sol740

Just a few quotes from our tolerant, intellectual, liberal betters.

“Confiscation could be an option.” -- New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in a radio interview (December 27, 2012)

“We cannot have big guns out here ... semi-automatics and all of them,” said Iowa Rep. Dan Muhlbauer. “Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them.” -- interview with the Iowa Daily Times Herald (December 19, 2012)

By all means Mr. Muhlbauer, Mr. Cuomo, and please let me suggest you both volunteer for the job.

 

“Ammunition is now the black hole in gun violence prevention.” -- Connecticut U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D), January 8, 2013

Of course, the ammo is responsible.

 

 

 

“universal background checks [and laws to] track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database.” -- The Washington Post, January 6, 2013

Sounds like registration, or more accurately, sounds like Mr. Biden can go fuck himself.

 

It is, as it has always been, about the agenda, and not about the poor children murdered at Sandy Hook, and that's the most despicable thing of all.

^ fucking wunt.

I've seen these before and always thought the handle part looked stupid. How does the stock handle and feel?

.

 

 

 

Me too! But can't you see that there's a difference between being sick of granstanding fuckery and thinking that we're on a slippery slope to a dystopian wasteland?

 

No, any encroachment on the natural rights of citizens is of the utmost importance, if you disagree, that's fine, step aside and enjoy the rest of your day, awash in the warming glow of your benevolent leaders. This isn't some conspiracy theory Alex Jones cooked up on info wars, this is what we are being told directly from leftist leadership. Fuck them and fuck any coward that agrees with them. It's not just grandstanding, it's testing the water.

Or if something is worth saying, then why attach it to a founding father? It's a pointless appeal to authority.

 

I think it's more an appeal to the spirit of the birth of US of America, because fireworks, bald eagles, and sexy women.

False.

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Misattributed

 

 

 

Sorry to be that guy, but you seem like the kind of person who likes facts.

 

Yeah unfortunately there are a ton of either patently false, or misrepresented founders quotes all over the internet. Which is odd because there are plenty of actual quotes to choose from.

I don't foresee that happening. Granted, I'm no expert on Executive Orders or what their exact purpose is, however, I wouldn't think it involves making something the law of the land at the stroke of one person's pen. Otherwise, that kind of defeats the whole point of our entire system, amirite?

 

I agree with you, but the climate to excuse such an action has never been more fervent in my lifetime. The very idea of executive orders was mocked a page back, so this is my flippant retort.

Executive orders?!?! Take off the tin foil hat, that's right wing fear-mongering! Wait a minute ...

 

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

I use to own an HK USP40C, and very much enjoyed it. Never so much as a hiccup at the range, great handling, and I've always like the aesthetics of the newer HKs. I got rid of all of my .40 pistols or else I'd still own it, and I plan on picking up a USP, or other HK 9mm at some point in the future.

Would a sharp knife pierce the material used? Never been in or even near a real one.

Fortunately, the OP gave us some good suggestions:

 

 

 

So, if large capacity magazines were outlawed again like they were under the 1994 ban, would you assembly them from parts kits and continue to sell/trade them? Would you put pistol grips on an SKS that wasn't grandfathered in? Your first post in this thread seemed to imply that you would.

 

Again unfortunately we do not know what type of ban will be passed if any, so the what would I do or what wouldn't I, at this juncture seems like a pointless exercise.

 

 

The courts, congress (impeachment), the next president... it would be political suicide for Democrats. My guess is that a court would put a hold on enforcement within a matter of days, then eventually overturn the order. If that didn't happen, the worst is that we'd have a 4-year ban until Republicans got back in power, and then Republicans would control the government for many years to come.

 

You might as well ask why Bush didn't issue an executive order outlawing abortion.

 

So you're saying if collectivism screws us hard enough, just wait it out till we get a turn to unscrew us? Also, abortion isn't in the bill of rights, so that isn't really analogous.

http://i.imgur.com/VeA01.jpg

So let's say that hypothetically what "sticks" is identical to the 1994 AWB. Having lived through that pointless exercise in wankery, and having seen it get repealed via peaceful legislative means (and NOT lead to a greater erosion of any constitutional rights), would you still risk felony charges to oppose it?

 

 

It would be difficult to apply an identical version of the old AWB to personal disobedience, since that only affected the sale of new goods, and current owners were grandfathered in. I'm still completely opposed to being forced into only procuring pre-ban goods at government inflated prices.

That's my point. It was a bad law, and now it's not a law anymore. That's my perspective.

 

Great, we agree . The left is now openly discussing a so-called assault weapons ban "with teeth", I believe the nomenclature goes. Non-expiring, forced registration of currently owned weapons, extra taxes (of course extra taxes), and while this may be the 'throw everything at the wall, see what sticks tactic' I am opposed to basically all of it.

Not intended; I was just curious by your use of past tense for a law that was still on the books. Personally, I was outraged by the Patriot Act, but 10+ years later my outrage has cooled. It garnered a vote for John Kerry from me, but not much else, and a lot of the dire predictions from the left about a police state failed to materialize.

