2nd Amendment - Slipping away

[PistolPoet]

Originally Posted by Krasch

Agreed, except that gun controls laws do nothing and will do nothing about criminals using illegally obtained weapoins. The very act of obtaining one illegally circumvents all laws by definition. So more gun control laws will serve only to inconvenience and screw over law-abiding citizens.

That's simply not true. Stricter gun control laws do make it harder for criminals to gain access to firearms, and do make it easier to get criminals off the streets for simple possession of an illegal firearm.

Expressing displeasure about the state of the government is no doubt technically sedition, but yet people, even the media, does so on a regular basis.

We're not talking about expressing displeasure, we're talking about fomenting revolution. Apples and oranges.

The Smith Act hasn't been used since 1961. If you could get enough people on your side, things change. Imagine if all those million-odd people who attended the Obama Inauguration had then decided to forcibly remove the present government. Think they wouldn't have succeeded?

First of all I don't think that those million-odd people there to celebrate the inauguration of the new President would suddenly and spontaneously transform into a revolutionary army, and I think relying on such hypothetical only illustrates how ridiculous the idea of armed revolution really is.

And yes, I do believe the US government could have put down that crowd long before the state was in any danger of collapsing.

A useless example since Koresh had nothing to do with militias, but the leader of a religious sect.

I was illustrating the futility of attempting to organize a group of armed soldiers towards the end of overthrowing or resisting the government.

Sure the government has more technology at their disposal these days, but the concept is in itself still sound. The key is if you can attract a critical mass of people to your cause. It's the "public support" not the bombs that do the job in V for Vendetta. Let's say for the sake of argument that V didn't even use bombs. Let's say he showed up with that crowd and simply marched on the gates of Parliment. Then let's say he tells the asembled crowd, who now is SURROUNDING the armed forces on the ground that they need to forcibly take control back from the government. The armed forces soldiers would have been rendered helpless in seconds, and the same end would have occurred.

Actually, in the real world, the soldiers would have opened fire with their fully automatic weapons and mowed down those civilians, which would have resulted in mass panic and total rout. But hey, don't let a little thing like reality intrude on your little fantasy here.

If Martin Luther King had said the same words he spoke in Washington with only a few people around, he would no doubt have been arrested. But it's a whole other story when you have a million standing there hanging on your every word. It's that same other story that had the police largely standing around impotent during the L.A. riots.

MLK was arrested, multiple times, despite having a large following. Do the words "Letters From A Birmingham Jail" mean anything? It was MLK's message of non-violence that allowed him to gain such a huge following and have such tremendous impact.

The whole key is in the numbers. And it's not at all impossible to get those numbers, in fiction or otherwise.

It's impossible to get those numbers by preaching armed revolution against the state. At least in modern America.

[joerockhead]

All this BS talkin about militias and such, is making me thing of Clint Eastwood and the movie "The Outlaw Josie Wales". he was rebling and doing a damn fine job of it!

So go get your six shooter's!

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

That's simply not true. Stricter gun control laws do make it harder for criminals to gain access to firearms, and do make it easier to get criminals off the streets for simple possession of an illegal firearm.

Bollocks! Just ask any citizen of Toronto or any other major Canadian city where our gun laws make the most stringent in the US look like the Wild West by comparison how effective those laws are in making it harder for criminals to get guns and you'll see how wrong your statement is.

We're not talking about expressing displeasure, we're talking about fomenting revolution. Apples and oranges.

First of all I don't think that those million-odd people there to celebrate the inauguration of the new President would suddenly and spontaneously transform into a revolutionary army, and I think relying on such hypothetical only illustrates how ridiculous the idea of armed revolution really is.

And yes, I do believe the US government could have put down that crowd long before the state was in any danger of collapsing.

If someone had decided to spur that million people to violence the police et al would have been helpless. Get real. There were far fewer people actively involved in the L.A. riots and the cops were just as helpless. How much harder would it be for them to reassert control with many times the number of the L.A. rioters.

