Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's Time For Action On Gun Control
scottfactor.com ^ | 12/17/12 | Scott Factor

Posted on 12/17/2012 6:07:10 AM PST by scottfactor

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Those words, more than any other part of our Nation’s Constitution, have been the most contested. Keeping in mind that this writer is no lawyer, those words really seem simplistic to me. I think they would seem simplistic to Supreme Court Justice Scalia, also. He, of all the members of the Court, seems to have the clearest vision of how to interpret the Constitution…as it was written.

Liberals and self-described scholars seem to have a different view. They believe that the Constitution is a “living document”, one that is fluid and changes with time. Of course, these people only see the changes that benefit them and refuse to open their eyes to those which don’t. A shining example of this is our "press". The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This is freely interpreted by the press as a license to lie to their heart’s desire to accomplish whatever agenda the editorial staff has chosen. I’m not sure that’s what the writers of the Constitution had in mind.

Looking at the language of both amendments, they both seem clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and no laws shall be made to abridge the freedom of the press. Simple…to me. But there are those who like to make mountains out of molehills. So, I will try to understand some their arguments here on this page.

Some argue that the Second Amendment was created back when cap and ball muskets were the norm; That the framers couldn’t have anticipated the complex military weaponry available to the masses in this modern era. It’s a good point and deserves some consideration. The only problem is that people arguing this point are the same ones that fail to recognize that the press was a single page letterpress when the Constitution was framed. The framers couldn’t have imagined computers, the internet, podcasts, etc., when they crafted the First Amendment. While the “press” continues to argue for more gun control, noting that the framers couldn’t have anticipated the power of modern weapons to maim and kill, they fail to mention the power of the internet and pod casts to spread their lies and distortions and the damage that can be done to society with such.

I’m willing to compromise. I’m a compromising kind of guy! I’m willing to discuss limits on my firearms if and when the “press” is willing to discuss more liability for those things printed that are not proven to be true. This includes the responsibility to pay for all legal fees for people who challenge…and win…in lawsuits against the “press” for lies and distortions. This includes elimination of the limitations imposed by the definitions of slander and libel. Simple and provable lies, to be determined by a jury, should be punishable in civil court.

I won’t hold my breath on that happening. In the meantime, the “press” and gun control advocates will argue that my right to keep and bear arms CAN and WILL be infringed by laws against open carry, concealed carry, carry in government buildings, bars, schools, sporting events…not to mention restrictions on magazines and round capacity, registration of my weapons, a ban on certain types of weapons, and the requirement that I no longer consider inspection of every area of my life…commonly called a “background check”… as unreasonable search and seizure.

While I am forced to accept all of that for the sake of a false sense of security for the “press”, they continue to degrade our national security by printing classified information, distributing false truths, and supporting political candidates by printing lies and distortions about the challengers of those candidates.

The “press” is currently gearing up for the lies that will encompass the debate on gun control that has been promised by the President. After all, the press is a master of it. The press has coined such terms as “assault weapon” to define any long gun that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition, “hi capacity clips”, which are magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and “Saturday night special”, which is…well, I’m not really sure of what that is other than an attempt to label inexpensive handguns to sound sinister. All of these terms will be hammered home by the “press”, as they exercise their free speech in an attempt to suppress my right to bear arms.

Ladies and gentlemen, the tragedy at Newton was committed by a mentally damaged young man who illegally possessed firearms that were illegally taken from his mother, illegally carried those arms onto a school campus, illegally carried those arms concealed, and murdered innocent children. Gun control people will tell you that a total ban on all guns for all people would have prevented this. Would it? Cocaine, heroin, and many other drugs have been contraband for years, yet millions of pounds of these substances enter the country every year. Do you really think banning all guns would stop guns from being acquired by bad guys?

Little by little, piece by piece, your gun rights will be chipped away until you can’t own any. This is the end goal of the liberals and the press. It’s time to turn the tables on them. It’s time to start chipping away at the rights of the “free press”. It’s time for reform of libel and slander laws. Time to shut down the National Enquirer, the Poynter Institute, and other lying liberal rags that are working to erode your rights. It’s time for a serious, damaging, all-encompassing boycott of any company that sponsors, advertises, or otherwise supports any form of gun control or the media that supports it. Sure, you may have to give up your Ben and Jerry’s ice cream or stop watching Matt Damon movies. You’ll have to give up a lot. Your other choice is giving up your Constitutional rights.

