VanillaGorilla
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 12,073
- Likes
- 4,750
- Points
- 113
I don't know much about gun control, but those quotes are startling. Are there more recent quotes like that?
Defending The Second Amendment and The Constitution
- Thread starter MARIS61
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
MARIS61
Real American
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,007
- Likes
- 5,012
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
If SCOTUS told you to jump off a cliff would you do it?
SCOTUS is the last word.
MARIS61
Real American
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,007
- Likes
- 5,012
- Points
- 113
SCOTUS is a political mouthpiece, nothing more.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
SCOTUS trumps MARIS61 (among other things)
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 34,409
- Likes
- 43,895
- Points
- 113
donkiez
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 4,235
- Likes
- 3,260
- Points
- 113
I agree but you can also take heart in knowing that none if these people are the next Hitler, and I seriously doubt that they are trying to prepare the landscape for the next Hitler. They are just people in power who feel that the best solution is no guns or very restricted guns. There are just as many people in power, if not more, who feel that the best solution is no regulations or less regulations. Just as with most things the answer lies somewhere between the two extremists view points.
Eastoff
But it was a beginning.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 16,096
- Likes
- 4,101
- Points
- 113
I propose it to be illegal to declare you do not own a gun, if you actually own a gun. Then I propose we avoid infringing on the rights of gun owners and allow everyone who doesn't own a gun to register themselves as non-gun owners. If criminals want to start changing their habits, so be it. I'll take the risk.
MARIS61
Real American
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,007
- Likes
- 5,012
- Points
- 113
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/0...e-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/
One day after President Barack Obama won re-election, his Administration agreed to a new round of international negotiations to revive a United Nations-sponsored treaty regulating the international sale of conventional arms, which critics fear could affect the Constitutionally protected right of U.S. citizens to purchase and bear firearms.
Now, in the wake of the Newtown school massacre and the President’s January 16 promise to “put everything I’ve got” into a sweeping new series of gun control initiatives, the fate of that treaty, which enters a “final” round of negotiations this March, may loom as more important than ever, according to critics, some of whom argue that the U.S. should never have entered the talks in the first place.
Their concerns remain, despite the fact that President Obama repeated his support for the Second Amendment and “our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen” on January 16. (The subject never came up in his second inaugural address.)
U.S. diplomats have declined a Fox News request to discuss, among other things, the direction of the talks, and whether the other 192 countries involved respect that U.S. “red lines” in the negotiations—including the Administration’s assertion that “the Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld”—are truly inviolate.
The Administration first agreed to take part in the U.N. arms treaty negotiations in 2009—the same year in which it launched the now-notorious Fast and Furious operation, which provided weapons to illicit gun traders, ostensibly to track gun-running operations to Mexican drug cartels. Those negotiations proceeded irregularly, but seemed to founder last July.
But then, the U.S. joined a 157-0 vote, with 18 abstentions, of a U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee, on November 7, 2012, —the day after President Barack Obama won his second-term victory--to create the March round of talks. (A State Department official insisted to Fox News that the vote only came after the U.S. elections due to the disruption caused by Hurricane Sandy; otherwise, it would have taken place earlier.)
Amid the fog surrounding the treaty process, however, one thing seemed clear: an issue that deeply involves American rights and freedoms is back on the table, linked to the lingering problem of how to keep conventional military weapons out of the hands of terrorists and extremists. The State Department itself, on a web page that also lists its “red line” reservations in the negotiations, calls it a “complex but critical issue.”
For many critics, however, the draft version of the treaty is also a mine field of clauses and propositions that mandate a much greater federal role in U.S. gun sales, and potentially tie the U.S. to the gun control agenda of other governments or regimes.
“The treaty is drafted as if every nation in the world has centralized control of the arms industry and arms sales, which is not the case here,” said Ted Bromund, a security policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has followed the arms trade treaty process closely, and who believes the U.S. should bail out of the March treaty talks.
“We’ve already got an enormous body of statutes and practice on the import, manufacture and export of firearms, the most elaborate in the world,” Bromund told Fox News. “How would we use a treaty that gives enormous discretion to the Administration on the import and export of arms? Essentially, it would give the Administration much more control than it already has.”
...
For one thing, notes Bromund, most nations negotiating the treaty—which include Russia, China and Iran—“do not recognize the human right of self-defense” against tyrannical or murderous regimes—the essential basis of the Second Amendment.
...
Whether some of the world’s worst human rights violators, who are also arms exporters to even more murderous regimes, would spend much time worrying about such niceties, Bromund indicated, is unlikely.
“All these other nations are free to improve their export policies without any kind of treaty at all,” Bromund argues. “They choose not to. What does that tell you about their intentions?
