-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Why I am done with gun laws
- Thread starter GM-GUY
- Start date
bigpick
NES Member
United States school shootings, 1990-present - Ballotpedia
Numbers here show that a lot of states where so called AWs are legal aren't getting shot up. Good ploy to get the masses in fear so the can feel that someone will protect them. I think it's just like when we see this years flu season. Yes it's bad but if you read the news if you get it you're going to die. It's awful how things are spun and it's out of control. Headlines for news articles don't even match up with the article when you read it. They need to be more responsible about reporting and get the facts straight before writing a bogus article, and if you are going to then come up with a solution rather than just spew nonsense. IDK it seems people are just out of control these days.
Numbers here show that a lot of states where so called AWs are legal aren't getting shot up. Good ploy to get the masses in fear so the can feel that someone will protect them. I think it's just like when we see this years flu season. Yes it's bad but if you read the news if you get it you're going to die. It's awful how things are spun and it's out of control. Headlines for news articles don't even match up with the article when you read it. They need to be more responsible about reporting and get the facts straight before writing a bogus article, and if you are going to then come up with a solution rather than just spew nonsense. IDK it seems people are just out of control these days.
Varmint
NES Member
Yep, gun laws were also much more permissive pre GCA68, and the AR-15 has been around since 1963. Yet school shootings weren't a "thing" until the last 25 years or so.
Koolmoose
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,045
- Likes
- 509
FIFYTime to buy that 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th defensive rifle.
GM-GUY
NES Member
I'm also tired of people demanding that we do away with the 2A, in limited, draconian or total fashion. No, you can't and I will not accept another step. I have followed inane law after law that's only real goal it to limit or restrict law abiding citizens. Gang members and career criminals still ignore the law, still get ROR'd and in the end plead out to a greatly lesser charge with a time served and minor fine imposed. When a law abiding citizen makes a mistake (couldn't renew their license on time or cross a line on a map) they are arrested, held pending a dangerousness hearing and have a high bail set. The only plea deal ever offered one of these individuals seems to make them a federally prohibited person.
How about this, I DEMAND WE FOLLOW THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Not what they say it means, or how it should be interpreted - WHAT IT SAYS. It clearly defines a Militia being necessary for the security of a free state and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. A Militia is a citizen volunteer force (think Minutemen or Mel Gibson in The Patriot). These men could be called up when needed and would go about their business when not - remember the founders feared a standing army (some would say todays police forces are very close to that line). PEOPLE, meaning citizenry; not the government as the government is of, for and by the people. No where in the Constitution the word people a collective term, but a group of individuals, drawn together in common cause and identity. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Founders left us a method to amend or change the Constitution or Amendments as the people saw fit.
1) Get two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass an amendment lets say "This amendment hereby repeals the second amendment".
2) Get 38 States Legislatures to ratify within a 'reasonable period' some say 3 years, some say 7.
You could also get a convention of the states needing only 34 states to convene, but what has happened every time it has come close, congress has short circuited it at proposed their own amendments - lest they lose control over the process.
Once you have done that, you can now pass whatever law you want. Let's say - no citizen shall own (some type(s) or any) firearms.
Now the fun part, you get to enforce the law. Remembering that there is now way to deport 11 Million illegals, you are going to round up the same to as many as 30 times than many guns.
I wish you luck, and as I said in the OP - even if you do all that, I still won't listen.
How about this, I DEMAND WE FOLLOW THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Not what they say it means, or how it should be interpreted - WHAT IT SAYS. It clearly defines a Militia being necessary for the security of a free state and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. A Militia is a citizen volunteer force (think Minutemen or Mel Gibson in The Patriot). These men could be called up when needed and would go about their business when not - remember the founders feared a standing army (some would say todays police forces are very close to that line). PEOPLE, meaning citizenry; not the government as the government is of, for and by the people. No where in the Constitution the word people a collective term, but a group of individuals, drawn together in common cause and identity. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Founders left us a method to amend or change the Constitution or Amendments as the people saw fit.
1) Get two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass an amendment lets say "This amendment hereby repeals the second amendment".
2) Get 38 States Legislatures to ratify within a 'reasonable period' some say 3 years, some say 7.
You could also get a convention of the states needing only 34 states to convene, but what has happened every time it has come close, congress has short circuited it at proposed their own amendments - lest they lose control over the process.
Once you have done that, you can now pass whatever law you want. Let's say - no citizen shall own (some type(s) or any) firearms.
