Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FIREARM REFRESHER COURSE

Posted on 02/18/2004 7:38:36 AM PST by truthfinder9

FIREARM REFRESHER COURSE ===========================

1. An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Glock: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it is about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you do not know your rights, you do not have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The second Amendment is in place , in case they ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns have only two enemies: rust and liberals.

15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.

16. You do not shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control--it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, do not make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "...A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

PLEASE PASS THIS "REFRESHER" TO 10 FREE CITIZENS


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; bang; banglist; firearms; guns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 02/18/2004 7:38:36 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
...great post! thanks!!!...
2 posted on 02/18/2004 7:49:13 AM PST by cweese
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Great post. For my birthday my husband is going to take me to a firing range to try out some of their guns. When he called them up he was told I needed a FOID card to use the range. Luckily I have a friend with a card and gun so I still can learn to shot. But it seems to me that I should be able to try out different guns before I know which one is best for me.

3 posted on 02/18/2004 7:53:08 AM PST by LauraJean (Fukai please pass the squid sauce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Bump
4 posted on 02/18/2004 7:57:14 AM PST by nuconvert ("Progress was all right. Only it went on too long.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
My favorite is: "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
5 posted on 02/18/2004 7:59:41 AM PST by LetsRok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: LauraJean
Why on earth would you need a Firearm Owners ID card to go to a range and shoot guns they own on their property?
7 posted on 02/18/2004 8:05:12 AM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; *bang_list
So her name will be included on the list for the "re-education camps" (gulags) after confiscations are complete! Or so they think, anyway.

Molon Labe!

8 posted on 02/18/2004 8:18:08 AM PST by TERMINATTOR (DON'T BLAME ME! I Voted for McClintock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
In Illinois you cannot even handle a gun in a store without a FOID. Nor buy ammunition. And forget about concealed carry -- only the bad guys do that.

Illinois, home of Chicago, the 2003 murder capital. We're #1! We're #1!

9 posted on 02/18/2004 8:32:34 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
Who says the police protect and serve? The can't be everywhere. Usually they are too busy with paperwork at crime scenes to do all that.
10 posted on 02/18/2004 8:46:00 AM PST by oyez (Kerry Kan't Kut it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
12. The second Amendment is in place , in case they ignore the others.

My favorite, thanks for posting.

11 posted on 02/18/2004 8:46:29 AM PST by elbucko (I never go anywhere without my lucky gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oyez
In NYC the police are peeking behind cabinets and under desks to find the hidden ashtrays.
12 posted on 02/18/2004 8:49:24 AM PST by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Illinois law can't touch a weapon and ammo unless you have a foid.

Just thank the pubbies and the mob (Daley demo rats)

13 posted on 02/18/2004 8:52:54 AM PST by dts32041 ( "Always make sure someone has a P-38.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Case in point, why #23 should not be in the list.
14 posted on 02/18/2004 8:53:38 AM PST by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oyez
Put like politicians are exempt from suits for failing to perform their basic function.
15 posted on 02/18/2004 8:54:50 AM PST by dts32041 ( "Always make sure someone has a P-38.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
I take issue with #23

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, do not make more.

REPEAL the gun control laws we have now, don't enforce them

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Actually it started with gun control. The British at Concord were on their way to steal the colonials weapons.

16 posted on 02/18/2004 8:57:40 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
How the IL gun regs are NOT a violation of the Second Ammendment is completely beyond my comprehension. Why the citizenry of Illinois (expecially downstaters) have allowed this to happen is amazing.
17 posted on 02/18/2004 8:59:08 AM PST by AngryJawa (It Is Not One World...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Illinois, home of Chicago, the 2003 murder capital. We're #1! We're #1!

I believe that Washington DC has won that title for the last several years.

18 posted on 02/18/2004 9:13:12 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
Truth be told, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government. Each state is ruled by it's own constitution when it comes to guns.

For example, in Illinois the state constitution reads:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Your state constitution (Georgia) reads:
Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."

Ever thought about why certain cities, like Chicago, New York, LA, can ban guns? Not just ban concealed carry, but ban the ownership and possession within city limits? That's the reason.

Here's an interesting (and controversial) article.

"The Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, has never been incorporated by the Court into the Fourteenth Amendment. The result is that today the Second Amendment, whatever it may mean, operates to restrict only the power of the federal government. The states remain unfettered by the Amendment's limitations. They remain essentially free to regulate arms and the right to bear them as they choose, in the absence of strictures in their own state constitutions and laws."

Lest you think otherwise, let me assure you I'm a card carrying member of the NRA, gun owner, and deadly with a Colt SAA at 25ft.