“It is profoundly unlikely to restrain really bad actors, or make the less bad improve. It is basically pernicious. Relying on a treaty to stop irresponsible nations from acting irresponsibly is about as sensible as seeking to solve the problem of crime by outlawing it. If the arms trade treaty could work, it would not be necessary.”
Moreover, critics point out that the draft version of the treaty contains a number of provisions that would make a bad situation from the U.S. point of view even worse. Among them:
--various clauses in the treaty mandate domestic gun control as part of an ostensibly international obligation to end illegal “end use,” creating the possibility of a broad expansion of national regulatory powers.
--terms such as the “transfer” of arms under the treaty are undefined, again leading the possibility of broad regulatory expansion—and not merely to adhere to the arms treaty. According to one clause, for example, signatories “shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements to which it is a Party”—a clearly open-ended commitment.
--another clause bans the transfer of arms to “facilitate” among other things “crimes against humanity”—a phrase now often used, in the highly-charged U.N. environment, for allegations against Israel. The same vagueness applies to terms like “serious violations to international humanitarian law”—a fuzzy body of assertions that no single nation may endorse.
--as currently written, the treaty allows its subsequent amendment by a majority of the original parties, meaning that the U.S. could later find it was bound by provisions it had not agreed to.
...
“Iran is well respected at the U.N.,” notes Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who calls the radical Islamic republic a member in good standing of the “club of governments” who pursue international gun control law for their own ends.
And most of the killing of civilians in the developing world, he adds, “is done by governments in that club.”
One day after President Barack Obama won re-election, his Administration agreed to a new round of international negotiations to revive a United Nations-sponsored treaty regulating the international sale of conventional arms, which critics fear could affect the Constitutionally protected right of U.S. citizens to purchase and bear firearms.
Now, in the wake of the Newtown school massacre and the President’s January 16 promise to “put everything I’ve got” into a sweeping new series of gun control initiatives, the fate of that treaty, which enters a “final” round of negotiations this March, may loom as more important than ever, according to critics, some of whom argue that the U.S. should never have entered the talks in the first place.
Their concerns remain, despite the fact that President Obama repeated his support for the Second Amendment and “our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen” on January 16. (The subject never came up in his second inaugural address.)
U.S. diplomats have declined a Fox News request to discuss, among other things, the direction of the talks, and whether the other 192 countries involved respect that U.S. “red lines” in the negotiations—including the Administration’s assertion that “the Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld”—are truly inviolate.
The Administration first agreed to take part in the U.N. arms treaty negotiations in 2009—the same year in which it launched the now-notorious Fast and Furious operation, which provided weapons to illicit gun traders, ostensibly to track gun-running operations to Mexican drug cartels. Those negotiations proceeded irregularly, but seemed to founder last July.
But then, the U.S. joined a 157-0 vote, with 18 abstentions, of a U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee, on November 7, 2012, —the day after President Barack Obama won his second-term victory--to create the March round of talks. (A State Department official insisted to Fox News that the vote only came after the U.S. elections due to the disruption caused by Hurricane Sandy; otherwise, it would have taken place earlier.)
Amid the fog surrounding the treaty process, however, one thing seemed clear: an issue that deeply involves American rights and freedoms is back on the table, linked to the lingering problem of how to keep conventional military weapons out of the hands of terrorists and extremists. The State Department itself, on a web page that also lists its “red line” reservations in the negotiations, calls it a “complex but critical issue.”
For many critics, however, the draft version of the treaty is also a mine field of clauses and propositions that mandate a much greater federal role in U.S. gun sales, and potentially tie the U.S. to the gun control agenda of other governments or regimes.
“The treaty is drafted as if every nation in the world has centralized control of the arms industry and arms sales, which is not the case here,” said Ted Bromund, a security policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has followed the arms trade treaty process closely, and who believes the U.S. should bail out of the March treaty talks.
“We’ve already got an enormous body of statutes and practice on the import, manufacture and export of firearms, the most elaborate in the world,” Bromund told Fox News. “How would we use a treaty that gives enormous discretion to the Administration on the import and export of arms? Essentially, it would give the Administration much more control than it already has.”
...
For one thing, notes Bromund, most nations negotiating the treaty—which include Russia, China and Iran—“do not recognize the human right of self-defense” against tyrannical or murderous regimes—the essential basis of the Second Amendment.
...
Whether some of the world’s worst human rights violators, who are also arms exporters to even more murderous regimes, would spend much time worrying about such niceties, Bromund indicated, is unlikely.
“All these other nations are free to improve their export policies without any kind of treaty at all,” Bromund argues. “They choose not to. What does that tell you about their intentions?
“It is profoundly unlikely to restrain really bad actors, or make the less bad improve. It is basically pernicious. Relying on a treaty to stop irresponsible nations from acting irresponsibly is about as sensible as seeking to solve the problem of crime by outlawing it. If the arms trade treaty could work, it would not be necessary.”
