Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control
wis...@yahoo.com
<gas...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control
>
>Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control
>In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack
>
>WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Before the Senate
>Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric
>Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.
>
>
>
>"The President of the United States asked that politicians not use
>the Ft. Hood attack to engage in 'political theater.' It appears
>those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment
>simply can't help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and
>gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks
>like 'politics as usual,'" said LEAA's spokesperson, Ted Deeds.
>
>After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy
>combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial
>in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support
>for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the
>government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely
>adding that person's name to the terror watch list.
>
>Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we
>now know:
>
>� Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system
>administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens
>that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases
>with those records permanently retained by and shared among law
>enforcement.
>� Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the
>federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns
>and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess
>them.
>
>Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is
>that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share
>information about gun purchases." "... [It's not] inconsistent to
>allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information,
>for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law
>enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain
>people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist
>watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons."
>{Emphasis added}
>
>LEAA's Executive Director Jim Fotis said, "Those behind the badge
>don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a
>reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of
>terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and
>women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not
>waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners!"
>
>www.leaa.org
>
>SOURCE Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Holder, another racial pick by Obama. Worthless
punk.
Climber
edi...@netpath.net
National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America - and
didn't. No mention of it in email from this state's Gun Owners of
America affiliate, either.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
wis...@yahoo.com
Holder is a known hater of guns rights. He fought long and hard in
opposition to the Heller vs. DC Government case. He is pure garbage.
ted
gb
>Anyone find ANY verification of this, ANYWHERE? I tried both the
>National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America - and
>didn't. No mention of it in email from this state's Gun Owners of
>America affiliate, either.
there isn't any. The Gun Fondlers within the WingNut set make this
tale up once or twice a year and then promulgate it on the Net.
No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
They're just not that important.
climber
NewsMax just sent a message to their subscribers with gives more
details.
climber
elmer
A right is not licensable. No law will stop the terrorists or criminals.
If Clinton had left the Military alone, assuming Bush and this
Administration had, the other Troops would have had some firearms among
them. They would have stopped the Islamic Terrorist that killed 12
unarmed Soldiers/Victims and wounded 30 something others.
That is the only logic of the situation. What Holder and Blomberg and
the like want is illogical and deprives us of the right to have the
means to defend ourselves. I think Blomberg is conducting class warfare
seeking to disarm the sheep. Holder and others are just serving the
Ultra Rich Elites desire to keep us subjugated.
Benj
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:24:57 -0800 (PST), Steve from Colorado
> >WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Before the Senate
> >Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric
> >Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.
> >Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we
> >now know:
>
> >• Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system
> >administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens
> >that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases
> >with those records permanently retained by and shared among law
> >enforcement.
Of course he does. As a long-time anti-gunner he has wet dreams over
gun registration. Of course the NICS names are most likely already
kept SOMEWHERE (rumor is they are kept in foreign countries so that
U.S. can deny keeping a gun owner registration list). All Holder wants
to do is make that secret registration open and legal. [Of course it
can't be made lawful since Second Amendment prohibits infringement of
the right, but can be passed into law to appear legal] Gun owner
registration list will then be made totally available to all
government agents for usual purposes such as firearm confiscation, and
calling SWAT team for "dynamic entry with guns blazing if any person
on the list becomes a suspect of ANY kind.
> >• Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the
> >federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns
> >and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess
> >them.
If the government can keep people from flying by putting them on a
list why not keep them from buying guns? Why not keep them from
voting? Why not prohibit them from drinking at whites only drinking
fountains? Why indeed?
No doubt the person who determines if a person goes on the "watch"
list would be the attorney general of the United States.
> >Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is
> >that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share
> >information about gun purchases." "... [It's not] inconsistent to
> >allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information,
> >for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law
> >enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain
> >people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist
> >watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons."
> >{Emphasis added}
It seems that after Ft. Hood there is an obvious need to have a king
(we'll just use the word Czar instead) who can point a finger and have
someone killed. Holder is ready to volunteer for the job. Why should a
court have to adjudicate a person mentally incompetent, when Holder
can just read their name and tell if they should go on some prohibited
list? It's only sensible and historically traditional as well. It's
going to be hard to teach Americans to bow and say "your majesty" but
with Obama setting the example, we'll soon get the idea.