Now the fun part, you get to enforce the law. Remembering that there is now way to deport 11 Million illegals, you are going to round up the same to as many as 30 times than many guns.
I wish you luck, and as I said in the OP - even if you do all that, I still won't listen.
GM-GUY
NES Member
So yesterday was the day, all the organizers did a good job of getting their message out. They paid for buses, they paid for setup and staging and they got free media coverage for it. I saw some coverage of rallies that 'thousands' attended that wouldn't fill the area in front of the Beacon Hill, never mind across the street and down several blocks - but we had only 'hundreds'. When we have a rally, it tends to be out of each one of our pockets; they seem to have large donors willing to step up and finance the whole thing - large donors that have full time heavily armed security.
I saw signs blaming the NRA, asking how many kids they killed today and wanting more restrictions on guns like their are on their body (female). Lets examine:
The NRA; offers training for police, as well as normal citizens, they offer safety classes and provide advice on shooting range design and a myriad of other things. Do they lobby congress? Sure they do almost $500 Million in 2016 in total according to the Huffington Post (which I'm sure isn't padded at all) what did just the unions donate in 2016? Only $1500 Million - three times as much, so much for being bought by the NRA - either that or these are some dumb congressmen.
More restriction on her body than on guns; does she need a license? a background check? can't utilize until 18 (lobbying for 21)?
These kids have been used by their parent and usual suspects (Soros & Hollywood etc..) to push an agenda that is not Constitutional. We have hold fast to that. Any compromise on our part, any 'reasonable accommodation' is always met not with thanks or satisfaction on the Anti-2A part, but with demands to go further and have more restrictions.
We have given away far to much, but lets say you think 'Meh, Bump Stocks - who needs that gimmick, toy, or whatever word you want to use', maybe someone wants one (it is the Bill of Rights, not needs). How do you justify taking away someone else's RIGHTS as they don't NEED that part of them? What happens when the government decides that you don't need privacy on your phone or computer and someone without a computer or phone says 'Meh, electronics - who needs that gimmick, toy or whatever word they want to use', what do you say then? The same could be said for a car or motorcycle that can go 100mph or a home that has four bedrooms and you only use three.
In 1986, I was finishing High School and getting ready to join the military (mid June); I had no knowledge of that bill's existence, never mind passing until years later. How can you, me or anyone presume to speak for all those that will come after us when giving away rights?
Will this go bad? As we have seen in Vermont, it could - even on a Federal Level. What can we do? Call you congressmen and senators (if yours are liberal and won't listen - call the leadership offices). Keep a watchful eye on congress and see if they are going to enact say another AWB or magazine capacity ban. If so, it is your duty, to obtain whatever they want banned in direct violation of the new 'law'. If you live in Mass and the Feds end up wanting to ban 30 round mags, get to NH or Maine and buy as many PMAGs as you can and bring them home. Unconstitutional Laws aren't laws at all. In the 60's protests led by MLK violated laws, some were arrested, beaten and even killed but the 'laws' folded in light of Freedom.
A word on police action, if they come to your door - you know two things, they are taking some/all of your stuff and probably taking you to jail for many months and tens of thousands of dollars in fees. You will never see your stuff again, and you may not see your freedom again - choose wisely and know that Righteous Acts can never be dishonored.
I saw signs blaming the NRA, asking how many kids they killed today and wanting more restrictions on guns like their are on their body (female). Lets examine:
The NRA; offers training for police, as well as normal citizens, they offer safety classes and provide advice on shooting range design and a myriad of other things. Do they lobby congress? Sure they do almost $500 Million in 2016 in total according to the Huffington Post (which I'm sure isn't padded at all) what did just the unions donate in 2016? Only $1500 Million - three times as much, so much for being bought by the NRA - either that or these are some dumb congressmen.
More restriction on her body than on guns; does she need a license? a background check? can't utilize until 18 (lobbying for 21)?
These kids have been used by their parent and usual suspects (Soros & Hollywood etc..) to push an agenda that is not Constitutional. We have hold fast to that. Any compromise on our part, any 'reasonable accommodation' is always met not with thanks or satisfaction on the Anti-2A part, but with demands to go further and have more restrictions.
We have given away far to much, but lets say you think 'Meh, Bump Stocks - who needs that gimmick, toy, or whatever word you want to use', maybe someone wants one (it is the Bill of Rights, not needs). How do you justify taking away someone else's RIGHTS as they don't NEED that part of them? What happens when the government decides that you don't need privacy on your phone or computer and someone without a computer or phone says 'Meh, electronics - who needs that gimmick, toy or whatever word they want to use', what do you say then? The same could be said for a car or motorcycle that can go 100mph or a home that has four bedrooms and you only use three.
