I like the gun laws just the way they are now. I don’t want any less or any more restriction.
Really? So you think that it’s okay to throw a man in prison because his AK-47 has a foreign made disconnector or buttstock, causing him to have too many foreign made parts in it? You think it’s okay to send a man to federal fuck me in the ass prison because his double barreled shotgun malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one trigger pull, causing him to have an unregistered “machine gun”? Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short? I recommend you take a look at current firearms legislation before assuming it’s okay.
mike[/quote]
What I like about your posts is that that stuff really makes you angry.
[quote]Defekt wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short?
mike
Can you elaborate or link to a news story? Not calling bullshit, just wanting to read more. [/quote]
Do a google search for Randy Weaver, it was a debacle from the get go. The government was so right they settled the case for a few million dollars. Basically, they killed his wife while she was holding her infant child. this was done by an FBI sniper. the FBI was given a kill on sight order if anyone had a gun on them. this was never done before and after.
Not is they were acting in a dangerous manner, just shoot on sight. This was because Weaver did not show up for a court date for allegedly selling a shotgun with a barrel app. 1/4 on an inch shy of the legal limit. There was also a question of the improper date listed on the paperwork.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I never knew there were so many people who thought registered felons should be able to walk up and buy a gun and bullets, and brandish them in public without hassle.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…I make a reference to four red-neck morons and you assume I’m associating them with everyone here.
I like the gun laws just the way they are now. I don’t want any less or any more restriction.
I’d just like to see weapons manufacturers take a bigger fall when they’ve been selling guns in bulk to guys who don’t have a license to sell them.[/quote]
They don’t do this, ever, they sell to people with a FFL. A federal firearms license. I the FFL holder is selling guns illegally, it’s no the gun company’s fault. Actually, most companies will not sell direct unless you’re the army, or a police department.
Typical liberal crap, it’s not the fault of the one who does wrong, it’s always someone else’s fault.
I like the gun laws just the way they are now. I don’t want any less or any more restriction.
Really? So you think that it’s okay to throw a man in prison because his AK-47 has a foreign made disconnector or buttstock, causing him to have too many foreign made parts in it? You think it’s okay to send a man to federal fuck me in the ass prison because his double barreled shotgun malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one trigger pull, causing him to have an unregistered “machine gun”? Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short? I recommend you take a look at current firearms legislation before assuming it’s okay.
mike[/quote]
Alright. Calm down. If a referendum came up to vote these things away, how many people do you honestly think would vote no?
(On second thought, we have a lot of idiots. Scratch that. I used to say the same thing about banning fucktarded statutory laws.)
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
“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.”
OR
“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.”
=/
Why was the amendment altered in between its ratification by the Senate and House and its ratification by the states? Thoughts anyone?[/quote]
You’re talking about capitalization and commas now? You really should stop talking.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short?
mike
Can you elaborate or link to a news story? Not calling bullshit, just wanting to read more.
Do a google search for Randy Weaver, it was a debacle from the get go. The government was so right they settled the case for a few million dollars. Basically, they killed his wife while she was holding her infant child. this was done by an FBI sniper. the FBI was given a kill on sight order if anyone had a gun on them. this was never done before and after.
Not is they were acting in a dangerous manner, just shoot on sight. This was because Weaver did not show up for a court date for allegedly selling a shotgun with a barrel app. 1/4 on an inch shy of the legal limit. There was also a question of the improper date listed on the paperwork.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
“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.”
OR
“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.”
=/
Why was the amendment altered in between its ratification by the Senate and House and its ratification by the states? Thoughts anyone?
You’re talking about capitalization and commas now? You really should stop talking.[/quote]
He’s a moron he can’t help it. When this is proven wrong, then he argues that, and so on.
And constitutional amendments are the way they are so the majority can’t just decide this group or that group can’t do this or that. At one time the majority of people thought certain races couldn’t vote or own property.
It’s why we have these amendments, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the government.
[quote]Defekt wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short?
mike
Can you elaborate or link to a news story? Not calling bullshit, just wanting to read more.
Do a google search for Randy Weaver, it was a debacle from the get go. The government was so right they settled the case for a few million dollars. Basically, they killed his wife while she was holding her infant child. this was done by an FBI sniper. the FBI was given a kill on sight order if anyone had a gun on them. this was never done before and after.