Which do you prefer?


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; constitution; guncontrol; guns; mediabias; obama; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 12/17/2012 6:07:31 AM PST by scottfactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
hi capacity clips

*head explodes*

/bfl

2 posted on 12/17/2012 6:10:46 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Strict gun laws seldom work. More of these not effective laws will work less.


3 posted on 12/17/2012 6:11:28 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
This thread has just added to the FreeRepublic "bang list" (firearms interest list) by adding the keyword "banglist".

Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.

Let Freedom Ring,

Gun Facts v6!

Click the pic to go to the Gun Facts v6 download page!

4 posted on 12/17/2012 6:12:42 AM PST by Joe Brower (The "American People" are no longer capable of self-governance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
"I’m willing to compromise. I’m a compromising kind of guy!"

I'm not.
5 posted on 12/17/2012 6:14:05 AM PST by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Just some thoughts.

“our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
Thomas Jefferson to Dr. James Currie, January 28, 1786

“nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”
Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 1807

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789


6 posted on 12/17/2012 6:17:11 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (You cant bring something to its knees that refuses to stand on its own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

In 1776, firearms were MORE dangerous, not less, because of the primitive medical treatment available. Any torso wound was generally fatal, after an agonizing period of massive infection. Any limb wound meant an amputation, and a 50-50 chance of survival.


7 posted on 12/17/2012 6:17:53 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Same here, compromise my A$$!

I am bound by oath to defend the Constitution against anyone who would harm it.

to libs: If you want my guns, come and take them. P.S. bring a graves registration team it will be needed.


8 posted on 12/17/2012 6:18:39 AM PST by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Serious question, please pardon my ignorance: What has the National Enquirer done to erode gun rights? I’m not a reader but a small part of me has admired the Enquirer over the years for not being afraid to tell the truth about certain untouchable politcal figures - e.g. Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, even Bill Clinton.


9 posted on 12/17/2012 6:19:31 AM PST by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
Photobucket
10 posted on 12/17/2012 6:23:09 AM PST by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
In 1776, firearms were MORE dangerous, not less, because of the primitive medical treatment available. Any torso wound was generally fatal, after an agonizing period of massive infection. Any limb wound meant an amputation, and a 50-50 chance of survival.

Not to mention that the Brown Bess musket ball was 3/4 inch in diameter...that'd leave a mark!

11 posted on 12/17/2012 6:23:58 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Take action to encourage Rick Snyder to sign the bill.

Should Snyder Sign Bill Allowing Concealed Weapons in Schools?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2968896/posts

His twitter address.....

https://twitter.com/onetoughnerd

and his contact page.

http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869—,00.html


12 posted on 12/17/2012 6:24:01 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
I’m willing to compromise. I’m a compromising kind of guy! I’m willing to discuss limits on my firearms if and when the “press” is willing to discuss more liability for those things printed that are not proven to be true. This includes the responsibility to pay for all legal fees for people who challenge…and win…in lawsuits against the “press” for lies and distortions. This includes elimination of the limitations imposed by the definitions of slander and libel. Simple and provable lies, to be determined by a jury, should be punishable in civil court.

You already have your wish. When I was a working journalist, I was taught by the publication's lawyers the requirements for a reporter avoiding defamation suits while printing the truth. (My employers were strict about what is truth -- not as squishy as the MSM's definition.) Facts have to come from three sources, so that the publication can say that they have done due diligence. Why do you think there are so many quotes of other people in most articles? So the words are attributed to another person, not the reporter. Defamation is targeted to the quoted person. Even if the person being quoted is "an anonymous source" -- you can bet the reporter's notes include the name(s) of the people behind the words.

But the topic is so-called "gun control". I won't repeat the refutations regarding existing law, "gun free zones", "mental health", and the gutting of the background check process. We need the same safety preparedness for gun and knife attacks against school children that we have to prevent fire deaths in our schools. Protection plans. Drills. Better alert procedures, so that when one classroom gets attacked the rest of the school can go into lockdown. Automatic alarms to police similar to the "fire pulls" that dot the hallways of our monuments to learning.