In 1986, I was finishing High School and getting ready to join the military (mid June); I had no knowledge of that bill's existence, never mind passing until years later. How can you, me or anyone presume to speak for all those that will come after us when giving away rights?
Will this go bad? As we have seen in Vermont, it could - even on a Federal Level. What can we do? Call you congressmen and senators (if yours are liberal and won't listen - call the leadership offices). Keep a watchful eye on congress and see if they are going to enact say another AWB or magazine capacity ban. If so, it is your duty, to obtain whatever they want banned in direct violation of the new 'law'. If you live in Mass and the Feds end up wanting to ban 30 round mags, get to NH or Maine and buy as many PMAGs as you can and bring them home. Unconstitutional Laws aren't laws at all. In the 60's protests led by MLK violated laws, some were arrested, beaten and even killed but the 'laws' folded in light of Freedom.
A word on police action, if they come to your door - you know two things, they are taking some/all of your stuff and probably taking you to jail for many months and tens of thousands of dollars in fees. You will never see your stuff again, and you may not see your freedom again - choose wisely and know that Righteous Acts can never be dishonored.
Varmint
NES Member
Well said. A few years ago I felt the urge to follow all the gun laws, to be an upstanding citizen in that regard. But now, with the state and the media choosing to ignore the laws, I'm starting to think these laws are not valid, especially ones that the AG made up on the fly.
GM-GUY
NES Member
Repeal the Second Amendment they say.....maybe even a modification about 'sporting' or 'hunting' that the Anti's claim are acceptable.
Okay, lets try that. Offer it for a vote in the House & Senate (no one has - I wonder why? - we'll get back to that) and if by some miracle it reaches the 2/3 threshold (67 Senate/356 House) you get to find 38 States that will agree, I can count 25 states that would never agree with my eyes closed. But wouldn't it be worth the attempt?
Not really, as once the congress and especially the country as a whole rejects the repeal soundly; what do the politicians do then? They were just told that the second means what it says and to leave it alone. Does this mean a court would rule that all current gun laws are null & void as by definition; they infringe on the Second Amendment? I think it might - and that explains why the left would never go down the Constitution road. They will continue to nibble and ban arbitrary items that effect only a relatively small amount of people until they have gotten the 2A so boxed in that a similar reading and interpretation of the 4A would allow warrantless searches of your home under the 'safety' and 'common sense' umbrella if you got into a car accident or bounced a check. The 5A would only apply on the stand in court, all other interactions with police and govt officials requires your full and complete cooperation and 100% compliance with questions asked and that lawyer you get would only be allowed in court too. The 1A would allow licensing and approved worship lists, you can only pray in approved ways, and only as long as you aren't within 1000 feet of a school.
It is our duty as American's to IGNORE Unconstitutional Laws, we have tried and bent over backwards for year to 'be reasonable'; but that isn't what the Anti's want - they want us to comply and go along until their final move when it's too late to do anything other than comply or die.
I understand, kids died in Parkland, Sandy Hook, Columbine and at all the other mass shootings. That does not negate the 2A, perhaps it illustrates the need for it. For in the end, all these events were ended by a good guy with a gun. It doesn’t have to be a cop, just allow good guys to carry.
The shooter bought the guns legally he was a ‘good guy’ according to the govt. The govt also ignored and mishandled information that any normal person would see is a person going over the edge. In fact a govt program was put in place for the very purpose to prevent criminal records and jail time for ‘youth’ - regardless of the crime, offense or mental issue.
Okay, lets try that. Offer it for a vote in the House & Senate (no one has - I wonder why? - we'll get back to that) and if by some miracle it reaches the 2/3 threshold (67 Senate/356 House) you get to find 38 States that will agree, I can count 25 states that would never agree with my eyes closed. But wouldn't it be worth the attempt?
Not really, as once the congress and especially the country as a whole rejects the repeal soundly; what do the politicians do then? They were just told that the second means what it says and to leave it alone. Does this mean a court would rule that all current gun laws are null & void as by definition; they infringe on the Second Amendment? I think it might - and that explains why the left would never go down the Constitution road. They will continue to nibble and ban arbitrary items that effect only a relatively small amount of people until they have gotten the 2A so boxed in that a similar reading and interpretation of the 4A would allow warrantless searches of your home under the 'safety' and 'common sense' umbrella if you got into a car accident or bounced a check. The 5A would only apply on the stand in court, all other interactions with police and govt officials requires your full and complete cooperation and 100% compliance with questions asked and that lawyer you get would only be allowed in court too. The 1A would allow licensing and approved worship lists, you can only pray in approved ways, and only as long as you aren't within 1000 feet of a school.