Alex DeLarge
Why Dondi, you 'soon to go postal' killer!
What are you doing hiding out over here?
Lol!
Home group a little toasty about now?
Here, let's remind folks heron who and what you are:
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
Gray Ghost
4ax.com:
Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
reason, that all guns will be registered.
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
gb
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>4ax.com:
>
>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>
>> They're just not that important.
>>
>
>Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
>reason, that all guns will be registered.
I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can perhaps
understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
Gray Ghost
4ax.com:
That's odd, he seems a good leftist. Can't you all just get along?
gb
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:351og55493q6p0lrceo1ohia42ii7p8t8q@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:38:48 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>
>>>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>>>
>>>> They're just not that important.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
>>>reason, that all guns will be registered.
>>
>> I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can perhaps
>> understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
>>
>That's odd, he seems a good leftist. Can't you all just get along?
We get along just fine. What's truly odd is that somehow You think
that because someone is to the left of your own personal and doubtless
glorious self, s/he's all het up about gunzzz.
I am somewhat to the left of your own personal and glorious self, I
suspect, on many matters. And I've owned gunzzz for most of my life,
learned how to shoot Well early on, and have used them for their
appropriate purpose.
I just don't believe even for a Moment that they are going to be used
to protect anyone's Freedom while in civilian hands, nor do I believe
that the gubmint is the least bit interested in the altogether
bothersome matter of trying to either register them all nor certainly
confiscating them all. I just don't see any particular point to it.
But I likewise don't believe for a moment that the Second Amendment is
all about gun fondlers having a Constitutional Right, no less, to all
manner of military firearms either.
Guns are only minimally useful for most folks. They are implements
capable of making small round holes at a distance. In that, they are
altogether less useful than my power screwdriver in most of my life. I
don't find myself somehow more potent or manly because I own them.
Indeed, most times, they are pretty much a bother to have on one's
person.
Most of the most avid sorts of gun fondlers I know tend to take them
Far more seriously than good sense would warrant. They are Not going
to start an armed insurrection with them. They are Not going to go
out and initiate a shootout with the local sharf, unless they feel
like starting one of those Suicide By Cop episodes. They spend
inordinate sums on them, mostly for converting money into noise.
And ftmp, they don't bother with the training necessary to use them
competently even for things like home defense. They tend, overall, to
lack the specific sorts of ability to handle the Situational Awareness
that competence requires.
But they do have some recreational applications, aside from the need
to convert money into noise. Target Shooting is an interesting sport,
and so is Hunting. Each of them is sorta fun -- neither of them will
teach Anyone how to use a firearm (generally a handgun) in
self-defense situations. That's a whole nuther sort of thing.
But those who maintain endlessly that their -- as in Their Own --
gunzzz maintain their Freedom are fooling themselves. Overwhelmingly
Murken history demonstrates that precisely the opposite is the case --
that the gunzz are used primarily to Deny citizens freedoms instead.
Those who like to get together and promulgate dark conspiratorial
desires for an armed insurrection are mostly just silly. Such a thing
is Far more difficult to put together than a simple win in an election
- which is what the FFs came up with as a stand-in for the sorts of
endless insurrections that mar the political process in many other
nations.
But regardless, even though there may be those who Talk endlessly
about such matters, no one's going to Do them. And no one in the
gubmint is actually trying to either register or confiscate gunz or my
power screwdriver.
Just too much bother for the end result.
Nearly as I can tell, these little Internet Warnings that pop up now
and again have a single purpose -- fundraising. They seem inevitably
to be followed by a plea to Send More Money to fend off the oncoming
oppression.
Which is fair. But that's just Marketing -- and not a CAPD to anyone.
Left or Right -- doesn't matter.
(And obtw, many to the left of your own personal glorious self own
firearms. If you ever have the odd notion that in the event of a
genuine armed insurrection all gun owners would flock to the side of
the insurrectionists, revisit that thought.)