One thought: shouldn't any prohibition against certain types of weapons, intended for the battlefield, extend to all non-military personnel? How consistent are the gun-grabbers?

13 posted on 12/17/2012 6:26:37 AM PST by asinclair (B*llshit is a renewable resource.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
Some argue that the Second Amendment was created back when cap and ball muskets were the norm;

Uh, not quite. That would be flinklock muskets, percussion guns (cap and ball) came much later.

14 posted on 12/17/2012 6:31:42 AM PST by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
Some argue that the Second Amendment was created back when cap and ball muskets were the norm;

The Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was added, gave Congress the power to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private individuals to make war against foreign nations. Generally these was given to ship owners to become privateers. That implies that the authors of the Constitution expected that those private individuals already owned the 18th century weapon of mass destruction, the cannon.

15 posted on 12/17/2012 6:32:21 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Big Bird is a brood parasite: laid in our nest 43 years ago and we are still feeding him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
Calling 911 is a plea to hurry and send over some people with guns. If the school administrators/teachers had access to weapons, they could have either taken out the perp or held him at bay.

Sadly, facts to libs are irrelevant.

16 posted on 12/17/2012 6:32:50 AM PST by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asinclair
I have a suggestion re: Gun Control

Since there are many more things in the world that can kill a person and controlling all of them would be impossible my suggestion is to choose a more singular solution. Lets have our esteemed legislators, since they love passing laws, pass a law outlawing mental illness. I'm sure that will solve as many of the problems. (sarc)

17 posted on 12/17/2012 6:33:34 AM PST by JayAr36 (The dumbing down of America is just about complete!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

And the fire arm was less reliable...
Yet everyone had one, knew how to use it, taught their children at a young age and never locked them up....
And went to church every Sunday....


18 posted on 12/17/2012 6:34:48 AM PST by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
I won't concede any rights voluntarily, 1st or 2nd Amendment.

Your point has been made by many. It's a very good, relevant and important point. It's logical.

The irony is that the abuse of the 1st Amendment is causing the problem (confusion) about the 2nd. There is a multitude of documentation that explains the intent of both of these amendments by our founders. They wrote letters and articles about both. The entire Bill of Rights was specifically included in the Constitution so it could be ratified. Specifically, states wanted more specific limits placed on the Fed. They did this by stating what specific rights of the individual could not be infringed and what laws could not be passed that would even “INFRINGE” on those rights. The use of the word “infringe” was brilliant. Technically, any law that put restrictions or added requirement on ANY “Arms” conflicts with the 2A.

Ammo restrictions and laws are in our future. They will go after manufactures not the citizens.

Consequently, we have violated the 1A with campaign McCain Finegold, the Fairness Doctrine, etc.

It is important to remind citizens of the even broader Constitutional debate as often as possible. The original debate concerning a constitution was whether or not a Federal Govt. was even necessary. The next debate was how to keep the Fed. small (limited) so that the people and states would retain the majority of power. The original govt design was intended to create gridlock and make passage of laws very difficult. This was suppose to filter out the trivial stuff and keep them focused on actual important issues (like slavery, treaties, currency, interstate commerce, etc.). The SC was there to remind legislatures that if they wanted changes to the constitution, amendments were necessary.

Along with a multitude of other cases the SC screwed up, Roe V. Wade should have been rejected, not even heard by the SC. They should have rejected the premise of privacy and told legislatures, “There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. But there is something in the constitution about the pursuit of life. As such, this court has nothing to rule on. Until such time as the people of the United States ratify an amendment to the Constitution taking a position on the legality of abortion, this court cannot make a ruling and the states shall retain the right to pass laws as their citizens will determine.

As much as I hate to admit it, Marriage is not defined in the constitution either. The SC should not hear any cases based on laws that states pass concerning the subject. It's a marriage issue, not a freedom issue. Any two people, animals or things can have a ceremony announcing to the world that people or things are “married”. The States should be left to define the relevant recognition or benefits of said establishment. Like it or not, I have to be consistent.

19 posted on 12/17/2012 6:35:44 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (The Click-&-Paste Media exists & works in Utopia, riding unicorns & sniffing pixy dust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matginzac

20 posted on 12/17/2012 6:36:40 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

“That the framers couldn’t have anticipated the complex military weaponry available to the masses in this modern era. It’s a good point and deserves some consideration.”