Moreover, critics point out that the draft version of the treaty contains a number of provisions that would make a bad situation from the U.S. point of view even worse. Among them:
--various clauses in the treaty mandate domestic gun control as part of an ostensibly international obligation to end illegal “end use,” creating the possibility of a broad expansion of national regulatory powers.
--terms such as the “transfer” of arms under the treaty are undefined, again leading the possibility of broad regulatory expansion—and not merely to adhere to the arms treaty. According to one clause, for example, signatories “shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements to which it is a Party”—a clearly open-ended commitment.
--another clause bans the transfer of arms to “facilitate” among other things “crimes against humanity”—a phrase now often used, in the highly-charged U.N. environment, for allegations against Israel. The same vagueness applies to terms like “serious violations to international humanitarian law”—a fuzzy body of assertions that no single nation may endorse.
--as currently written, the treaty allows its subsequent amendment by a majority of the original parties, meaning that the U.S. could later find it was bound by provisions it had not agreed to.
...
“Iran is well respected at the U.N.,” notes Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who calls the radical Islamic republic a member in good standing of the “club of governments” who pursue international gun control law for their own ends.
And most of the killing of civilians in the developing world, he adds, “is done by governments in that club.”
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
LMAO! and you voted for this shmuck then told me I should move to china if I wanted some form of gun control. How you feel about Obama now buddy?
MARIS61
Real American
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,007
- Likes
- 5,012
- Points
- 113
Given that Romney was the only other choice presented, I voted for Obama. Would have to do it again in the same situation. Romney would be doing exactly the same thing as far as gun control. The POTUS is but a puppet no matter what his party.
oldguy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Likes
- 78
- Points
- 48
A New York lawmaker released a “secret list” of Democratic gun control plans. The Republican reportedly feels the proposals would undermine the Second Amendment. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, New York recently approved some of the most restrictive gun laws in America.
Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin used Facebook to inform his constituents on the matter. McLaughlin maintains his Democratic peers begged him not to release the gun control secret list. The New York assemblyman stated the Democrats did not want the public to view the list of proposed gun control laws.
McLaughlin maintains the secret gun control agenda would have passed if he and others had not fought back.
The list of Democratic gun control proposals included:
Confiscation of assault weapons
Confiscation of 10 round magazine clips
A statewide database of all guns
Continue the process of publishing gun owners names and addresses
Labeling of all semi-automatic shotguns with pistol grips or more than five round capacity as assault weapons
Limit magazine round to five and confiscate banned magazines
Prevent citizens from owning more than two magazines
Prevent citizens from buying more than one gun per month
Re-license all current pistol permit holders
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
Pistol permits would be issued by the state and not local law enforcement
Licensing of ammunition dealers
All New York guns would be micro-stamped
All guns would have to be kept locked inside the home
Add a fee for registering and licensing guns
http://www.inquisitr.com/490856/democrats-secret-gun-control-list-revealed/
Yeah, nobody wants to take the guns. You can now stick your heads back in the sand.
As a point of sickening interest....How hypocritical is it that the administration that equipped the Mexican drug cartels with fully automatic weapons now wants to champion more restrictions on legally owned weapons?
Go Blazers
Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin used Facebook to inform his constituents on the matter. McLaughlin maintains his Democratic peers begged him not to release the gun control secret list. The New York assemblyman stated the Democrats did not want the public to view the list of proposed gun control laws.
McLaughlin maintains the secret gun control agenda would have passed if he and others had not fought back.
The list of Democratic gun control proposals included:
Confiscation of assault weapons
Confiscation of 10 round magazine clips
A statewide database of all guns
Continue the process of publishing gun owners names and addresses
Labeling of all semi-automatic shotguns with pistol grips or more than five round capacity as assault weapons
Limit magazine round to five and confiscate banned magazines
Prevent citizens from owning more than two magazines
Prevent citizens from buying more than one gun per month
Re-license all current pistol permit holders
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
Pistol permits would be issued by the state and not local law enforcement
Licensing of ammunition dealers
All New York guns would be micro-stamped
All guns would have to be kept locked inside the home
Add a fee for registering and licensing guns
http://www.inquisitr.com/490856/democrats-secret-gun-control-list-revealed/
Yeah, nobody wants to take the guns. You can now stick your heads back in the sand.
As a point of sickening interest....How hypocritical is it that the administration that equipped the Mexican drug cartels with fully automatic weapons now wants to champion more restrictions on legally owned weapons?