I was illustrating the futility of attempting to organize a group of armed soldiers towards the end of overthrowing or resisting the government.

A few dozen people. Not a large number by any stretch. Now who's talking apples and oranges. Like I said before, things change radically when the numbers climb.

Actually, in the real world, the soldiers would have opened fire with their fully automatic weapons and mowed down those civilians, which would have resulted in mass panic and total rout. But hey, don't let a little thing like reality intrude on your little fantasy here.

Surrounded on all sides by a horde of people? Not at all likely. It's far more likely those few soliders would have gotten some shots off then been collectively pulped by the rest of the massive throng.

MLK was arrested, multiple times, despite having a large following. Do the words "Letters From A Birmingham Jail" mean anything? It was MLK's message of non-violence that allowed him to gain such a huge following and have such tremendous impact.

It's impossible to get those numbers by preaching armed revolution against the state. At least in modern America.

He may have had a following, but they wren't there at the time ready to pound the police were they? In Washington during the march it was a whole different ball game. And a different result.

Just think back. Race relations at the time were incredibly frayed. What would have happened in MLK had decided to foment violence at that podium with all those people there instead of a message of peace? The police outnumbered over 100 to 1...

[PistolPoet]

Originally Posted by Krasch

Bollocks! Just ask any citizen of Toronto or any other major Canadian city where our gun laws make the most stringent in the US look like the Wild West by comparison how effective those laws are in making it harder for criminals to get guns and you'll see how wrong your statement is.

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's easy to get an illegal gun in Canada precisely because it borders the Wild West, i.e. America. It can't be easy to control the sale of guns when you share a huge open border with Uncle Sam's 24 Hour Gun Show.

But you're not actually proving your point. It may not be difficult to get a gun in Toronto now, but it would be even easier if Canada had no gun control laws.

If someone had decided to spur that million people to violence the police et al would have been helpless. Get real. There were far fewer people actively involved in the L.A. riots and the cops were just as helpless. How much harder would it be for them to reassert control with many times the number of the L.A. rioters.

Sure. For awhile. But order would be restored. If the state was in serious danger, they would call in the National Guard. If somehow it got that desperate, they'd suspend posse commitas and send in the flippin' Marines.

I know some Marines. I'm always putting my money on them. Jarheads do not lose.

What made the cops "helpless" in the LA riots was the strong desire to not have a bunch of white cops kill a large number of black rioters and thus set off race riots across the country. So the decision was made to contain the riots and let them run their course. That's politics, not power.

And ultimately, what did the LA riots accomplish? A bunch of angry black people destroyed their own neighborhood, and nothing much changed.

A few dozen people. Not a large number by any stretch. Now who's talking apples and oranges. Like I said before, things change radically when the numbers climb.

The point you seem to be missing is that they come and stop you when you're big enough to notice but small enough to contain. Like David Koresh. See, you start with one. But before you are ten million, you must be ten. Then one hundred. Then the ATF kills everyone at your compound and the Attorney General gos on national TV and explains how it was all your fault they blew you up.

Hell, they got Randy Weaver when he was still just one guy. And his dog too.

Surrounded on all sides by a horde of people? Not at all likely. It's far more likely those few soliders would have gotten some shots off then been collectively pulped by the rest of the massive throng.

No, untrained civilians do not rush firing embankments of soldiers with automatic weapons. Maybe a few do, but the greatest mass -- the women, the children, the cowardly men, the smart men -- rout. They hear gunfire and screams, they smell blood and smoke, and they flee.

Soldiers have to be trained to march into gunfire. Ask some guys who went through boot-camp. Given the type of board is this, I bet we've got at least a few veterans about.

Just think back. Race relations at the time were incredibly frayed. What would have happened in MLK had decided to foment violence at that podium with all those people there instead of a message of peace? The police outnumbered over 100 to 1...

