|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
|
Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| I agree let em know what you think. Dont forget that Dubya said he would sign a renewel of the so called awb if it crossed his desk the only thing that prevented that from happening was a majority of republicans that blocked it. Bush and his dad were not exactly the most 2nd ammendment supporters in fact old man Bush gave up his NRA membership to appease the antigunners. Dubya was a hell of a lot better than those phony 2nd ammendment fans Algore or Kerry but not exactly a champion of gunowners rights. We have a real problem when it comes to the 3 Democrat front runners and need to have a large campaign to show how antigun they are and wake America up to that fact. Support the NRA. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:55 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
it's amazing to me that people put so much stock in gun laws.
whats the big deal? they'll never take guns. do you guys
actually vote according to one's stance on gun laws?
please explain.  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:27 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| Hey LT they said that in England and Australia. Do I judge a candidate on their 2nd ammendment stand you bet I do. The right of firearm ownership is guaranteed in the constitution and the 3 Dem front runners would if given the opportunity eliminate that option. All the free healthcare, housing, handouts, "I feel your pain Bullshit," ethnic or gender based candidate support dosent mean squat to me. Anyone of those 3 would join the UN worldwide gun ban thats being proposed since their main financial supporters like George Soros demand it. Wake up LT. By the way its amazing to me how many folks base their votes on how much "free" stuff they believe they will get from the government or some supposed constitutional right that is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:41 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
free stuff???? 
you know, it IS o.k. for a country to help it's citizens survive.
america gives "free stuff" to all the mega-corporations and
i never see you guys desire to kick them to the curb.
"i feel your pain"
i think the majority of people are basing their opinions
on candidates who wish to employ americans and restore
some semblance of opportunity for americans. 
i've never heard any of the clintons, obama or even your
boy, ted kennedy say they favored total gun bans. |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:14 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| When it comes to firearm ownership and restrictions ask the folks who live in the nations capital about that. Given the power to implement it you can bet the Dem party would use DC as a template for the rest of the nation. In fact ya know anyone unfortunate to reside in Obamas state of Illinois or worse yet in Chicago itself they can probbly fill ya in on Democrats and gunownership. Slipping out in the night with a Tokarov in your hand will gurantee a handcuffed trip to the graybar motel in either of those areas. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:30 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
| so you cannot legally own a handgun in DC or Illinois? |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:41 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
DC
H.R. 1399/S. 1001, the “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,” introduced in the House by Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and in the Senate by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), would end D.C.’s prohibition on using guns for self-defense in one’s home and conform other D.C. gun laws to federal laws, while retaining stiff penalties for illegal gun possession and gun crimes. It would do none of the things claimed by anti-gun groups.
The legislation is long overdue. In 1976, D.C.’s City Council thumbed its nose at Congress, the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws,” and the rest of the U.S., and began conducting a social experiment of its own design against the city’s law-abiding residents. The experiment, unlike anything known elsewhere in America, took the form of the Firearms Control Regulations Act, which required that firearms kept at home be rendered useless for protection by being “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.” It required that all privately owned firearms be registered, and prohibited possession of a handgun not registered with city police prior to Sept. 24, 1976, and re-registered by Feb. 5, 1977.
And from the windy city courtesy of Obamas mentor Mayor Daly.
Articles - Bio - Blog - Photography - Links - Contact
Open Fire on Chicago's Gun Law
by J. H. Huebert
Weighing in at 24 ounces, the Taurus .357 magnum felt just right in my hand. I aimed point blank at my target and fired.
Before that day, back in March, I’d never touched a handgun. They’d always seemed foreign and made me sort of uneasy. But after 6 hours of training at the Stonewall Pistol Range in Cleveland, I knew them inside and out. I can now safely handle, load, and fire virtually any revolver or automatic, and hit my target every time. The device that had seemed mysterious and threatening was now under my control. Ignorance and fear were replaced with a new skill that might someday save my life or the life of a loved one.
But not if I live in Chicago—at least, not if I want to obey the law.
Unfortunately, some of Chicago’s leaders apparently still suffer from gun-phobia. That’s why they’re so upset that John Birch, the head of Concealed Carry, Inc., in Oak Brook, is defying the city’s
20-year ban on handguns by
awarding one handgun each month to a Chicago resident who demonstrates that he or she has a clean background, is trained in firearm use, and needs it for personal protection.
“I think he’s encouraging people to break the law,” says City Attorney Mara Georges. “The laws are stated very clearly and so, if he’s going to violate the law, we are going to have to very, very fiercely protect our laws.” Violators of the handgun ban can get from 10 days to 6 months in the Cook County Jail. City spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle promises offenders: “You’re going to be in jail with rapists and child molesters."
In a way, that seems right. Chicago has a law. Mr. Birch is aiding and abetting people who are breaking it. Therefore, the reasonable citizen concludes, Birch should be prosecuted. But should every law be obeyed or enforced? Sometimes, the right thing to do may be to break the law.
What if the city passed a law that said all women must wear a sign saying “Rape Me, I’m Unarmed”? If that happened, we would consider anyone who broke that law to be worthy of admiration, akin to Rosa Parks, engaged in a heroic act of civil disobedience.
What those who criticize John Birch fail to understand is that the city is forcing all women to wear that sign, because any rapist knows that any woman he finds in Chicago, if she is not a criminal, will not be able to threaten him with a gun. Chicago men wear similar signs (“Rob Me,”etc.), but the city’s gun law discriminates against women, because they are generally less physically able of warding off an attacker and uniquely subject to the threat of rape.