Other ‘complex’ items the framers did not anticipate:

1) The internet
2) Satellites
3) The automobile
4) The assembly line
5) advancing medical methods

All items that made our lives much easier yet still come with some risks. Yet, we accept these risks as liberty abiding people.


21 posted on 12/17/2012 6:40:32 AM PST by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Another point besides high capacity clips...

Like all gun control, “Saturday Night Special” comes from very racist origins. Just something to think about concerning the mind set of the anti gun hate groups that are pushing gun control.


22 posted on 12/17/2012 6:42:44 AM PST by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop
I took that oath also.


23 posted on 12/17/2012 6:43:08 AM PST by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Interesting. We could all call for “a balanced approach” to mass murder. We’ll give up some of our second amendment rights, right after you give up your first amendment rights to a free press.

That’ll make their heads explode....


24 posted on 12/17/2012 6:45:45 AM PST by Adams (Fight on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
The Founding Fathers recognized that the limited government they envisioned in the Constitution was fragile and tyranny could in time replace it. The Second Amendment was intended to assure that an armed populace would be available to if necessary overthrow a tyrannical government. Tyrants and dictators have always sought to disarm the public as a first step to seizing power.

We are already seeing under Obama our Constitutional checks and balances and limited federal government being dismantled. Obama at will bypasses Congress ruling by decree with executive orders, the courts have replaced Congress and elected legislatures and unchecked executive agencies have assumed the power of an elected Congress. What stands in the way of total takeover is the fact that tens of millions of citizens are armed and many could be expected to take up those arms in rebellion if basic freedoms are usurped.

25 posted on 12/17/2012 6:46:10 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

I had hoped (foolishly, as it turned out)that Americans would develop a modicum of common sense about the blessings of this country.

So much for optimism. That oath is becoming more important with each passing day.


26 posted on 12/17/2012 6:47:45 AM PST by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
"I think they would seem simplistic to Supreme Court Justice Scalia, also. He, of all the members of the Court, seems to have the clearest vision of how to interpret the Constitution…as it was written".

After this statement everything you say that follows is suspect. There is only one supreme court justice that is an originalist and the is supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.

27 posted on 12/17/2012 6:51:21 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
They believe that the Constitution is a “living document”

It is not a living document.

It is dead.

28 posted on 12/17/2012 6:53:49 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
We are already seeing under Obama our Constitutional checks and balances and limited federal government being dismantled. Obama at will bypasses Congress ruling by decree with executive orders, the courts have replaced Congress and elected legislatures and unchecked executive agencies have assumed the power of an elected Congress.

Before Obama is thru, the Fed will set a precedence where our President can write an executive order, or his cabinet can write "rules" that are enforceable until a lawsuit is filed and makes it's way to the SC. I agree, Congress is being made obsolete. The SC will eventually just be ruling on what powers the President has. In history, several dictators have taken power by rendering a legislative branch of elected government irrelevant.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, all Executive orders went directly to the SC for approval. That way, they can't even be challenged in court as the SC will already have pre-approved them.

29 posted on 12/17/2012 6:57:04 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (The Click-&-Paste Media exists & works in Utopia, riding unicorns & sniffing pixy dust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JPG
We have become stupid, I remember when all glass entrances in any area requiring security had chicken wire type material in the glass. This trained perp could not have made entrance into the school, it would be impossible!
30 posted on 12/17/2012 6:57:51 AM PST by tiger63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JayAr36
Lets have our esteemed legislators, since they love passing laws, pass a law outlawing mental illness.
Actually, I prefer a more singular solution that has proven to work. Treat the threat from deranged people retail exactly the same way as we treated the threat from deranged people wholesale in the 50s and 60s. I remember "duck and cover" drills, the mock evacuations to civil defense shelters during class time, the disaster drill I participated in as a Boy Scout (I was a "severe-burn victim"), the instruction on how to be prepared at home for a nuclear event, and so forth. Nobody died from a Dr. Strangelove event, but the "ounce of prevention" didn't affect my rights as a human being or cost an arm and a leg.