19 posted on 02/18/2004 9:19:52 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
Speaking of exemptions, when a criminal is let off on parole by some judge or parole official and the criminal goes and rapes and wastes some people, why can't that particular official be held responsible?
20 posted on 02/18/2004 9:26:55 AM PST by oyez (Kerry Kan't Kut it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
On a per capita basis, probably. I'm talking about overall numbers.

CHICAGO (AP) — Despite a sharp drop in homicides, Chicago has regained a title it didn't want: America's murder capital.

The city finished 2003 with 599 homicides, police said Thursday. That was down from 648 a year earlier and the first time since 1967 that the total dipped below 600.

Still, the nation's third-largest city outpaced all others for the second time in three years. New York, with about three times the population, ended the year with 596 homicides. Los Angeles, which had the most murders in 2002 at 658, wound up 2003 with an estimated total just under 500.

Preliminary figures from the District of Columbia showed the homicide rate dropping 6% in the nation's capital, from 262 in 2002 to 247 last year. But 2004 began with two homicides in about nine hours.

You can read the whole story at USA Today.

21 posted on 02/18/2004 9:28:20 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Supreme Law of the Land" is pretty unambiguous. The "incorperation doctrine" is a convenient legal fiction for legislators and judges to pull an end run on the Constitution.

Are we a Republic? Or not?

22 posted on 02/18/2004 9:32:11 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, has never been incorporated by the Court into the Fourteenth Amendment. The result is that today the Second Amendment, whatever it may mean, operates to restrict only the power of the federal government. The states remain unfettered by the Amendment's limitations. They remain essentially free to regulate arms and the right to bear them as they choose, in the absence of strictures in their own state constitutions and laws."

Just because the court hasn't "incorporated" the 2nd against the states via the 14th, doesn't mean that wasn't one of the major reasons for passage of the 14th amendment. That is to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights, most especially the 2nd Amendment, to state governmental actions. The Court screwed the pooch and later they tried to make up for it via the due process "incorporation" doctrine, but have never done so with regard to the 2nd amendment, nor the right to jury trial aspects of the 6th and 7th amendments. The Court is full of what comes out the south end of a north bound bovinecamel.

23 posted on 02/18/2004 9:40:50 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes I was referring to the per capita championship. Wash only has about 400k residents
24 posted on 02/18/2004 9:43:30 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: oyez
Because like congress laws have been passed exempting them for their actions or lack of actions.

Can you say elitist anal orifices.

25 posted on 02/18/2004 9:43:35 AM PST by dts32041 ( "Always make sure someone has a P-38.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Here's an interesting (and controversial) article.

You could have warned us that the article was from Time. Time long ago stated flat out that it was not unbiased on the subject, and was for disarming the people at large. I could care less what they might have to say on the subject.

26 posted on 02/18/2004 9:44:45 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
btttt
27 posted on 02/18/2004 9:45:03 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraJean
You don't need a FOID card if your are with an adult who has one.
28 posted on 02/18/2004 9:47:48 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Ping
29 posted on 02/18/2004 9:49:04 AM PST by Barnacle (A Human Shield against the onslaught of Leftist tripe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
"Why on earth would you need a Firearm Owners ID card to go to a range and shoot guns they own on their property?"

The Second Reich, known as King Richard II's Illinois, is why.
30 posted on 02/18/2004 9:50:09 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
"Why the citizenry of Illinois (expecially downstaters) have allowed this to happen is amazing."

Don't blame me, I've opposed every gun-control measure this state has come up with. Trouble is, the semi-literate, despotic and tyrannical little dwarf, King Richard II, and his simian-browed cohort in the governor's mansion in Springfield, Blagodimwit, have other ideas.
31 posted on 02/18/2004 9:55:52 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
"I believe that Washington DC has won that title for the last several years."

DC is always been a contender for the prize, but Chicago has won it at least twice in the last three or four years.
32 posted on 02/18/2004 9:57:18 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: oyez
Yeah, if a drunk steps out in front of a SUV and gets killed, everybody is getting sued, the driver, the SUV maker and the gas station that sold the fuel. Just about everybody but Moben-Daved which generated the MD 20-20 the wino drank are going to court. Too bad lawyers are so well protected.
33 posted on 02/18/2004 10:09:21 AM PST by oyez (And so forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
DC is always been a contender for the prize, but Chicago has won it at least twice in the last three or four years.

I guess to be in the finals you have to have strong gun control laws in place - both places qualify in this regard.

34 posted on 02/18/2004 10:18:33 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Thank God for Texas! Conservative, Pro Life, Home of the POTUS, CHL state, lots of firearms and ranges too. Only downer so far is you have to pretty much get a lease to hunt and they're NOT cheap.
35 posted on 02/18/2004 10:35:48 AM PST by Vic3O3 (Jeremiah 31:16-17 (KJV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I'm all in favor of repealing the 14th. And the 17th, for that matter.