It is our duty as American's to IGNORE Unconstitutional Laws, we have tried and bent over backwards for year to 'be reasonable'; but that isn't what the Anti's want - they want us to comply and go along until their final move when it's too late to do anything other than comply or die.
I understand, kids died in Parkland, Sandy Hook, Columbine and at all the other mass shootings. That does not negate the 2A, perhaps it illustrates the need for it. For in the end, all these events were ended by a good guy with a gun. It doesn’t have to be a cop, just allow good guys to carry.
The shooter bought the guns legally he was a ‘good guy’ according to the govt. The govt also ignored and mishandled information that any normal person would see is a person going over the edge. In fact a govt program was put in place for the very purpose to prevent criminal records and jail time for ‘youth’ - regardless of the crime, offense or mental issue.
Last edited:
GM-GUY
NES Member
Waste of time. I’d never identify as a D or an R and I’d answer questions truthfully about both sides. Much like JFK could never be elected in Mass, I couldn’t either - although I’m a Libertarian. Never mind any other family issues that get me DQ’d from Jury Duty every time.
GM-GUY
NES Member
So Vermont has fallen - I hope it rises again. Make no mistake, the 'laws' that were just enacted are a violation of the State Constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States of America. They were rushed through due to an 'emergency', that emergency being the prevalence of gun violence and threats thereof. The most cited reason was Jack Sawyer that the Governor himself cited the case why he shifted his stance and opted to infringe on lawful citizens.
Lets examine that, a case, in which the subject was arrested and held without bail before any laws were changed was cited as the reason that tougher laws were needed. That same case was just ruled on by the Vermont Supreme Court that “We hold that the weight of the evidence is not great that defendant has committed any act or combination of acts that would satisfy Vermont’s definition of an attempt to commit any of the charged crimes. We reverse the trial court’s hold-without-bail order and remand for further proceedings”. So the existing laws were such that person that was alleged to be planning to commit a crime was arrested and held. The governments response was to raise the age to 21 for firearms purchases, limit magazine capacity and get (basically) universal background checks FIREARMS REGISTRY. The list of other laws considered were vast but 'hey, that's no so bad.....'
YES IT IS.
When has the Anti-2A folks been satisfied? If they can't get a law, they get a regulation, a court ruling or simply a new 'interpretation'. Any compromise, any 'reasonable restriction' will be met with demands for more restrictions.
ENOUGH, the time for compliance and being 'lawful citizens' has passed, it is time to become Descendants of the Founders and ignore the Anti Constitutional Laws. As Rosa Parks did on the Bus, as Mahatma Ghandi did with non-compliance to British Rule and Martin Luther King Jr did with protests throughout the south; the system only works with compliance.
I no longer give that compliance, I urge everyone who reads these words to do the same.
Lets examine that, a case, in which the subject was arrested and held without bail before any laws were changed was cited as the reason that tougher laws were needed. That same case was just ruled on by the Vermont Supreme Court that “We hold that the weight of the evidence is not great that defendant has committed any act or combination of acts that would satisfy Vermont’s definition of an attempt to commit any of the charged crimes. We reverse the trial court’s hold-without-bail order and remand for further proceedings”. So the existing laws were such that person that was alleged to be planning to commit a crime was arrested and held. The governments response was to raise the age to 21 for firearms purchases, limit magazine capacity and get (basically) universal background checks FIREARMS REGISTRY. The list of other laws considered were vast but 'hey, that's no so bad.....'
YES IT IS.
When has the Anti-2A folks been satisfied? If they can't get a law, they get a regulation, a court ruling or simply a new 'interpretation'. Any compromise, any 'reasonable restriction' will be met with demands for more restrictions.
ENOUGH, the time for compliance and being 'lawful citizens' has passed, it is time to become Descendants of the Founders and ignore the Anti Constitutional Laws. As Rosa Parks did on the Bus, as Mahatma Ghandi did with non-compliance to British Rule and Martin Luther King Jr did with protests throughout the south; the system only works with compliance.
I no longer give that compliance, I urge everyone who reads these words to do the same.
GM-GUY
NES Member
I'm still done with gun laws.