Not is they were acting in a dangerous manner, just shoot on sight. This was because Weaver did not show up for a court date for allegedly selling a shotgun with a barrel app. 1/4 on an inch shy of the legal limit. There was also a question of the improper date listed on the paperwork.
Pretty fucked up.[/quote]
Yes, it is. so was Waco. The BATF was told by Charlie Beckwith, the creator of Delta Force that the raid was a bad idea, and if they did it, to do it in the dead of the night. They didn’t listen because they wanted TV coverage. Some good pr so to speak.
The BATF lied to the military to get military training. they said that these people were selling meth, which there was no evidence for. Under Joint Task Force Six, the military is allowed to give training to police because of the “war on drugs”.
A lot of people died due tot he incompetence of Janet Reno and the BATF. Wacko that he was, David Koresh previously cooperated with the local Sheriff. He checked out the surroundings. Koresh often went to town. He could ahve been served anytime he went to town.
People have guessed that the BATF did this to test asset forfeiture laws in regards or to get good pr because they were getting a lot of heat because of sexual and racial discrimination in the BATF.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
“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.”
OR
“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.”
=/
Why was the amendment altered in between its ratification by the Senate and House and its ratification by the states? Thoughts anyone?
You’re talking about capitalization and commas now? You really should stop talking.
He’s a moron he can’t help it. When this is proven wrong, then he argues that, and so on.
And constitutional amendments are the way they are so the majority can’t just decide this group or that group can’t do this or that. At one time the majority of people thought certain races couldn’t vote or own property.
It’s why we have these amendments, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the government.
Re: tyranny, your post posted as I was drafting mine. You beat me to it. Ha![/quote]
I like the gun laws just the way they are now. I don’t want any less or any more restriction.
Really? So you think that it’s okay to throw a man in prison because his AK-47 has a foreign made disconnector or buttstock, causing him to have too many foreign made parts in it?
You think it’s okay to send a man to federal fuck me in the ass prison because his double barreled shotgun malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one trigger pull, causing him to have an unregistered “machine gun”?
Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short? I recommend you take a look at current firearms legislation before assuming it’s okay.
mike[/quote]
I used to not have a problem with a felon being stripped of his second amendment rights. After some research into this issue, I began to realize how widely “felony” crimes can reach.
A reworking of this prohibition is definitely in order and should be amended to disbar only certain classes of offenders(ie. violent criminals and some serious property-only criminals like burglars).
I like the gun laws just the way they are now. I don’t want any less or any more restriction.
Really? So you think that it’s okay to throw a man in prison because his AK-47 has a foreign made disconnector or buttstock, causing him to have too many foreign made parts in it? You think it’s okay to send a man to federal fuck me in the ass prison because his double barreled shotgun malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one trigger pull, causing him to have an unregistered “machine gun”?
Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short? I recommend you take a look at current firearms legislation before assuming it’s okay.
mike[/quote]
Legislators have no idea what they are legislating. What’s a barrel shroud?
I like the gun laws just the way they are now. I don’t want any less or any more restriction.
Really? So you think that it’s okay to throw a man in prison because his AK-47 has a foreign made disconnector or buttstock, causing him to have too many foreign made parts in it?
You think it’s okay to send a man to federal fuck me in the ass prison because his double barreled shotgun malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one trigger pull, causing him to have an unregistered “machine gun”?
Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short? I recommend you take a look at current firearms legislation before assuming it’s okay.
mike
Legislators have no idea what they are legislating. What’s a barrel shroud?
Legislators have no idea what they are legislating. What’s a barrel shroud?
She’s a moron.[/quote]
That is an understatement.
Can anyone clarify for me what part of her 2005 bill actually protects law enforcement, or did she simply throw that in to try and garner the support of people who have attention spans that can’t make it past a single sentence. I have always been personally offended by lumping an anti-freedom bill into the same category as one designed to protect law enforcement.
If legislators want to protect us, they would make sure that we are supported when we do our jobs. Instead, they usually start running around like headless chickens when a cop has to pull a trigger on a miscreant. In fact, I will take it a step further.
I will be safer at work when more honest, decent Americans are allowed to carry arms to defend themselves(and maybe me). Universal CCW legislation is a real Law Enforcement Protection Act.