Have you ever heard the story of Boadicea and the Celts?

Boadicea was Queen of the Iceni, early Brits, at the time when the Romans were first conquering the British Isle. Her husband was killed by the Romans, and they raped her daughter in a town square. This really pissed off the Celts, and they were ready to back their queen up no matter what that meant.

So she formed them into an army and lead them into battle. Some estimate it was over 100,000 men strong. And they took after the Romans. They surprised part of the IX Hispania (a Roman legion) on the road to Colchester and lay waste to them, going on to seize the city.

Flush with success, they sacked three more cities before the Roman governor could recall the XIV Gemini Legion and assembled bits of other legions from the field and try to stop Boadicea. Her army outnumbered the XIV by about 25 to 1 -- 10,000 against a quarter of a million men. But when the two armies met, they met on the Romans terms. There was no surprise in this battle. The Celts fought mostly naked and without formations, seeking out individual battles. The Romans used the shield phalanx and formed a saw-tooth v formation line, choosing a long gorge that left their flanks cover and their rear protected as the battleground. The Celts brought their families with them, set their wagon in a large cresent behind their army so they could watch the defeat of the Romans.

When the Celts hit the Romans, they could not penetrate their shield wall. Because they were a unformed mass, they became trapped in the v's of the formation and could not escape. The Romans were able to cut them down with their gladius, and as each Roman tired, he could fall back in his formation and be instantly replaced with a fresh troop.

The Romans advanced, and the Celts were pressed back against their own supply lines, their families wagons. The sawtooth v formation kept them from escaping to either side. They were routed by had nowhere to flee, and could not escape or break through that damn phalanx. So they died. And the Romans sacked their supply lines, slaughtered their families.

Some 10000 Romans. Close to 250,000 Celts. Roman casualties numbered around 400. The Celts lost half their number.

What is the moral of this story?

Surprise and overwhelming numbers will win a battle even if your troops are untempered and untrained barbarians. But over the long term, the military force with superior training and superior technology wins. Bet on it.

[rudel]

The supreme court has determined in the Heller case that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right ,not a collective right as liberals would have you believe.Anyone who has studied early American history knows the reason the second amendment was added to the constitution was fear of a strong central government getting out of control(sound familiar) after all they had just fought a war against a tyrannical government for independence.

There is no rational reason to enact more gun control laws unless you have an ulterior motive other than crime control . The number of guns in the US has grown since the assault weapons ban was lifted, yet the crime rate has dropped. Look at almost any city with strict gun control laws and you have a city with a high crime rate. Miami however has made it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns and carry them and their crime rate has dropped dramatically despite liberal's concerns it would turn to a wild west mentality and blood would run in the streets.

Another recent tactic is to say the drug violence in Mexico is due to the easy flow of guns from the US and we need to reenact the "assault weapons ban" to help Mexico.In fact they say that 90% of the guns used by the drug cartels are from the US. What they fail to mention is that the 90% figure is that 90%of the small number of guns that they gave to BATFE to trace came from the US not 90% of the total guns seized. The Mexican government has Photo OPS to show all the guns they've seized. They show tables covered with all the full auto M16s AKs RPGs and grenades they've recovered. What they don't tell you is that those are all impossible to buy legally in the US. Full auto weapons are illegal to possess unless you pay a $200 tax for each one and you have to be approved by the federal government,state law enforcement and local law enforcement. Fully automatic weapons are also in short supply in the US and range in price from $10,000 and up. Why would a drug dealer go to all the trouble when you can get all the AKs and RPGs you need from any of the many Russian supplied countries in the area for a fraction of the cost and hassle, or cut out the middle man and go directly to the Russian mob. As for the M16 and M4s (several of them in the photo ops had M203 grenade launchers attached that's not something you can get at the local gun shop) Those most likely come from corrupt Mexican army officers or corrupt police officers .