While the ERPO here in Mass isn't law yet, it's clear something horrible will be soon. Don't get me wrong; mentally defective, damaged dangerous people shouldn't have guns - nor should they have access to knives, cars or gasoline. That is not what this soon to be law is about - they stripped out all the mental caveats and it is a straight gun confiscation bill with no due process, no appeal and no ramifications for false charges by activists or angry acquaintances. This law will weaponize the police to raid legal gun owners on a mere accusation, no burden of proof no due process required. Once they have taken your property, you can then plead your case with a judge to get your property back - if that fails you can try again in a year.
Due process is one of the founding building blocks of our laws, you can not lose your rights or freedom without it - at least not until now. Meanwhile in DC, we have politically connected violating all manner of law and moral standards without a care in the world. Profiting at the expense of the country and their fellow citizens is viewed as a badge of honor. Locally, we have people who have without a doubt broken the law (illegal aliens be they landscapers or MS-13) and they are protected by the same people who passed ERPO. They will give illegals the benefit of the doubt every time, with low or no bail, minimal sentences and not cooperating with ICE.
Whereas gun owners, on the mere accusation of something, lose their property without a shred of proof required. If they use their firearm in defense of their home, they are charged more harshly than the gang member who shoots someone at a subway stop. ERPO's do not apply to gang members. They are criminals without an LTC - the police have no reason to believe they have guns; where you have nicely proven to the state you have guns and given them a list of what you have.
I refuse. I refuse to submit to an ERPO, I offer my assistance to anyone under an ERPO. I will not comply. I will not comply with someone knocking on my door demanding my property, I will defend myself against anyone knocking my door down.
To anyone reading these words that does not have a completed 80% Rifle and Handgun kit, what are you waiting for? You can wait on the registration, just till the second coming though. Maybe you think the police won't be knocking at your door - the other guy might, but not you; the Jews thought the Gestapo wouldn't be knocking on theirs either - just the other guy. This law turns the police into the Gestapo make no mistake, rolling on law abiding citizens on mere accusation from unknown persons with the only requirement of having an LTC.
You may not want to fight now, but this progression towards totalitarianism won't stop; and one day you will have to fight - wouldn't it be nice if you could? Maybe you don't want an AR or a handgun, think of your kids. You are making a decision that will limit their rights, wouldn't you like to give them the option?
I am a law abiding citizen, and until recently in my 50 years on this earth I did my very best to follow every law. My last moving violation was over 15 years ago my last parking ticket was well before that and that is the extent of my legal deviations. I have decided to defer to the United States Constitution on most things now. Just because some elected body passes a law doesn't mean it's constitutional.
While the ERPO here in Mass isn't law yet, it's clear something horrible will be soon. Don't get me wrong; mentally defective, damaged dangerous people shouldn't have guns - nor should they have access to knives, cars or gasoline. That is not what this soon to be law is about - they stripped out all the mental caveats and it is a straight gun confiscation bill with no due process, no appeal and no ramifications for false charges by activists or angry acquaintances. This law will weaponize the police to raid legal gun owners on a mere accusation, no burden of proof no due process required. Once they have taken your property, you can then plead your case with a judge to get your property back - if that fails you can try again in a year.
Due process is one of the founding building blocks of our laws, you can not lose your rights or freedom without it - at least not until now. Meanwhile in DC, we have politically connected violating all manner of law and moral standards without a care in the world. Profiting at the expense of the country and their fellow citizens is viewed as a badge of honor. Locally, we have people who have without a doubt broken the law (illegal aliens be they landscapers or MS-13) and they are protected by the same people who passed ERPO. They will give illegals the benefit of the doubt every time, with low or no bail, minimal sentences and not cooperating with ICE.
Whereas gun owners, on the mere accusation of something, lose their property without a shred of proof required. If they use their firearm in defense of their home, they are charged more harshly than the gang member who shoots someone at a subway stop. ERPO's do not apply to gang members. They are criminals without an LTC - the police have no reason to believe they have guns; where you have nicely proven to the state you have guns and given them a list of what you have.
I refuse. I refuse to submit to an ERPO, I offer my assistance to anyone under an ERPO. I will not comply. I will not comply with someone knocking on my door demanding my property, I will defend myself against anyone knocking my door down.
To anyone reading these words that does not have a completed 80% Rifle and Handgun kit, what are you waiting for? You can wait on the registration, just till the second coming though. Maybe you think the police won't be knocking at your door - the other guy might, but not you; the Jews thought the Gestapo wouldn't be knocking on theirs either - just the other guy. This law turns the police into the Gestapo make no mistake, rolling on law abiding citizens on mere accusation from unknown persons with the only requirement of having an LTC.
