How long before it's us?

[LizStreithorst]

Did you hear the President this afternoon?  I'm assuming that most folks who wait for the cable news to tell them what to think will completely miss the part about 90% of the population supporting the limits he is talking about.  I can't imagine anyone who thinks that folks on the "no fly" lists should be able to purchase firearms, or that convicted felons or other criminal types should be able to skirt the law by making an on-line purchase or buying at a gun show.

The thing thing struck me was, if most of us support these changes, then quite a large number of our so-called representatives are NOT representing us as we would like.  I think it will make for an interesting letter to my reps in Washington.....

Dennis

That's exactly what the President said.  He said that if we don't vote for them they will change their tunes.  He said. "I promise."

[BallAquatics]

That's exactly what the President said.....

Yep, I was out in the car so I got to hear the entire talk.  To me, it was more like a talk than a speech.  No doubt the FOX, MSNBC, and CNN folks will spin it till it makes you dizzy and the actual message will be lost from the folks who can't be bothered to put forth the effort to see that they are well informed.

Dennis

[GraphicGr8s]

 "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."

All gun control laws go against the 2nd. What part of " shall not be infringed." do people not understand?

And before you go on about a militia read Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the states from keeping "troops, or ships of war in time of peace," "without the consent of the Congress."

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

?I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.? ? Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

Elbridge Gerry


?What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.? ? Floor debate over the Second Amendment, August 17, 1789; I Annals of Congress, p. 750

Tenche Coxe

?The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ? the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.? ? Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

?Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.?? Writing as A Pennsylvanian, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution; Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1

[ghonk]

So here's a simple question G,do you support what they are doing?

[GraphicGr8s]

Did you hear the President this afternoon?  I'm assuming that most folks who wait for the cable news to tell them what to think will completely miss the part about 90% of the population supporting the limits he is talking about. I can't imagine anyone who thinks that folks on the "no fly" lists should be able to purchase firearms, or that convicted felons or other criminal types should be able to skirt the law by making an on-line purchase or buying at a gun show.

The thing thing struck me was, if most of us support these changes, then quite a large number of our so-called representatives are NOT representing us as we would like.  I think it will make for an interesting letter to my reps in Washington.....

Dennis

Where do you find the facts to support that claim? And in those polls what question is being asked?

Your statement about no fly would have also left your beloved senator Ted Kennedy unable to purchase a gun. He was also on the no fly list as are many others wrongly placed there.

As for felons:

U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), effective Oct. 12, 1999, states:

    "It shall be unlawful for any person ?

        (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year [...]

        (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence -

    to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

There are already enough unconstitutional gun laws on the books that aren't enforced. Just like our immigration laws. How about instead of new laws that take guns out of the hands of law abiding people we enforce those already there?

BTW none of these laws would have stopped any of these killings. Just look at Mexico. Toughest gun laws in the world. Could also look at Chicago. Toughest gun laws in the states. NY has some tough gun laws too. You never hear anyone killed by a gun there do you?

So what will stop a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun and good aim.

Although if you look at the Seattle Mall shooting all the citizen did was take aim and the guy fled and offed himself.

[GraphicGr8s]

So here's a simple question G,do you support what they are doing?

What who is doing? There's a bunch of people doing a bunch of things. If you mean the Hammond thing I think they served their time. They served time for doing a controlled burn yet were labelled terrorists.

http://www.tsln.com/news/17302049-113/story.html
The fire later spread to approximately 139 acres of public land, land that happened to be one of Hammond?s grazing allotments. The Hammonds presented evidence that the spread onto public land was not intentional. However, back in 1999, a similar scenario had occurred (a prescribed burn on their land spread to public land), and the Hammonds had been warned that they would face serious consequences should it happen again. As an aside, according to the BLM itself, the 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire had, in fact, ?improved range conditions? on the public lands.

If you mean the Bundy thing I've really got no opinion. There is no reason to go in after them for occupying an empty building. All the government has to do is wait them out. In short order they will run out of vittles and water etc. Remember this was a pretty impromptu thing it's not like it was planned for years and they could stockpile supplies. And we don't need another Waco.