So boys and girls the moral of the story is fear the government that fears your guns and tells half truths and outright lies to get them.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Let me start by saying that I am a proud gun owner, and that I count in my family many gun collectors, at least one gun shop owner, and an uncle-in-law who has (unlike the vast majority of gun owners) actually used his gun to stop a spree killing before it began (in Glasgow, MT).

nice. I own a power drill, most of the men in my family own power drills, one of my cousins has a power tool repair shop and sells used power drills, and many people in my family use power drills daily at work. Doesn't make any of us power drill experts, and definitely not myself. So whatever you say on here is about as biased as everyone elses info.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

That said, many of the posters in this thread are being paranoid and ridiculous.

Remind us which state you live in and how strict/lose the rules are.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

I was an NRA member from 1987 to 2002, when I finally became so tired of their hysteria, lies and misrepresentations that I could no longer in good conscience give them money or support them.

Took 15 years? Really?!

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

No, point of fact, the second amendment does not say that, and it does not mean that. You know very well that the second amendment is not a free pass that gives everyone the right to own any weapon they want. You are entirely ignoring the militia clause, just like every other gun-nut out there does -- when it's convenient!

We don't ignore it. We simply read it differently than people like you and others. The text of something so simple is twisted for personal views. There *ARE* militias in the US operating quite freely and within the law. Thanks to groups like the NRA ensures everyone equal rights to guns.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

The second amendment says that being necessary to the security of a free State and a well regulated militia the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It is a well-established fact of US law that if a citizen wants access to weapons beyond small arms used for self-defense they must join a branch of the US military, such as the national guard. You know already that it is illegal to own bombs, rocket launchers, missiles, and other heavy ordnance.

Really? Explain how I was able to pay 50 bucks to shoot 20 rounds of a fully automatic 50 cal at the gun show then. Was I paying it to the military? I don't want everyone to own grenades, that would be ridiculous. But if we keep letting people reclassify guns as military grade, the line becomes too blurry. Before long, they will say a whistle is as good a weapon as a shot gun and take that away too.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Yet if we are to believe the statements you make in this post, those are all protected by the 2nd! But the reality is that they are not, and you're squealing to the contrary doesn't make it true.

If we we're to listen to people like you, this country would be reduced to a chaotic warzone, and our cities would become as awful as places like Terhan and Bagdad, with anyone able to commit atrocious acts of terrorism with ease.

But of course, as sane and reasonable people, we understand that ordinary citizens do not need assault weapons and flash suppressors. The people who need these things are the military, law enforcement and criminals. So if you want to play with them, join the military or become a cop. And if you can't do either (they screen out most of the real whack-jobs), then maybe it's for the best you not get them.

Riiiight. So in contrast taking all the guns away from the public would create utopian societies where the only crimes commited are multi sylabic insults in drive by format. Give me a break, here! We used to have access to most of the weapons available to what the random thug carries in "Terhan and Bagdad" and we used to be just fine. I love that last statement, by the way...first you say military, law enforecement and criminals, then you lump them altogether and leave out the criminal part. I'm able minded and bodied enough to be in the military. I don't need to go through boot camp and have some asshole bark orders at me in order for me to learn how to handle small and medium caliber multi round hunting rifles. It should be my right as an american, tax paying, law abiding citizen to be able to take classes elsewhere and prove myself competent enough as a c- average 19 year old who put on a uniform and was trained by the federal government.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

As for the rest of the paranoia in this thread, I would remind gun advocates of two very important facts:

1) It's still easier to get a gun than a car. I am personally in favor of gun licenses and gun registration. We require licenses and registration for cars, and guns require at least as much responsibility as cars.

Furthermore, despite decades of the government having a list of every person who owns a car, they have never rounded up all the car owners and thrown them in a gulag. Because that is a ridiculous paranoid fantasy, and if you are so out of touch with reality that you think you are in some sort of danger because you own a licensed and registered firearm, then honestly I don't think you are mentally stable enough to own one.

