Posted on 12/22/2012 4:32:01 PM PST by barmag25
Hizzoner uses the term “social utility” in his blathering essay, a meaningless term that has no relation to firearms. And he is yet another moron who cites a crime committed by an insane murderer with a pistol as a reason sane, law abiding people should have to give up a type of rifle while the pistol remains legal. It’s reminiscent of Jim Brady telling Congress why we needed an “assault weapons ban” and getting all their sympathy because a psychopath shot him with a six shot pea shooter.
Magnesium burns quite hot...
Yep. I seem to recall the reason he was awarded the Navy Cross for his Iwo action was because they didn’t want to give anyone two MOH’s.
It’s a purty picture, but there are those of us who cannot recognize every gun from a picture. Hint.....subtitle!
It’s what they want - more crises and more reasons to move against us with the blessing of our fellow citizens and the cover of law. Keep your powder dry. This is all bluff and bluster.
To each proposal we must simply ask, “How would this have prevented...” Also, you might want to brush up on your positive gun stories and firearms facts.
Don’t let the Central Planners focus on murder alone. There are plenty of car jackings, rapes, assaults, and robberies to go around. If every FReeper scoured his own local news you’d find within the past 12 months some incident in which a lawful gun owner saved or protected lives. Focus on that.
This will run out of steam and quickly. It’s a story driven by one side and lies.
I was thinking that the day after the election. 2016 ain't gonna mean a thing, we're past the tipping point. When the vast majority of people are willing to exact "revenge taxes," that will only run the government for 11 days, we're through.
When no one appears to be willing to dig into vast events ranging from Fast and Furious(conspiracy on this is it was a way get a gun ban), to Benghazi, to election fraud, to closed door fiscal cliff negotiations....the signs are all there ...
We have passed the point of no return. In fact, it might very well be time for folks who have prepared places to go too...it is time to get out and get your families safe. I cannot believe I am writing these words....ya' know I am sitting here with tears in my eyes.
LEO's wonder if they'll need to confiscate...if they are wondering about it, they are already planning on it. Some here believe there will be a compromise battle in congress on this...there might be a 5% chance, but 0bama has that pesky order from March 2012 giving him authority in peace-times and war-times. In fact, I'd call you folks naive. If congress doesn't ban them with confiscation...0bama will order it.
The door to liberty is closing and it will be shut after the New Year. Celebrate and savor these memories this holiday for by next year, "celebration" will be gone.
The world will be stunned as never before at the speed and resolve of the American People "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
LOL. You described my mother to a tee. Itty-bitty thing, taught first grade for forty years. Could curse better than any lumberjack you ever heard, and could outshoot my dad, my brother and I. NOBODY crossed her. Died at age 83 with a second round of breast cancer.
A note to you gals.....if it falls your lot to be diagnosed with BC, have the doc take'em both, even if one is supposedly OK, and he/she doesn't necessarily recommend it. Better to be flat-chested than dead. And GET CHECKED!!! Mammograms are undignified and uncomfortable, but the alternatives are much worse!
Possibly, they are floating this ban and confiscation stuff to scare people. Then they will decide you only need to register your bad guns and go through a more intense background check. That will set the stage for later when the libs get control of SCOTUS and they can overturn 2A and make us all criminals.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2848386/posts
Germany became a nation of snoops. People were employed in each street, in each building complex etc. with the sole purpose of keeping an eye on others in their ‘area’ and reporting them to the authorities if they believed that something was amiss.
Looks like a Marlin .22
I could google it for the model number, but I’m too lazy.
Maybe Texans should go base to base and collect tactical nuclear weapons.
Stories like this guarantee that the only recruits they get will be psychos. Sounds like they’re trolling for info. See tag line.
What type of rifle is that?
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Fight the battle on your terms not theirs. As one of the old sayings goes never have all your eggs in the same basket.
You’re not missing anything in NYC.
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.