[ghonk]

The so called  oregon patriots.

[GraphicGr8s]

The so called  oregon patriots.

Have they harmed anyone? Have they looted anything? Have they burned down anything?

[ilroost]

All I have to say about all this is" They will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands"

[ghonk]

The so called  oregon patriots.

Have they harmed anyone? Have they looted anything? Have they burned down anything?

So as long as someone isn't looting,burning or harming anyone,they can do as they please?

[ghonk]

All I have to say about all this is" They will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands"

Yes sir Mr Heston,but i don't think much force will be needed. 

[GraphicGr8s]

The so called  oregon patriots.

Have they harmed anyone? Have they looted anything? Have they burned down anything?

So as long as someone isn't looting,burning or harming anyone,they can do as they please?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/04/the-oregon-standoff-is-far-bigger-than-a-group-of-armed-men-in-a-forest/

[Mugwump]

The so called  oregon patriots.

Have they harmed anyone? Have they looted anything? Have they burned down anything?

So as long as someone isn't looting,burning or harming anyone,they can do as they please?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/04/the-oregon-standoff-is-far-bigger-than-a-group-of-armed-men-in-a-forest/

"Polling conducted last year by the Colorado College State of the Rockies project found that majorities of voters in each of six Western states ? Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming ? view the lands managed by the federal government as belonging to the nation."

Notice they didn't say Bundy's....?

Nice article....I'm sure there's more to it than the biased media propaganda that we read from both sides of the issue. One can only wonder just how much land would not be abused, polluted, if the government didn't control these lands...look what other corporations have done to land that they have worked, after it became available.....strip mining comes to mind first...

[GraphicGr8s]

The so called  oregon patriots.

Have they harmed anyone? Have they looted anything? Have they burned down anything?

So as long as someone isn't looting,burning or harming anyone,they can do as they please?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/04/the-oregon-standoff-is-far-bigger-than-a-group-of-armed-men-in-a-forest/

Notice they didn't say Bundy's....?

Nice article....I'm sure there's more to it than the biased media propaganda that we read from both sides of the issue. One can only wonder just how much land would not be abused, polluted, if the government didn't control these lands...look what other corporations have done to land that they have worked, after it became available.....strip mining comes to mind first...

Not really talking about the Bundy's ownership. States want their property back. Look at the map and how much land the Fed has confiscated.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/10/431223703/epa-says-it-released-3-million-gallons-of-contaminated-water-into-river

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/us/colorado-epa-mine-river-spill/

What would stop the Fed from coming in and taking all the resources beneath that land though?

[Mugwump]

 I believe these extremists have made a tactical error in their choice of a wildlife refuge for their occupation.

""Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 18, 1908, by President Theodore Roosevelt as the Lake Malheur Reservation. Roosevelt set aside unclaimed government lands encompassed by Malheur, Mud and Harney Lakes ?as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.? The newly established ?Lake Malheur Reservation? was the 19th of 51 wildlife refuges created by Roosevelt during his tenure as president. At the time, Malheur was the third refuge in Oregon and one of only six refuges west of the Mississippi.""

more here: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Malheur/about.html

Hunters are also allowed to take certain species of birds in certain parts of the reserve. Right now it is hunting season for several species, including Goose, Duck, Chukar & Quail. And yet the park is closed due to the action of these militants. Hunters cannot be happy about this.

Furthermore, these people are objecting to government management of the land. They claim they are only against the Federal government's management of land, but let's face it, they really don't want any government telling them they can't exploit or use any public land any way they want to. This means they are objecting to any set asides for nature including the entire national park system, as begun by President Theodore Roosevelt. Is the American public really ready to back those who want to privatize and destroy our parks? These points must be focused on by the media, so the public knows what these extremists are really all about.

Right now it is very cold at the refuge, and snow covers the ground. All they really have to do is turn off the power to the park buildings. Then close the road. The idiots can leave whenever they want, but they cannot go back in until the situation is over. They can be arrested later.