So much misinformation here. First, we do not require licenses or registration to take a street rod in for saturday night test and tune at the drag strips. Second, if you think the government doesn't keep lists based upon car ownership and government issued ID's then you haven't been paying attention lately at the no fly lists and other BS lists the government keeps. Thankfully, people like you aren't in charge of saying who gets a gun and who doesn't.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Gun control laws only ensure that the only guns owned are owned by responsible citizens willing to accept the consequences of their actions. If it were required, I would gladly license my registered firearm. I have no intention of murdering anyone with my gun, and so I see absolutely no reason to worry if the police can trace it back to me.

Judging by this statement, I can tell you live in a state that is pretty lax with gun laws. How do you feel about the people of Washington DC and their gun rights? What about Californians? See, a few weeks ago, an off-duty police officer was able to protect himself and his family against 2 thugs at an angels game, thus proving the need in california for average citizens to be able to carry and protect their own. We already license our registered firearms. We already show ID when buying ammo. Essentialy, every state out there is pretty much WAY WAY WAY easier when it comes to gun owneship and the laws that come with it....and we still have the highest rates of crime, the highest rates of crimes commited with illegaly owned or aquired guns, etc. Proving that extreme gun control doesn't do shit.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

If you think you have reason to worry that your gun will be traced back to you, then I seriously have to question what sort of crime you are planning to commit with it. Only criminals, terrorists and paranoids want guns no-one else knows about.

If you read through the thread, I don't think anyone really minds having a gun traced back to them. Its the sillyness that comes with getting a gun in the first place. If you live in some hillbilly state where the population is sparse and not too many people have the same name, its not really a problem. When you live in CA and there are a lot of Jose Lopez and many of those have criminal records, it goes to show that giving everyone unique ID numbers, unique SS numbers, even UNIQUE finger prints doesn't do shit but make me wait a few more weeks so I can call some jack ass and have him clear my record so I can get my piece.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

2) No one is ever going to overthrow the American government violently. Please, get this through your heads. Your guns will not stop the US government. People have tried to start violent revolutions in this country. Go research the history of the Weather Underground, and recognize the reality of the situation: between local police departments and the FBI, any attempt to create a revolutionary army has no chance AT ALL of succeeding.

I have no desire to go against the US Army. I have every intent in doing their job for them should they need me to while they get dispatched over to my area. Take Katrina, for instance. Not enough military there to go around and protect certain areas. Thanks to gun owning citizens who were brave enough to hold back criminals, many were able to return home to get their important documents and valuables. Those who waited for the military were rushed into buses and taken away from their property.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

One man against the state is a terrorist. One man against the government is that guy who shot up the Holocaust Museum: a lone psycho disconnected from reality. If it's you vs the state, YOU LOSE.

Yeah, and if you lay your arms down completely and quit fighting back, you got Korea. Prefiero morir de pie que vivir de rodillas!

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

If you want to keep America a free society, then don't vote for fascists who promise you they won't enact gun control, vote for people who support an open government that discloses all the facts to its people. Vote for people who support fair and honest elections. Vote for people who genuinely appreciate the diversity of opinion that makes America great.

Transparency? How's that working out for the Obama people? Fair and honest elections...what an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Because those are the things that guarantee our freedom, not our guns.

just remember, kids. This Saturday when you are barbquing and lighting up morning glories for the kids, remember those brave men who wrote strongly worded letters at England so we can get our freedom.

[Krasch]

The last two posts are just so... right.

Bravo you guys for giving this Canucklehead something to smile about...

[Car Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Cite please, as I strongly suspect that a rational examination of the facts will show that your description of whatever event you are referring to will turn out to be a paranoid overreaction to nothing.



Um, no. I'm not posting the addresses of my family on the internet. Are you crazy? As for what firearms I own, I have two .22 pistols (one's a Ruger Mark III, the other's a nice Chinese model used in the Olympics), and Winchester Model 70, and a bolt-action .22 rifle that I haven't fired since I was 12.