You may not want to fight now, but this progression towards totalitarianism won't stop; and one day you will have to fight - wouldn't it be nice if you could? Maybe you don't want an AR or a handgun, think of your kids. You are making a decision that will limit their rights, wouldn't you like to give them the option?
I am a law abiding citizen, and until recently in my 50 years on this earth I did my very best to follow every law. My last moving violation was over 15 years ago my last parking ticket was well before that and that is the extent of my legal deviations. I have decided to defer to the United States Constitution on most things now. Just because some elected body passes a law doesn't mean it's constitutional.
Last edited:
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Depends on which female you ask. There are some that earnestly believe that all penises are dangerous. I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be too hard to find a few that believe that in this state.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
You know where that will lead right? You sitting in the police station where the local chief is telling you that either testify and offer assistance to the state against the dangerous person or lose your own LTC and guns. There is enough case law to back that assertion up.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 602
- Likes
- 352
Thanks for the perspective OP. I respect your dedication to the Constitution. That dedication is one of the key components sorely missing in the hearts & minds of our "representation".
I recently had the opportunity to remind candidate for US Senate John Kingston that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting or skeet shooting. He had just finished telling a group of us that he took his staff up to Vermont (maybe NH) to shoot some clays, and that he was "with us". My response was that I was glad he enjoyed the shooting sports and hunting, but hunting was part of everyday life to feed a family when the Consitution was written... My suggestion was to carefully consider the reason why 2A existed rather than pretend it somehow meant anything different.
My personal pet-peeve - career politicians. We feel the sting of career pols on a daily basis. The need to vote in a particular way to save their job. We just saw a prime example of this in the House's go around with ERPO. I personally heard, "we knew it was bad, so we worked together to make it not so bad, because that is all we could do". This is not representation, it's self-preservation. People not afraid of losing their jobs will vote their heart, conscience, and oath rather than their wallet. We see this in Washington too. The collective hundreds of years of political experience in DC has not collectively contributed to anything getting better, just how collectively they can all stay elected. This has been a major contributing factor to the ruin of our political model.
Tough times ahead for those who love liberty. Tough times create tough, strong, courageous people. Stay strong, remain steadfast.
I recently had the opportunity to remind candidate for US Senate John Kingston that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting or skeet shooting. He had just finished telling a group of us that he took his staff up to Vermont (maybe NH) to shoot some clays, and that he was "with us". My response was that I was glad he enjoyed the shooting sports and hunting, but hunting was part of everyday life to feed a family when the Consitution was written... My suggestion was to carefully consider the reason why 2A existed rather than pretend it somehow meant anything different.
My personal pet-peeve - career politicians. We feel the sting of career pols on a daily basis. The need to vote in a particular way to save their job. We just saw a prime example of this in the House's go around with ERPO. I personally heard, "we knew it was bad, so we worked together to make it not so bad, because that is all we could do". This is not representation, it's self-preservation. People not afraid of losing their jobs will vote their heart, conscience, and oath rather than their wallet. We see this in Washington too. The collective hundreds of years of political experience in DC has not collectively contributed to anything getting better, just how collectively they can all stay elected. This has been a major contributing factor to the ruin of our political model.
Tough times ahead for those who love liberty. Tough times create tough, strong, courageous people. Stay strong, remain steadfast.
amm5061
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 938
- Likes
- 381
that's communism generated feminist agitprop. Most women do not really believe this.
amm5061
NES Member
Thanks for the warning.
GeorgeMason
NES Member
I made it to 1:27
Horrible
NES Member
There are well over 20,000 gun control laws on the books. If those laws are so ineffective, that we need to keep passing more and more, why are we looking at repealing the original 20,000? What makes us think that lawr # 20,001 is going to be the magic one? And if it is, then we can repeal the other 20,000, right?
The fact of the matter is that we have followed all of their useless, ineffective laws. And now those laws are being used to persecute the law-abiding and will be used to break down the doors of law-abiding citizens with no criminal records. This law will not lead to gang-bangers and illegal gun owners getting their doors smashed in and their property being stolen.
The fact of the matter is that we have followed all of their useless, ineffective laws. And now those laws are being used to persecute the law-abiding and will be used to break down the doors of law-abiding citizens with no criminal records. This law will not lead to gang-bangers and illegal gun owners getting their doors smashed in and their property being stolen.
