chas

[finnbow]

I've also owned guns for about 45 years, but somehow have never thought of them as a means of personal defense (and I've lived in some pretty shady areas including New Orleans and downtown DC). All my guns remain unloaded and under lock and key. In fact, there is not a single instance in 45 years that any of my guns have been loaded while in my house or vehicle. Not once.

Nowadays, I prefer shooting blackpowder to any other style of gun.