New Orleans siezed law abiding citizens weapons after hurricane Katrina

Louisiana Sportsman-You don’t lose gun rights in traffic stop

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...tml?bunfingers

I especially like how Milwaukee's police chief says he will ignore this and continue to harrass law abiding citizens for doing what they are allowed to do by Federal and State law
"Law officers preparing
Meanwhile, some law enforcement officials are preparing to face more open-carry situations, and some are clear the memo won't change their approach.

Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said he'll continue to tell officers they can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it," Flynn said. "Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders with access to handguns. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them." "

also you can check out the current situation in Cleveland where the state has said their gun laws are illegal but the Mayor will not comply and continues to try to keep unconstitutional laws in place.

And my point about posting your address on the internet was about gun registration. Once I have to register my weapons with a Governmental body someone can use that against me. For what you ask, who knows but I would rather someone not know what property I own or what is inside of my home. If you think it hasn't happened in the past already you can check out Ohio's ccw law revision where they had to include legislation because gun control advocates who were newspaper editors were getting the list of people who had concealed carry permits and were putting that information in the newspapers for public view.

And explain to me if you enacted complete weapons bans throughout the united states how you would keep the already unregistered weapons out of criminals hands? And yes Canada you say can't keep weapons out because America is next door, but how do you explain the crime rates in countries with weapon bans that don't border the United States

[PistolPoet]

Juan, I would reply to these rather weak and mostly spurious arguments, but your tone is so obnoxious that I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. Feel free to try again with less attitude.

[PistolPoet]

Originally Posted by Krasch

No I wasn't. The National Guard is a special case of a citizen militia that is under control of the government. Most militias in the US are not.

The National Guard is the exception that proves the rule.

Militias in America are militias in the same sense that the pop-synth band Army of Lovers is a military force. American militia groups are like Civil War re-enactors, but not as cool.

A bunch of men who aren't qualified to serve in the National Guard engaging in quasi-military training while wearing camo face-paint is more a sad joke than anything else, and it's certainly not a meaningful part of our nation's defense forces. These things are like fan clubs for people who have seen Red Dawn too many times.

The reality is that if America was attacked, these militia groups would be more of a hindrance than help. They would not be called on by the government to help defend the country, and would probably end up being put down by the National Guard as a nuisance.

[PistolPoet]

Originally Posted by Car Enthusiast

I especially like how Milwaukee's police chief says he will ignore this and continue to harrass law abiding citizens for doing what they are allowed to do by Federal and State law

They're well within their rights. It's a complicated issue, but the right of law enforcement officers to temporarily secure weapons in the interest of public safety is well-established.

And my point about posting your address on the internet was about gun registration.

That's a silly point then, because clearly registering with a government agency and posting things on the internet are nothing at all alike. I'm registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles, but they don't just give out my address and particulars to just anyone.

Once I have to register my weapons with a Governmental body someone can use that against me.

That's just paranoid speculation. Someone could use your driver's license registration against you. Does anyone? No.

And explain to me if you enacted complete weapons bans throughout the united states how you would keep the already unregistered weapons out of criminals hands?

Well obviously you can't. But guns, especially when owned by moron criminals with no firearms training, rust and break down. They get lost, they get swept up by the police during routine law enforcement and destroyed. Eventually their numbers will dwindle. It may take awhile, but it's certainly possible.

Remember that most illegal guns aren't seized after their use in a crime, but before, during other routine arrests. Gang-banger gets popped for slinging crystal on the corner, cops find a revolver tucked in his waistband, that's a gun off the streets.

And yes Canada you say can't keep weapons out because America is next door, but how do you explain the crime rates in countries with weapon bans that don't border the United States

Gun control has little to do with crime rates overall, but rather gun crimes. Nations with strong gun control tend to have much lower rates of gun crime, though not necessarily lower rates of crime.