Alex DeLarge
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:58:52 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:351og55493q6p0lrceo1ohia42ii7p8t8q@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:38:48 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>
>>>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're just not that important.
>>>>>
>>>> Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
>>>> reason, that all guns will be registered.
>>> I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can perhaps
>>> understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
>>>
>> That's odd, he seems a good leftist. Can't you all just get along?
>
> We get along just fine.
For a potential KILLER and all...
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:58:52 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:351og55493q6p0lrceo1ohia42ii7p8t8q@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:38:48 -0600, grey_ghost471-
newsg...@yahoo.com
>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>
>>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're just not that important.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced,
beyond
>>>>reason, that all guns will be registered.
>>>
>>> I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can
perhaps
>>> understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
>>>
>>That's odd, he seems a good leftist. Can't you all just get along?
>
> We get along just fine. What's truly odd is that somehow You think
> that because someone is to the left of your own personal and doubtless
> glorious self, s/he's all het up about gunzzz.
No, he is talking about one particular person, although, in general, he
is correct on many of those on the left. Keyword, many.
> I am somewhat to the left of your own personal and glorious self, I
> suspect, on many matters. And I've owned gunzzz for most of my life,
> learned how to shoot Well early on, and have used them for their
> appropriate purpose.
I am also a pro gun liberal. On the other hand, I am not a Democrat. ;)
Yes, there are pro gun Democrats. Check out the Democratic Freedom
Caucus or Second Amendment Democrats.
> I just don't believe even for a Moment that they are going to be used
> to protect anyone's Freedom while in civilian hands,
This is not a fear of mine either.
nor do I believe
> that the gubmint is the least bit interested in the altogether
> bothersome matter of trying to either register them all
This they are interested in. At least some of those in power are like
Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Lautenberg, Holder, Emanuel, Obama, Clinton
(both of them) and Durbin to mention a few. All of those have made
statements in that regard or supported policies in that regard.
> nor certainly confiscating them all.
Feinstein is already on record for that.
> I just don't see any particular point to it.
But you aren't in power.
> But I likewise don't believe for a moment that the Second Amendment is
> all about gun fondlers having a Constitutional Right, no less, to all
> manner of military firearms either.
Nor do we. Most of feel that the 2A addresses the firearms that would
apply to most foot soldiers. Those would be shotgun, rifles and sidearms
and would apply to semi and full auto. No nukes, No F16s, No
flamethrowers.
> Guns are only minimally useful for most folks. They are implements
> capable of making small round holes at a distance. In that, they are
> altogether less useful than my power screwdriver in most of my life. I
> don't find myself somehow more potent or manly because I own them.
> Indeed, most times, they are pretty much a bother to have on one's
> person.
After awhile you don't even notice it.
> Most of the most avid sorts of gun fondlers I know tend to take them
> Far more seriously than good sense would warrant. They are Not going
> to start an armed insurrection with them. They are Not going to go
> out and initiate a shootout with the local sharf, unless they feel
> like starting one of those Suicide By Cop episodes.
Agreed.
> They spend
> inordinate sums on them, mostly for converting money into noise.
No, that is money into fun. I, like most of us, like to shoot them.
> And ftmp, they don't bother with the training necessary to use them
> competently even for things like home defense. They tend, overall, to
> lack the specific sorts of ability to handle the Situational Awareness
> that competence requires.
In many cases, that is true. However the same constitutional right
applies to them.
> But they do have some recreational applications, aside from the need
> to convert money into noise (fun).
> Target Shooting is an interesting sport,
> and so is Hunting. Each of them is sorta fun -- neither of them will
> teach Anyone how to use a firearm (generally a handgun) in
> self-defense situations. That's a whole nuther sort of thing.
Yep.
> But those who maintain endlessly that their -- as in Their Own --
> gunzzz maintain their Freedom are fooling themselves. Overwhelmingly
> Murken history demonstrates that precisely the opposite is the case --
> that the gunzz are used primarily to Deny citizens freedoms instead.
Have an example?