Go Blazers
MARIS61
Real American
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,007
- Likes
- 5,012
- Points
- 113
Another hypocrite in the debate.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/illegal-guns-david-brock-media-matters/
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/illegal-guns-david-brock-media-matters/
Sedatedfork
Rip City Rhapsody
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 7,992
- Likes
- 4,410
- Points
- 113
True story... yesterday the house across the street from me got shot up in a driveby. I heard what I thought was somebody rapping on my window, but no it was some a-hole popping off 5 shots. How exactly do you defend yourself against a drive-by?
oldguy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Likes
- 78
- Points
- 48
Weekend before last in Eugene, they arrested a guy for stabbing another guy multiple times. Arrested him on Saturday night and released him on Monday morning. No room in the county jail. This was a Measure 11 crime with a mandatory sentence of 7-1/2 years.
They have been releasing home invasion burglars (breaking in while you are home) the next day for lack of beds in the slammer.
Wonder why I feel like I need to be able to protect myself?
Go Blazers
They have been releasing home invasion burglars (breaking in while you are home) the next day for lack of beds in the slammer.
Wonder why I feel like I need to be able to protect myself?
Go Blazers
3RA1N1AC
00110110 00111001
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2008
- Messages
- 20,918
- Likes
- 5,168
- Points
- 113
jail is too full of weed smokers, dont want psychos as your slave labor
The_Lillard_King
Westside
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 12,405
- Likes
- 310
- Points
- 83
Got a link OG, find it hard to believe they would release a guy under those circumstances. I know Eugene is liberal and all, but even Multnomah County doesn't release under those circumstances . . . and this is a county that will write you a citation to appear in court if caught stealing a car.
MARIS61
Real American
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,007
- Likes
- 5,012
- Points
- 113
oldguy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Likes
- 78
- Points
- 48
http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/sevendays/29341189-47/fire-jail-eugene-police-plane.html.csp
I'm a little dissappointed that you would think I just made that up TB. It's not a "liberal" issue. Lane County is broke. They used to be rich from timber receipts from logging on federal land. Now that there is very little logging on federal property, Lane County doesn't have the money to operate, or even provide for the safety of the residents. (The City of Eugene doesn't have it's own jail, but uses the County's facility.)
I don't have a link, but a couple of years ago, there was a family in that lived inland from Florance (also Lane County). They heard someone shooting on their property. When the landowner went to check it out, he found a guy trespassing on his property, shooting his gun. He told the guy he was trespassing and said he needed to leave. The guy told him to FO, and fired a couple of rounds at/near him, but didn't hit him.
The guy jumped in his truck and went back to his house. His wife was calling police when the owner went back outside by his truck, and the trespasser fired a couple more shots that he heard wizz by him. The wife was told that the county didn't have anyone to send, period. They never did respond to the call. Ever.
The County has a fairly new jail with about 500 beds, they currently have staffing to have about 140 beds in use. The county is asking for a public safety bond, and if they don't get more money, they will cut the number of beds in use to about 40. The sheriff was asked in an interview how people should keep themselves safe if the sheriff can't provide for the public's safety. His answer was, "Get a dog."
Go Blazers
The_Lillard_King
Westside
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 12,405
- Likes
- 310
- Points
- 83
My apologies OG.
I really had a hard time believing they would release someone charged with Assualt I and wanted to read about it. I understand how that came across as not believeing you, I was actually thinking you or the artilce somehow got the facts wrong. Clearly I was the one wrong and in hindsite, I can see how that can look like it was a dig on you and I apologize.
I read it and still can't believe they are releasing people in that situation. I always thought Multnomah County was the worst when it came to release of criminals, but never underestimate the power of a budget I guess.
FWIW- thanks for the link . . . Lane County criminal system has serious problems.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
I would want a 30 clip magazine in case I missed with the first 29 shots.
oldguy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Likes
- 78
- Points
- 48
If I had 2 home invaders in my house at 3:00 am, I would want to know that I can take care of business. Having a shootout against more than one bad guy, in a pitch black house, means you are not going to be able to take careful aim for each round. I don't blame anyone one bit for wanting maximum fire power to protect themselves and their families.
Btw, I've never owned an 'assault rifle' or a 30 round mag.
One parting comment. If you don't own a gun, you are somewhat protected by the fact that others do. Home invasion would become epidemic if the bad guys knew that nobody had guns. Even when only part of the population has guns, the home invaders don't know which houses have them and which ones don't. The prospect of walking into a house with an angry owner of an assault rifle with a 30 round mag undoubtedly keeps many thugs from taking up the home invasion profession.
Go Blazers
oldguy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Likes
- 78
- Points
- 48
http://www.galvestondailynews.com/news_ap/politics/article_e0404848-5bc1-5c01-a9b4-5d83b87b1f3f.html
The one thing that we can be sure of is that this administration will not let the truth stand in the way of placing more restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. Fact is, Biden was telling a straight-up lie to further his agenda.
Go Blazers
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
To be fair, he'd have been right if he said 92%.
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Was thinking about getting this for home protection. Has a 250 round drum mag.
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