(Well, the civil defense shelter did cost the town a bit, but it was pitched as "multi-use" -- the shelter was built into a tunnel that crossed the main drag that split the school campus in half. The tunnel let students change buildings without having to contend with traffic...or the traffic having to contend with them.)

Some of the changes would require a bit of money: solid doors with substantial locks, for example. The teacher training could be included with the existing in-service programs, so the cost there is minimal. There is a *lot* that our schools can do to "be prepared".

31 posted on 12/17/2012 7:02:02 AM PST by asinclair (B*llshit is a renewable resource.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JayAr36

Let’s have our esteemed leaders make laws that apply to them equally. They all travel with heavily armed security teams, disarm them first.


32 posted on 12/17/2012 7:08:47 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Without the 2nd amendment, all other amendments are meaningless and will fall.


33 posted on 12/17/2012 7:09:39 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge

The also did not anticipate the increase in the amount of citizens who are mentally ill and the medicines that not only treat them but exacerbate the illness when abused or withdrawn.


34 posted on 12/17/2012 7:12:45 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: asinclair

That is probably a better answer then my sarcastic solution. But it really doesn’t answer the gun grabbers thirst for total control, nor did mine, and I don’t think in this cash short era it will be done. I guess some form of proactive action by schools will be done. I am not sure they will give up their quest for control though.


35 posted on 12/17/2012 7:13:33 AM PST by JayAr36 (The dumbing down of America is just about complete!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tiger63

I’ll wager that the door in the school, as most other doors in schools and businesses, was very aesthetic and pleasing the to the eye to ensure no feeling of being imprisoned.


36 posted on 12/17/2012 7:15:22 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JayAr36

were you listening to Mike Church this AM?


37 posted on 12/17/2012 7:18:59 AM PST by Mr. K (some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop
There are now two groups residing in the United Satates of Amrica, actually three, but the third group is a subset of the second: There are those who prefer to live their lives unmolested from unnecessary Governmental interferrance. They believe that Government was ordained and exists for the protection of the citizenry. I.e. The purpose of Government is to protect the citizenry from the criminal element and from foreign Governments. They also happen to believe that they have the Right , given by God, not the Government, to make their daily life decisions themselves.

The second group believes that government is a god in and of itself, that they themselves control the government.no doubt nourshes their belief. That they should control the lives of the peasants 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from the time that they are allowed to be born until they decide they are to die. This is evidenced by zoning boards, home owner associations, code enfoecement departments, "environmental protection" agencies of the Government. At this point in time, they have through one means or another , developed a subset group which is dependent upon them for their daily existence to do their bidding, in other words, their slaves. Both the second group and its subset actually depend upon the first group's, which is now in the minority,labor for their existence.

The second group and its subset group, however, envy, and are jealous of the first group. They hate the first group with a bitter hatred and wish to destroy them,

We, Conservatives comprise the first group, and the qusetion we each have to answer is, will we willing allow the second group to destroy us, or will we resist? This question must be answered because they are now making plans for our destruction.

38 posted on 12/17/2012 7:20:48 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

My son who is an Army Special Forces Officer reminded me that Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. How is that working?


39 posted on 12/17/2012 7:22:27 AM PST by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

The original .22 rimfire cartridge was considered scary because of the following infection that was almost always fatal after weeks of agony.


40 posted on 12/17/2012 7:23:07 AM PST by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Keep in mind that in the 1700’s, the 2A included private ownership of cannons.


41 posted on 12/17/2012 7:26:01 AM PST by SauronOfMordor (To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sport

I have a simple answer to your question:

Resist them in every way possible: protests, opinion letters, private and public conversations, and if need be, other means.

Another way to put the question:

Is our freedom worth fighting for? It is and we should.


42 posted on 12/17/2012 7:29:41 AM PST by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The Democrats believe that their best ‘weapon’ against the 2nd Amendment will be new and very high taxes at the Fed, State, and local level on firearms and firearm ammunition.

Chicago’s Cook County drops bullet tax, keeps gun levy
By Mary Wisniewski | Reuters – Wed, Oct 31, 2012

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The senior executive of the county that includes Chicago dropped a proposed tax on bullets on Wednesday but kept a plan to tax firearms to help defray healthcare expenses associated with the high rate of gun.