> Those who like to get together and promulgate dark conspiratorial
> desires for an armed insurrection are mostly just silly. Such a thing
> is Far more difficult to put together than a simple win in an election
> - which is what the FFs came up with as a stand-in for the sorts of
> endless insurrections that mar the political process in many other
> nations.
Agreed.....it is always the preferred method for change.
> But regardless, even though there may be those who Talk endlessly
> about such matters, no one's going to Do them. And no one in the
> gubmint is actually trying to either register or confiscate gunz or my
> power screwdriver.
Not quite true.....see above list. I agree that they aren't interested
in your power screwdriver.
> Just too much bother for the end result.
>
> Nearly as I can tell, these little Internet Warnings that pop up now
> and again have a single purpose -- fundraising. They seem inevitably
> to be followed by a plea to Send More Money to fend off the oncoming
> oppression.
>
> Which is fair. But that's just Marketing -- and not a CAPD to anyone.
>
> Left or Right -- doesn't matter.
>
> (And obtw, many to the left of your own personal glorious self own
> firearms. If you ever have the odd notion that in the event of a
> genuine armed insurrection all gun owners would flock to the side of
> the insurrectionists, revisit that thought.)
Keep that same thought in mind for all military or police.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
gb
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:nc8og5lmavbqagn5bgfqbaq9tf2m6e30oc@
>4ax.com:
>
>> What's truly odd is that somehow You think
>> that because someone is to the left of your own personal and doubtless
>> glorious self, s/he's all het up about gunzzz.
>
>No, he is talking about one particular person, although, in general, he
>is correct on many of those on the left. Keyword, many.
Man = How Many?
The better word is Some -- which is nicely indeterminate and doesn't
denote anything much worth bothering with. Fact of the matter is that
Many people on the Left of some individual on the Right don't much
think or care about the issue at all.
>I am also a pro gun liberal.
What, pray, is a Pro Gun anything? How can one be Pro of an object,
any more than one can be Anti an object?
The term is content-free altogether.
Guns simply exist. They will not Not exist any time soon.
> On the other hand, I am not a Democrat. ;)
No one really expects a partisan ID, regardless.
>Yes, there are pro gun Democrats.
The term is silly and without denotative meaning in any useful sense.
I am not a Pro Gun anything either. Nor am I an anti-Gun anything
either.
I an a Pro Good Sense individual about a number of things, including
power screwdrivers and gunzzz. But I hold neither object in any
particular reverence thereby.
Check out the Democratic Freedom
>Caucus or Second Amendment Democrats.
>> I just don't believe even for a Moment that they are going to be used
>> to protect anyone's Freedom while in civilian hands,
>
>This is not a fear of mine either.
>
> nor do I believe
>> that the gubmint is the least bit interested in the altogether
>> bothersome matter of trying to either register them all
>
>This they are interested in.
Not in any numbers and not in any Serious way, clearly. The whole
registration/confiscation issue comes up now and again when someone
needs a headline. Otherwise, precious little is ever actually Done to
register or confiscate or Ban anything. Why even the so-called
Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban any assault weapons.
>> I just don't see any particular point to it.
>
>But you aren't in power.
One doesn't need to be in power to see any particular point in it.
Officeholders play to the balconies. What matters is what happens and
not what some say.
>> But I likewise don't believe for a moment that the Second Amendment is
>> all about gun fondlers having a Constitutional Right, no less, to all
>> manner of military firearms either.
>
>Nor do we. Most of feel that the 2A addresses the firearms that would
>apply to most foot soldiers. Those would be shotgun, rifles and sidearms
>and would apply to semi and full auto. No nukes, No F16s, No
>flamethrowers.
How about Stingers, LAWs and such?
But on the FAW matter, we part company. I do Not want you -- librul
or no -- or anyone else having full access to FAWs across the counter.
Sorry. That is quite a reasonable restriction, seems to me, and to
the degree that I can, I will happily support those who would Not let
you have OTC access to any such.
>> Guns are only minimally useful for most folks. They are implements
>> capable of making small round holes at a distance. In that, they are
>> altogether less useful than my power screwdriver in most of my life. I
>> don't find myself somehow more potent or manly because I own them.
>> Indeed, most times, they are pretty much a bother to have on one's
>> person.
>
>After awhile you don't even notice it.
If that's true, then you ought to stop carrying. Monthly there's
another case or two of some twit being arrested for bringing a firearm
into airport security zones or courthouses or whatever.
If you are carrying, you'd best damned Well notice it and be aware of
it at all times. As has been noted, carrying a CW carries with it a
certain mindfulness that is a necessary part of the license.
>> They spend
>> inordinate sums on them, mostly for converting money into noise.
>
>No, that is money into fun. I, like most of us, like to shoot them.
Noise can be fun. Didn't say it wasn't. But that's what happens.
>> And ftmp, they don't bother with the training necessary to use them
>> competently even for things like home defense. They tend, overall, to
>> lack the specific sorts of ability to handle the Situational Awareness
>> that competence requires.
>
>In many cases, that is true. However the same constitutional right
>applies to them.
The limited Right -- not the expansive one you outlined earlier.
The greatest CAPD from gunzz generally is cluelessness. There should
be less of it.
>> Nearly as I can tell, these little Internet Warnings that pop up now
>> and again have a single purpose -- fundraising. They seem inevitably
>> to be followed by a plea to Send More Money to fend off the oncoming
>> oppression.
>>
>> Which is fair. But that's just Marketing -- and not a CAPD to anyone.
>>
>> Left or Right -- doesn't matter.
>>
>> (And obtw, many to the left of your own personal glorious self own
>> firearms. If you ever have the odd notion that in the event of a
>> genuine armed insurrection all gun owners would flock to the side of
>> the insurrectionists, revisit that thought.)
>
>Keep that same thought in mind for all military or police.
I do. If the insurrectionists wish to base their hopes and dreams that
the military and police will willingly abandon their solemn oaths,
seems to me that's a pretty odd sort of take on those whom we hire to
go in harm's way in oour name.
Is that a presumption that You hold?
RD (The Sandman)
news:gpfog59c296l15b8d...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:06:46 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:nc8og5lmavbqagn5bgfqbaq9tf2m6e30oc@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> What's truly odd is that somehow You think
>>> that because someone is to the left of your own personal and
>>> doubtless glorious self, s/he's all het up about gunzzz.
>>
>>No, he is talking about one particular person, although, in general,
>>he is correct on many of those on the left. Keyword, many.
>
> Man = How Many?
>
> The better word is Some -- which is nicely indeterminate and doesn't
> denote anything much worth bothering with. Fact of the matter is that
> Many people on the Left of some individual on the Right don't much
> think or care about the issue at all.
>
>>I am also a pro gun liberal.
>
> What, pray, is a Pro Gun anything?
Don't read too many gun groups....is that what you are saying? ;)
How can one be Pro of an object,
> any more than one can be Anti an object?
See above comment.
> The term is content-free altogether.
Not to most who frequent here.
> Guns simply exist. They will not Not exist any time soon.
>
>> On the other hand, I am not a Democrat. ;)
>
> No one really expects a partisan ID, regardless.
>
>>Yes, there are pro gun Democrats.
>
> The term is silly and without denotative meaning in any useful sense.
Perhaps to you.
> I am not a Pro Gun anything either. Nor am I an anti-Gun anything
> either.
>
> I an a Pro Good Sense individual about a number of things, including
> power screwdrivers and gunzzz. But I hold neither object in any
> particular reverence thereby.
>
Nor do I.....but appreciate a good gun more than I would a Harbor Freight
screwdriver.
> Check out the Democratic Freedom
>>Caucus or Second Amendment Democrats.
>
>>> I just don't believe even for a Moment that they are going to be
>>> used to protect anyone's Freedom while in civilian hands,
>>
>>This is not a fear of mine either.
>>
>> nor do I believe
>>> that the gubmint is the least bit interested in the altogether
>>> bothersome matter of trying to either register them all
>>
>>This they are interested in.
>
> Not in any numbers and not in any Serious way, clearly. The whole
> registration/confiscation issue comes up now and again when someone
> needs a headline. Otherwise, precious little is ever actually Done to
> register or confiscate or Ban anything. Why even the so-called
> Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban any assault weapons.
Just certain cosmetic combinations from being sold.
>>> I just don't see any particular point to it.
>>
>>But you aren't in power.
>
> One doesn't need to be in power to see any particular point in it.
> Officeholders play to the balconies. What matters is what happens and
> not what some say.
>
>>> But I likewise don't believe for a moment that the Second Amendment
>>> is all about gun fondlers having a Constitutional Right, no less, to
>>> all manner of military firearms either.
>>
>>Nor do we. Most of feel that the 2A addresses the firearms that would
>>apply to most foot soldiers. Those would be shotgun, rifles and
>>sidearms and would apply to semi and full auto. No nukes, No F16s, No
>>flamethrowers.
>
> How about Stingers, LAWs and such?
A stinger is a rocket, a LAW can be useful to have fun with at places
like Knob Creek or Big Sandy.
> But on the FAW matter, we part company. I do Not want you -- librul
> or no -- or anyone else having full access to FAWs across the counter.
You got your wish as no one has that today. Per federal law, one cannot
have any full auto firearm manufactured after 1986 and most of those pre
1986 are WWII weaponry and very expensive. There are several steps to go
through to get one and in some states, state law prevents their
ownership.
> Sorry. That is quite a reasonable restriction, seems to me, and to
> the degree that I can, I will happily support those who would Not let
> you have OTC access to any such.
See above....you may reast easy.
>>> Guns are only minimally useful for most folks. They are implements
>>> capable of making small round holes at a distance. In that, they
>>> are altogether less useful than my power screwdriver in most of my
>>> life. I don't find myself somehow more potent or manly because I own
>>> them. Indeed, most times, they are pretty much a bother to have on
>>> one's person.
>>
>>After awhile you don't even notice it.
>
> If that's true, then you ought to stop carrying.
There is a big difference between not noticing it and being aware that
you are armed. If you don't understand that, then perhaps you shouldn't
carry that power screwdriver.
> Monthly there's
> another case or two of some twit being arrested for bringing a firearm
> into airport security zones or courthouses or whatever.
Yep, but I have never done that in over 50 years of carrying one.
> If you are carrying, you'd best damned Well notice it
This you don't......
> and be aware of it at all times.
This you are.
> As has been noted, carrying a CW carries with it a
> certain mindfulness that is a necessary part of the license.
Yep, but apparently you don't have the understanding to do it if you
don't understand what was said. If you have carried, you do know. Let
me give you and example, I am not really aware of the belt on my waist or
the keys in my pocket, but I know damn well they are there.
>>> They spend
>>> inordinate sums on them, mostly for converting money into noise.
>>
>>No, that is money into fun. I, like most of us, like to shoot them.
>
> Noise can be fun. Didn't say it wasn't. But that's what happens.
One person's noise is another person's fun. As long as one doesn't
interefere with the other, we should all get along peacefully.
>>> And ftmp, they don't bother with the training necessary to use them
>>> competently even for things like home defense. They tend, overall,
>>> to lack the specific sorts of ability to handle the Situational
>>> Awareness that competence requires.
>>
>>In many cases, that is true. However the same constitutional right
>>applies to them.
>
> The limited Right -- not the expansive one you outlined earlier.
What expansive one? The one I outlined above is the one we have.
> The greatest CAPD from gunzz generally is cluelessness. There should
> be less of it.
I agree and that goes for both sides of the issue.
>>> Nearly as I can tell, these little Internet Warnings that pop up now
>>> and again have a single purpose -- fundraising. They seem
>>> inevitably to be followed by a plea to Send More Money to fend off
>>> the oncoming oppression.
>>>
>>> Which is fair. But that's just Marketing -- and not a CAPD to
>>> anyone.
>>>
>>> Left or Right -- doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> (And obtw, many to the left of your own personal glorious self own
>>> firearms. If you ever have the odd notion that in the event of a
>>> genuine armed insurrection all gun owners would flock to the side of
>>> the insurrectionists, revisit that thought.)