 

Likewise, someone who voluntarily made themselves a felon (as you seem to be advocating here) over the 1994 AWB might feel like they overreacted after watching the ban lead to... absolutely nothing. And it didn't require civil disobedience, it sorted itself out correctly via the democratic process.

 

Perspective... that's all I'm looking for.

 

The past tense was probably because, like you, my rage has subsided, although somewhat renewed with the NDAA.

 

Whose perspective? The 94 ban lead to artificial price inflation, and pointless magazine round limits, that solved no problems, and made gun owners potential criminals for exercising a constitutional right. You may not feel that those issues are important, I do, that's my perspective. Since I believe that laws passed in violation of my rights are unjust, not obeying them leaves me consciously, and morally sound, regardless if collectivists, or legal positivists label me a felon.

 

Do I actually see this coming? I doubt it, but the terms must be known. Why don't we come together and figure how to actually stop a crazed mass murderer, instead of punishing the innocent. Signs, and laws will not accomplish this.

 

 

 

What civil disobedience did you advocate for the Patriot Act? And why did you stop advocating it?

 

So forgive me, but this feels ad hominem, or maybe I'm feeling too defensive.

 

Apples and oranges though, besides condemning and speaking out against the sections regarding invasive surveillance, amongst other things, there is no tangible way to be disobedient unless targeted. In this case if laws pass to force registration, I simply will not. Pay fees to have a government approved stamp? Go to hell. I will not act in haste, I will not be on the offense. I don't condone violence, or force. I will just not listen to you. If attacked, I will defend myself.

So much for the myth of the law-abiding gun owner...

 

You do all realize that your "team" controls the House and nearly half the Senate, which means an assault weapons ban is dead in the water, right? It will absolutely never pass, because, *news flash*, you're not an oppressed minority. You all are adequately represented; government is working like it's supposed to! Makes me wonder what the point of threads like this are...

 

Fuck teams, plenty of so called republicans have shown their true colors since Sandy Hook, quick to turn their backs for political points, and are supporting so-called "common sense" gun control. Myth of the law-abiding gun owner? Being law does not make something right, being elected doesn't give one power to steal my rights, and that's beside the point that any law passed in direct violation of the constitution is automatically null. I hated Bush for The Patriot Act, and took flak for being un-american, or weak on terrorism from the right. That was bullshit then, this is bullshit now.

because something written +200 and -2000 years ago have ALL the answers white folk in this hemisphere need.

 

for those who are not good at maths, constitution and bible

 

I'm of Asian descent, good at math (why is one + and the other - though), and an atheist. First, separate religion from the Constitution in your mind, our founders certainly did. Second please provide a better charter that outlines the rights of the individual that be must recognized, and the powers of the government, and why they should or should not have them.

I am 100% for civil disobedience on a large scale regarding matters of the constitution.

Just an FYI, but just because someone is shot in the back, doesn't mean they still weren't a threat. The police often shoot people in the back because the perp tends to shoot blindly over their shoulder as they are running away.

 

Good point, noted, but in that situation you'd think empty shell casings would help you prove you were being shot at, if you could find them. Let's pass a law that says all criminals must use revolvers so there's no chance of losing evidence.

He does come off poorly, but he makes some good points, and some not so good. The interview was a setup from the get go, and he did relatively well not falling into the obvious trap questions, but then fell for the most obvious one, the 9/11 truther bits, which has nothing to do with guns, and should have been as artfully dodged as possible. There were rebuttals available that he could have used, without getting all worked up, and feeding into the lunatic stereotype, but he was too eager to really stay focused.

I still have yet to read a response as to why the alleged gunman should be deprived of his right to a trial by jury of his peers.

 

If you are indeed robbing someone and are shot during the robbery, fuck you if you die (this guy didn't), deprived of trial, no fucks given. If you survive your wound, than you have your rights like anyone else. The law says you can't shoot someone attempting to escape , since they would no longer pose an immediate threat to you, near regardless of what they did to you in the moments prior. That doesn't mean a case won't get thrown out, your peers won't nullify, or that you would even be charged at all depending on the circumstances.

 

In this case a man claims he was getting out of his car, was robbed at gunpoint, and at some point the victim of the robbery shot the robber, then the robber ran away. Later in the evening someone turned up at the hospital with a gunshot wound. If these people are one in the same (all signs point to yes), he did in fact attempt to rob the victim (had no business on the residence, was not family, friend, or foe), and is not shot in the back, then we as a society should give the benefit of the doubt to the victim, barring any real evidence proving otherwise. Even if he was shot in the back I personally wouldn't care, but I could see one getting in legal trouble.

Yes, the OP did.

 

 

 

Damn ... don't I feel sheepish.

 

Though, however the armed robber found himself shot, I care not. If indeed this was a robbery, and all that checks out.