The gun giveaway program empowers these potential victims. As long as Chicago’s law is on the books, nothing can remove the “Rape Me” sign, but at least the people John Birch helps will have a fighting chance against their assailants. If civil disobedience is ever appropriate, shouldn’t it be when the government paints a target on you and then denies you the right to use reasonable force to defend your life?
The city is essentially asking some people—those potential murder or rape victims who would protect themselves if allowed to do so—to either die (or be raped), or go to prison for violating the gun law. Can we blame anyone for choosing the latter, and can we do anything but applaud John Birch for helping them?
Ms. Georges accuses Birch of “encouraging violence,” because she thinks more guns will mean more crime. But the facts suggest that this isn’t true, because it ignores the potential preventative effects guns have in the hands of innocent victims. As John Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago, now at Yale, documented in his groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime, violent crime rates have gone down in states people have been allowed to carry concealed weapons. Where anyone could be carrying a concealed weapon, the universal “Rape Me” sign is replaced by one that says “WARNING: I May Be Armed.” In those states, the criminal knows any victim potentially has a gun, so he doesn’t commit the crime, goes somewhere else (like Chicago) to commit the crime, or switches to non-violent crime.
Each year, more than 2 million violent crimes are thwarted by a man or woman, the armed citizen, who stepped into the breach, and who, in most instances, did little more than brandish a gun. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, victims thwart 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other crimes every day, just by the showing of a gun. And while many shootings end up in the news, most of these heat-packing heroes’ stories do not—leading people to believe that guns cause crime, because they only see one side of the story.
These figures back up a more important moral intuition—the idea you have a right to your own life, and that you should be able to take reasonable steps to defend it. Mayor Daley considers that rule okay for himself—he has armed guards that protect him. Why not give the rest of us our rights.
And if, despite all of this, Ms. Georges and others are still nervous about guns, maybe they should just go to the gun range like I did, and see for themselves that a gun, in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, is nothing to fear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:11 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
last time here schreef:
so you cannot legally own a handgun in DC or Illinois?
That's right.
In DC, long guns can be kept in the home as long as they're disassembled. In Chicago, it's a felony to possess ONE round of handgun ammunition. I don't know about the rest of the state.
Sure helps lower the crime rates in DC & Chicago, doesn't it? |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:33 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
damn. i didn't know that. i would hope i'd
always have the right to protect my home and
family without going to jail or being sued by
the bad guy!!!!  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:46 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
damn. i didn't know that. i would hope i'd
always have the right to protect my home and
family without going to jail or being sued by
the bad guy!!!!
Michigan recently passed the Castle Doctrine which says you have a right to protect yourself without fear of legal repercussions from your attackers kinfolk and some sue crazy lawyer as long as you are somewhere you have the legal right to be. Much to the dismay of the handwringing antigun liberals and many lawyers.
Not supporting some antigun Democrat like Hillary, Obama or Edwards helps insure that you will always have that right.
quote:
I don't know about the rest of the state
Illinois is one of the few states that refuses its honest citizens the right of concealed carry. I have a neighbor down the trail from me that has a summer home up here. He is from Illinois and has little use for the politicians of that state when it comes to their antigun stand. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:07 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| In Colorado, the Castle Doctrine is called the Make My Day law. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:49 pm |
|
|
Opprimo
F L I N T O I D
|
(posted here as well for on-topic discussion from Chuckee Cheese Thread)
I would advise everyone here (Assuming you are a law abiding citizen) to take advantage of the new (as of '04) CCW laws in Michigan. It is relatively easy and cheap (about $250ish) to get your license to carry. This price includes the mandatory training from a certified professional trainer. (I've found it runs about $110-150.)
I've not (yet) voted for or against someone for their stance on the 2nd amendment but it is a BIG part of me forming my opinion on someone being a true patriot vs. a Socialist in Liberal's clothing.
|
_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
|
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:15 pm |
|
|
Ponycar
F L I N T O I D
|
Here in Tennessee it cost close to $300. The cost of the class is about $120-$150, and $135 to apply for your permit. You can renew your permit here within 6 mos of expiration. If you renew before expiration, it cost $50 to renew for another 4 years. If you let it expire, you have to go through the whole process again. We are also an open carry state meaning you don't have to conceal. It's not advised, but if any part of your firearm shows its perfectly legal here. We will honor your Michigan CCW permit here too.
With firearms, we are subjects. Without them we are victms. States who don't allow their law abiding citizens to carry only assures criminals that their prey is not armed. |
|
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:18 pm |
|
|
Opprimo
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ponycar schreef:
Here in Tennessee it cost close to $300. The cost of the class is about $120-$150, and $135 to apply for your permit. You can renew your permit here within 6 mos of expiration. If you renew before expiration, it cost $50 to renew for another 4 years. If you let it expire, you have to go through the whole process again. We are also an open carry state meaning you don't have to conceal. It's not advised, but if any part of your firearm shows its perfectly legal here. We will honor your Michigan CCW permit here too.
With firearms, we are subjects. Without them we are victms. States who don't allow their law abiding citizens to carry only assures criminals that their prey is not armed.
Well spoken fine sir. |
_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
|
|
|
Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:04 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