“It is very important to us to tax guns because we know that guns are the sources of the incredible violence we have in our neighborhoods,”

Under the plan, the county would impose a $25 tax on the purchase of firearms.

If approved by the board, the nation’s third most populous county with nearly 5.2 million residents could be the first major U.S. metropolitan area to impose a tax as a form of gun control, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

http://news.yahoo.com

“The notion of taxing ammunition may be traced to comedian Chris Rock, who once quipped, “If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.” Before that, the legendary New York Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested a 10,000 percent tax on the most destructive bullets. Make them too expensive, he theorized, and they would disappear.”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-14/news/ct-oped-1014-chapman-20121013_1_gun-owners-gun-control-destructive-bullets

If Guns Do Not Kill, Tax the Bullets
By JIM DWYER

Published: August 9, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyregion/taxing-bullets-as-de-facto-gun-control.html?_r=0

The Economist - 1994

“The idea of a license for gun owners has been floated by Mr Clinton and by Janet Reno, the attorney-general; it is argued most strongly by Charles Schumer, a Democratic congressman from Brooklyn. Under Mr Schumer’s bill, which is now before Congress, every owner would have a national handgun card, issued after a thorough background check, and all gun transfers would be registered with the ATF.”


43 posted on 12/17/2012 7:42:44 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
Molon Labe was also the motto of the Texas Revolution against Mexico.
44 posted on 12/17/2012 7:47:35 AM PST by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

All I know is that now is not the time to go weak in the knees over defending our constitutional God given rights.


45 posted on 12/17/2012 7:48:19 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Democratic lawmaker: To get gun control, Obama must ‘exploit’ shooting

By Ben Wolfgang

-

The Washington Times

Friday, December 14, 2012

A veteran Democratic lawmaker believes the nation will go along with stronger gun control laws if President Obama “exploits” the Newtown, Conn., tragedy and nudges Congress to action.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents portions of New York City, said he was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s statement on Friday afternoon that the mass shooting, which claimed the lives of 20 young children, requires “meaningful action” by Congress, but hopes those words turn into concrete legislation.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/dem-lawmaker-get-gun-control-obama-must-exploit-sh/print/#ixzz2FKC7xpjf
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


46 posted on 12/17/2012 7:55:27 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

They don’t care, BCR. They want “feel good” legislation to palliate the masses. The problem is that once the legislation passes, you’ll see such a colossal ramp up in violent crime by “Holder’s People” that it’ll seem like they didn’t the opposite of banning them.

Gun control was once used by Democrats to keep blacks from getting “uppity.” Now the Democrats will use gun control to control everyone, whites included.


47 posted on 12/17/2012 7:56:20 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Compromise?
Accepting limits on my blogging AND my armament isn’t compromise.

“Ok, if you’ll just accept financial ruin, we’ll settle for whacking you in the head with a baseball bat.”


48 posted on 12/17/2012 8:05:39 AM PST by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
It’s time to turn the tables on them. It’s time to start chipping away at the rights of the “free press”. It’s time for reform of libel and slander laws. Time to shut down the National Enquirer, the Poynter Institute, and other lying liberal rags that are working to erode your rights.

It's also time to turn the tables on Hollywood and the music industry. Since a LOT of our liberal indoctrinated youth are already stealing from them without remorse, we can use their ideology against them. Hollywood and the music industry, after all, ARE made up of one percenters. We need to rail on and on about the wealth in both industries, and how they need to be taxed more.

We also need to use their socialist ideology to break them. NO 0bama voters understand intellectual property rights. We can use that in a "Free the entertainment from the greedy Hollywood one percenters" campaign. Why should they benefit at our expense from digital entertainments that are essentially "free" to distribute over the internet?

Feel free to add your own ideas to this campaign. We need to hammer this from now until the end of the millenium, or until Hollywood gives in. I'll take the first option, personally.

I believe in property rights as much as anyone, way more than most, but in the case of Hollywood and the music industry, I'm willing to suspend my belief. It's for the children, after all.

49 posted on 12/17/2012 8:27:00 AM PST by Hardastarboard (Bringing children to America without immigration documents is child abuse. Let's end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

50 posted on 12/17/2012 8:52:08 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson