TheMadCap Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Okay: And two woman just got shot in an Elkhart, Indiana grocery store... Police killed the gunman. What's your point? Within the last few days: Movie theater dude. New Mexico, 12 year old shoots @ school w/20 guage Elkhart, Indiana supermarket 4 year old shoots 4 year old Wow... We had a heck of a week. It is not even making the board anymore. People must be getting bored. My point is none of these happen if people are more responsible with respect to controlling their firearms. But I wouldn't be surprised to see more gibberish spewing from the mouths of the anti-gun crowd over these latest outrages, as we all know, they ALL would have been prevented had firearms not been permitted in the world...
IDBillzFan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Meanwhile in Chicago..... http://www.nbcchicag...-238712481.html Those are black-on-black shootings. Liberals don't care about those. Plus, everyone knows Chicago has the loosest gun control laws in the country, and that...uhhh...what? Oh...wait...my bad. Nevermind.
TheMadCap Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Those are black-on-black shootings. Liberals don't care about those. Plus, everyone knows Chicago has the loosest gun control laws in the country, and that...uhhh...what? Oh...wait...my bad. Nevermind. That's not why. Apparently, the new mantra is that everywhere else EXCEPT Chicago has guns and THAT'S why the gun violence is so bad there. Words of wisdom from the F-I-L...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 That's not why. Apparently, the new mantra is that everywhere else EXCEPT Chicago has guns and THAT'S why the gun violence is so bad there. Words of wisdom from the F-I-L... That's old news. The south has been blamed for every shooting north of the Mason-Dixon line since the 60's.
Nanker Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 That's old news. The south has been blamed for every shooting north of the Mason-Dixon line since the 60's. That's old news. The south has been blamed for every shooting north of the Mason-Dixon line since the 60's. 1860s that is.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 1860s that is. Trying not to go multi generational here but that's true. The North has blamed the South since the Sullivan act failed in NYC for it's guns. Of course the only logical course of action is Federal banning opps regulating.
IDBillzFan Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Armed robber at dollar store shot dead by customer.
B-Man Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Massachusetts Considers Denying Constitutional Rights to Innocent Arrestees by Charles C. Cooke What is it about school shootings that so lobotomizes the political and academic classes? Per Boston.com: More than a year after the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., a panel of academic experts today released a long-awaited report recommending that Massachusetts tighten its gun laws, which are already considered among the toughest in the country. The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used. It recommended that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association help define a series of factors that could be used to prohibit “unsuitable persons” from acquiring firearms. The panel said the current process allows local law enforcement officials too much discretion to determine whether a person is suitable to be granted a license to carry. This is your standard reactionary nonsense, guaranteed to have no effect in a state that already boasts some of the strongest gun-control laws in the United States and designed primarily to make people who know nothing about firearms feel better about themselves. But it is what comes next that should horrify one and all — regardless of their politics: It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime. Let’s just repeat that, for clarity’s sake: Massachusetts is considering denying “gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.” In other words, an American state is thinking about denying a constitutional right to the innocent because they happen to have been picked up by authorities that couldn’t prove that they had done anything wrong. One hopes I speak for everybody here when I say, No, no, and no again. No to the abject hysteria that has slowly grown in small parts of the country; no to the ignorance that is striping like acid through reason and through the law; and no to a cabal of politicians whose disdain for the Second Amendment is so pronounced that they are happy not only to undermine that provision in pursuit of their quixotic goals but to dilute the rest of the American settlement into the bargain. Enough is enough. Where art thou, ACLU? Edited February 4, 2014 by B-Man
B-Man Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 En Masse, Connecticut’s Gun Owners Defy New Registration Law Looks like there’s a little life in the old Constitution State yet. Per the Hartford Courant: Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31. But few thought the figures would be this bad. By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in. Apparently, that’s not very many: That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000. And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies. Even given how absurdly broadly the law defines the term, I doubt that there are 350,000 “assault weapons” in Connecticut. That works out at about one for every ten people. Still, even if you halve the number, you’re looking at just over a quarter of owners having registered their guns. For some reason, legislators are perplexed by the idea of Americans refusing to comply with unjust laws: “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,” said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety committee. “If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.” Indeed you do. You also have a real problem when politicians don’t follow up sentences like that one with, “. . . and, in trying to establish why people don’t respect the law, I am starting to realize how utterly ridiculous the changes we brought in were. I am going to lobby for repeal and then resign from office.” Indeed, as the Courant established, lawmakers should not ignore the stark fact that there are now enough people in serious violation of Connecticut gun laws to fill a small town at least, a very big town more likely and perhaps as many as live in the state’s largest cities. All of this disruption for a rule that requires the registration of a type of rifle that is used so infrequently in crimes that the FBI doesn’t even bother to keep track of the numbers. (There were 323 murders committed in 2011 with all types of rifle, let alone so-called “assault rifles.”) Here’s a crazy idea. Why not just repeal the law?
sodbuster Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Haha b-man, expect similar articles to come out of NYS in April.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 I saw an article today that stag arms is going to be making a " ny compliant" ar-15. They are turning the pistol grip into a stock. When attempting to get clarification from the ny state attorney General to make sure it would not violate safe act's vague language. .the attorney General refused to comment and address the inquiry.
B-Man Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 9th Circuit rejects California “good cause” limitation on 2nd Amendment carry right California prohibits the open carry of firearms and imposes limits on concealed carry. In particular, San Diego County requires applicants for concealed carry permits to produce supporting documentation to establish not just that the applicant is concerned for his or her own safety, but that the applicant can identify “circumstances that distinguish [him or her] from the mainstream.” As the Second Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Ninth Circuit explained, “[C]arrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a central component of the right to bear arms.” Accordingly, it concluded, “f self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to ‘bear arms’ and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego’s policy.”
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 9th Circuit rejects California “good cause” limitation on 2nd Amendment carry right California prohibits the open carry of firearms and imposes limits on concealed carry. In particular, San Diego County requires applicants for concealed carry permits to produce supporting documentation to establish not just that the applicant is concerned for his or her own safety, but that the applicant can identify “circumstances that distinguish [him or her] from the mainstream.” As the Second Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Ninth Circuit explained, “[C]arrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a central component of the right to bear arms.” Accordingly, it concluded, “f self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to ‘bear arms’ and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego’s policy.” The only reason I can see that the Ninth Circus got that ruling right is because the law was nuttier than they are. The Second Amendment only applies to people "distinguished from the mainstream?" What kind of !@#$ed-up logic is that?
....lybob Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 9th Circuit rejects California “good cause” limitation on 2nd Amendment carry right California prohibits the open carry of firearms and imposes limits on concealed carry. In particular, San Diego County requires applicants for concealed carry permits to produce supporting documentation to establish not just that the applicant is concerned for his or her own safety, but that the applicant can identify “circumstances that distinguish [him or her] from the mainstream.” As the Second Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Ninth Circuit explained, “[C]arrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a central component of the right to bear arms.” Accordingly, it concluded, “f self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to ‘bear arms’ and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego’s policy.” The second amendment states " 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." 1. Arms is unspecified so it could be anything from a box cutter to a nuke except it says keep and bear so if you can't carry it, it doesn't count. 2. The right of the people- it doesn't specify sane people or adult people, or good law abiding people, Shall not be infringed - I'd consider registration an infringement, also a limitation on place (airplanes, bars, school zones, government buildings) that's an infringement 3. what about -"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - people leave that part of the 2nd amendment out quite a bit - so I'd say the first two conditions apply to you as long as you are in a State Militia.
Koko78 Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 3. what about -"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - people leave that part of the 2nd amendment out quite a bit - so I'd say the first two conditions apply to you as long as you are in a State Militia. Oh look, an intellectually dishonest liberal talking point! What a shock! Commas and historical context matter.
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 3. what about -"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - people leave that part of the 2nd amendment out quite a bit - so I'd say the first two conditions apply to you as long as you are in a State Militia. Those two clauses, and the clumsy way they're written into the amendment, is pretty much the only reason there's any controversy over the 2nd at all. For the record, I believe the framers intent was to say "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well-regulated militia is necessary..." Because the key phrase to me is "the right of the people." Not the right of a militia or state - it's specifically a right of the people that is protected. But it is ambiguous enough that it's wide open to interpretation.
Azalin Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 3. what about -"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - people leave that part of the 2nd amendment out quite a bit - so I'd say the first two conditions apply to you as long as you are in a State Militia. bearing in mind that the constitution is a document stating the limitations of the federal government (not a document declaring the rights of individuals), I've always taken that to mean that american citizens can take up arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical centralized authority (ie the federal government).
Just Jack Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 Remington Arms to open factory in Alabama http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/remington_outdoor_co_to_open_factory_in_alabama.html SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Remington Outdoor Co. plans to open a 500,000-square-foot factory in Alabama that would employ 2,000 people, AL.com and the Military Times reported today. The Military Times story says the expansion would not affect the gun company's factory or jobs at the plant in Ilion, Remington's oldest and largest manufacturing site. Remington employs about 1,300 people in the Herkimer County village. ... Still, the company made no promise to stay in Ilion. "Remington will not run or abandon its loyal and hard working 1,300 employees without considerable thought and deliberation," the company wrote last May. The new plant in Huntsville would be about half the size as the one in Ilion. Production would not begin before 2015. My thoughts? They'll build the new plant and depending on the next governor election, will then decide if they will expand it and move all remaining jobs down south.
Nanker Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Remington Arms to open factory in Alabama http://www.syracuse....in_alabama.html My thoughts? They'll build the new plant and depending on the next governor election, will then decide if they will expand it and move all remaining jobs down south. I think you're exactly right.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/remington_outdoor_co_to_open_factory_in_alabama.html
Recommended Posts