Those two amendments have done more to destroy states rights than the commerce clause ever could.

36 posted on 02/18/2004 10:36:02 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
An armed society is a polite society.
37 posted on 02/18/2004 11:22:46 AM PST by SpinyNorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The 14th was in there because the States were ignoring the BoR. Leave that one alone as we need it now more than ever. It only re-iterates what other portions of the Constitution says with stronger language. If anything, it needs a minor amendment saying "We really mean it this time."

The 17th... I wholeheartedly agree with you. Just as we should keep the electoral college, the election of Senators should be left to the State Legislators.

38 posted on 02/18/2004 11:31:05 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SpinyNorman
An armed society is a polite society.
An armed society is a free society.
An armed society is a just society.
An armed society is a moral society.
An armed society is a confident society.
An armed society is a kind of society anyone with a grain of sense would WANT to live in.
39 posted on 02/18/2004 11:33:12 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"The 14th was in there because the States were ignoring the BoR."

The BOR didn't apply to them -- it applied solely to the federal government. Of course they were ignoring it.

Each state had it's own Bill of Rights, as the founding fathers intended.

40 posted on 02/18/2004 11:55:59 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I know you don't like the words "Supreme Law of the Land". Neither did they. That is why the 14th was necessary. To straighten out the issue before someone got shot over it. And you continue to spout that old "State BOR" cannard.

You just never learn, do you...

41 posted on 02/18/2004 12:03:32 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The phrase "Supreme Law of the Land" is from Article VI of the US Constitution, otherwise known as the Supremacy Clause. It says that IF a federal law conflicts with a state law, the federal law prevails.

This is what is going on in California where the state medical marijuana laws conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The 14th amendment came into being to guarantee the freedom and rights of former slaves. Ever since that time, however, the 14th has been used to centralize government power.

42 posted on 02/18/2004 12:33:58 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And Federal Law, the BoR, says that firearms ownership is protected. Ergo, that asshat judge saying that "this means that only Congress shall make no law" was a complete moron.

Unfortunately for you as well, the FedGov only has those powers delegated to it. Regulation of substances is not one of those powers. Federal drug laws are bunk.

The 14th still has a place in a Constitutional Republic. Too bad we no longer HAVE a Constitutional Republic, but some hybrid democracy/socialist State. Repealing the 14th would only give State legislators that much more impetus to try and pass laws that violate the Rights of their citizens.

43 posted on 02/18/2004 12:44:38 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"And Federal Law, the BoR, says that firearms ownership is protected."

Yes it is. It is protected from federal infringement.

In each state, firearms ownership is protected by that state's constitution.

"Repealing the 14th would only give State legislators that much more impetus to try and pass laws that violate the Rights of their citizens."

That is a possibility. They could try to pass such laws. And if they were successful, the citizens could leave (as they're doing in California, in droves).

44 posted on 02/18/2004 1:04:01 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes it is. It is protected from federal infringement.

Funny, it just says "shall not be infringed." No mention of Congress or the States. The Art 6 you mentioned earlier says the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land". As for incorperation, did the States not have to vote on the Constitutional Amendmets in the BoR to get them added in the first place? There were several varients bandied about for the Second Amendment. Some were even worded as you suggest, but were shot down.

You cannot have this one both ways.

45 posted on 02/18/2004 1:14:14 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LauraJean
I know that (at least in some parts of IL) you can go shooting at a range with a friend if just the friend has a FOID. In other words, you don't need one if you go with a friend who has one. Freepmail me if you want the name of the range I went to where you can do this.
46 posted on 02/18/2004 2:01:29 PM PST by elisabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
"Free men do not ask permission to bear arms."

Text of the Second Amendment
"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."


Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.


ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.

How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.



47 posted on 02/18/2004 2:39:43 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (Want better gun control? Try eating more carrotts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oyez
The police do protect & serve . It's just that the folks that get protected & served are not you but the members of the political class that views you as a peasant who has the duty to kiss their backsides & suck something else whenever they want .
48 posted on 02/18/2004 4:14:01 PM PST by Nebr FAL owner (.308 reach out & thump someone .50 cal. Browning reach out & crush someone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9; DMZFrank; CHICAGOFARMER; RedWing9; BillyBoy; endthematrix; sistergoldenhair; ...
Consider your self re-educated and refreshed!
49 posted on 02/18/2004 5:45:01 PM PST by chicagolady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chicagolady
The one and only FIREARM I am fearful of, is the one that points itself at me. I can control all of the others.
50 posted on 02/18/2004 6:47:41 PM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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