[supersatch]

Ironic that a guy named "PistolPoet" is the gun law advocate.

Those who know me know that two of my greatest hero's are Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson.

Voltaire- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination."

Jefferson- "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

and one more from TJ for Obama; "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Though I could go on forever on this topic I think Penn and Teller tell it best on their tv show Bullshit.
If you don't want to watch the whole thing, the main points that I want people to get out of this are in Part 2 at 1:50-2:50, Part 2 at 8:00-8:34, and part 3 at 1:04-2:00. It mainly deals with the inability of gun laws to accomplish their mission and the intended rights of the founding fathers. If you agree with the interpretation but disagree with the founding fathers then we might as well throw out the entire Constitution.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Juan, I would reply to these rather weak and mostly spurious arguments, but your tone is so obnoxious that I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. Feel free to try again with less attitude.

That's okay, guy. We aren't here to impress anyone with our above average writting proficiency and to apease to everyones sandy crotch. If you can't take the fact that I rebutted each and every one of your posts with obnoxious yet very valid points, then move on. Read the rules though:

Edge of the Hole Serious Discussions and debates. Forum Rules are strictly enforced. No Post whoring, flaming, thread hijacking or smart ass replies.

Please, in the name of all gun enthusiests everywhere, stop spreading your missinformation.

Are you aware of the military near border towns asking to search vehicles at random and asking them where the guns are? A clear violation of illegal search and seizure. They are detaining people for no reason other than to search their cars for guns, and whether they be legal, or illegal, registered or unregistered, they are being stopped and detained with no legal right. Their excuse, to stop the weapons trade into mexico...another tired point. Do guns make it south of the border from the US....yeah. Are they the same guns the cartels are using in their heavily armored war against each other? Nah. Last I heard, no one could own bazookas around here. Those come from the black market where the majority of high powered weapons that criminals use come from.

[Juan.Camaney]

In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?"

Friday, June 19, 2009


NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation. For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers' and dealers' records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands. But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers' records, with agents trying to "profile" potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics. One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate." That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply. Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice. Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent. There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.
If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney. NRA members may also call NRA-ILA's Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information. Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent's name, and specific questions asked.

[Juan.Camaney]

23 State Attorneys General To Attorney General Holder: "No Semi-Auto Ban"

Friday, June 12, 2009


On June 11, the top law enforcement officials of nearly half the states signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing their opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

"We share the Obama Administration's commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans' access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems," the letter said.

The letter notes congressional opposition to bringing back the ban, and calls for increasing enforcement of existing laws.

We encourage NRA members to let these state officials know we appreciate them standing up to the incessant clamor for gun control that is currently coming from anti-gun groups and their media allies.

The 23 state Attorneys General, in alphabetical order, by state, are:

Arkansas – The Honorable Dustin McDaniel
Alabama - The Honorable Troy King
Colorado - The Honorable John W. Suthers
Florida - The Honorable Bill McCollum
Georgia - The Honorable Thurbert E. Baker
Idaho - The Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden
Kansas - The Honorable Steve Six
Kentucky - The Honorable Jack Conway
Louisiana - The Honorable James D. Caldwell
Michigan - The Honorable Mike Cox
Missouri - The Honorable Chris Koster
Montana - The Honorable Steve Bullock
Oklahoma - The Honorable W.A. Edmonson
Nebraska - The Honorable Jon Bruning
Nevada - The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto
New Hampshire - The Honorable Kelly A. Ayotte
North Dakota - The Honorable Wayne Stenehjem
South Carolina - The Honorable Henry McMaster
South Dakota - The Honorable Lawrence Long
Texas - The Honorable Greg Abbott
Utah - The Honorable Mark L. Shurtleff
Wisconsin – The Honorable J.B. Van Hollen
Wyoming - The Honorable Bruce A. Salzburg

To read the letter in its entirety, please click here.

http://www.nraila.org/media/PD...eAGsLetter061109.pdf