>>
>>Keep that same thought in mind for all military or police.
>
> I do. If the insurrectionists wish to base their hopes and dreams
In the first place I am not an insurrectionist. I don't base hopes and
dreams on all the military and police abandoning their solemn oaths. I
simply know that some of them will.
that
> the military and police will willingly abandon their solemn oaths,
> seems to me that's a pretty odd sort of take on those whom we hire to
> go in harm's way in oour name.
Some believe in the Constitution more than others.
> Is that a presumption that You hold?
I think you can figure out what presumption I hold if you read what is
actually written and not what you pull out of your ass.
gb
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>news:gpfog59c296l15b8d...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:06:46 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> What, pray, is a Pro Gun anything?
>
>Don't read too many gun groups....is that what you are saying? ;)
How many would be Too Many?
I am not a pro-shovel individual either. Shovels merely exist, and
one cannot be Pro shovel or Anti shovel.
I am mildly more bothered by individuals who would classify others as
such.
The problem with gunzzz is hardly the objects themselves. (Indeed,
the term hoplophobe as commandeered by gun fondlers is not about
gunzz, but about objects generally, if one is aware of the Greek
etymology of the term.)
There are some fools who make a big deal out of gunz, but they are no
more credible than those who make a big deal out of any other object.
The individuals have need to prove themselves capable of handling the
object. The objects themselves are entirely neutral in any reasonable
sense.
Gray Ghost
4ax.com:
Alas, you are to stupid to spell "guns" correctly. Pro gun is shorthand for
pro Constitution. Also pro freedom, pro personal liberty.
Alex DeLarge
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
> Is that a presumption that You hold?
After this, we ALL know you're ready to go "postal" Dondi...
Alex DeLarge
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
> How many would be Too Many?
One...killer....
Benj
gb wrote:
> I am not a pro-shovel individual either. Shovels merely exist, and
> one cannot be Pro shovel or Anti shovel.
>
> I am mildly more bothered by individuals who would classify others as
> such.
Why? As you point out below, objects are neutral it is the actions
with objects that is not neutral. Hence killing someone with a firearm
OR with a shovel is considered a crime.
> The individuals have need to prove themselves capable of handling the
> object. The objects themselves are entirely neutral in any reasonable
> sense.
So given that gun ownership and carrying is a right, your plan is that
everyone should prove themselves capable of handling the right before
they are allowed to exercise it, right? So this means you support poll
taxes, literacy tests, licensing for copy machines and printing
presses. Censorship of the internet and on and on.
The obvious difference between shovels and firearms is that firearms
are politically significant while shovels are not. As Mao noted "Power
comes from the barrel of a gun". And as Lenin observed, "One man with
a gun can control 100 without one."
Thus there are sensible POLITICAL reasons for removing guns from the
general population. It makes ruling them so much easier and less
dangerous for yourself. Hence anti-gun is just a shorthand for those
seeking public disarmament no matter what excuses are offered as the
reason for such actions. It's not that they hate firearms. As Sarah
Brady has said a million times. It's not about banning firearms. It's
about keeping them out of the "wrong" hands.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the interested student to determine
which hands are the "wrong" ones.
Lookout
And Holder just proved my point. That idea is solidly in our future.
The NEAR future.
gb
wrote:
Nah -- he did no such thing.
> That idea is solidly in our future.
>The NEAR future.
It has been, according to the NRA et al fundraising efforts, going to
happen Any Day Now for over thirty years.
But....
Alex DeLarge
> But....
Lookout
They prey on the fears of the ignorant just as religion does.
But this time the fear is well founded. It's going to happen. The tide
is turning.
Paul Revere's Horse
wrote:
>gb wrote:
>
>> But....
>
>===================================================================================
>gb wrote:
>
>dated: 10/8/2009
>
>Sender: g...@amusenet.com
>
><ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
>
>
> > You should really find another set of friends. ;)
You should:
1. Stop replying to massively crossposted threads.
2. Fix your sig delimiter.
Thank You