Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Feinstein's Bill


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Feinstein's Bill Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/30/2013 9:55:14 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
In the Sheriff's Department, you have the Sheriff, all subordinate officers are called "Deputies."


Ah!! Difference of meaning when using the same word.

My bad - I speak either English or International.
I'm not so hot on American even if I do know a few words.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 201
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/30/2013 10:17:58 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
Today the terms LEO (Law Enforcement Officer), or 'sworn officer' are used to cover the menagerie of Sheriffs, Police Chiefs, deputy chiefs, Sheriff's deputies, peace officers, public safety officers, marshalls, rangers, agents, and so on.

And there are more than twice as many non-government people running around with badges... some armed, some uniformed, in the regulated private security industry... and we don't even license our bouncers over here. (Or our doormen... ).

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
In the Sheriff's Department, you have the Sheriff, all subordinate officers are called "Deputies."


Ah!! Difference of meaning when using the same word.

My bad - I speak either English or International.
I'm not so hot on American even if I do know a few words.





< Message edited by Powergamz1 -- 1/30/2013 10:18:25 PM >


_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 202
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 12:05:08 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

I wonder what Feinstein's bill will do about this:

Teen who performed at Obama inaugural events shot dead in Chicago

"2013 has gotten off to a deadly start in Chicago -- Pendleton was the year's 42nd murder victim. No arrests have been made in the case, police said Wednesday.

In 2012, 506 people were slain in the city."

Nothing at all.




As I reported the Feinstein purposed ban was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committe, meaning the bill is now dead (post 191). If you read into the Chairmen statement, looks like the gun manufactures and dealers won.

Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt: “I know gun store owners in Vermont”

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 1/31/2013 12:13:08 AM >

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 203
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 1:10:24 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And they have the remedy, read the constitution,.........to provide for the common defense.   if they had said individual defense, we would have a different kettle of fish, but as it stands they did not envision a hatfields and mccoys nor a Zimmerman and Farakhan america.

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. - George Washington


I'm no expert on the first President of the United States. But I have observed a high number of folks using material from the founding fathers. Not only that, but many historians having a DEVIL of a time trying to correct people that use misleading or simply false quotes. That they add or remove things that no person from the 18th century would have wrote; but a 20th to 21st century person would be more likely. For example, Jefferson did not write the Constitution, he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Yet quite a number of misleading and false quotes have come up with this bill, the events around each of the seven mass shootings in 2012, and time before that, to force the folks at Monticello to post correction information. You can find information about former President Jefferson at Monticello.org.

How does this all relate to the first president? What would be the motivation for gun nuts to bend if not lie about the written materials that came from the first president on the topic of gun control? If they could convince Americans that the first president really does support an anti gun control stance, would they do it? Makes one wonder just how many of those 'honest and law abiding citizens with firearms' are actually 100% honest and law abiding?

With just a basic level search, I found this:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prarie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour."

The BOLD part is the stuff you left out of your quote. Kind of funny that you got a false quote wrong, eh?

SOURCE 1..........SOURCE 2

Apparently the second source holds additional quotes (from Washinton and others) that are false as well (and give the correct quote). Now, I'm not accusing you of being dishonest here. And its possible I'm wrong, and the quote you gave above is 100% factually true. But it seems the truth of the matter is that where ever you got your information was not only false, but pushing an agenda not in view of the first president.







(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 204
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 2:11:22 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You are correct, most mass shooters are not "mentally ill" as one would diagnose them, but there are some warning signs in the majority of mass shooters that may give them away.



It has been specifically pointed out to you, over and over, compelete with links to the ATF regs and firearms laws (of which you were unaware), and to medical documentation, that 'mental illness' is a meaningless media hype term in the context of both law and medicine.



According to the current gun law, a person deemed mentally ill cannot purchase a firearm.

The problem, no regulations force a mental health provider to report someone who may be dangerous to the public, so there is no way to enforce the law.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 205
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 7:40:02 AM   
LizDeluxe


Posts: 687
Joined: 10/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

I wonder what Feinstein's bill will do about this:

Teen who performed at Obama inaugural events shot dead in Chicago

"2013 has gotten off to a deadly start in Chicago -- Pendleton was the year's 42nd murder victim. No arrests have been made in the case, police said Wednesday.

In 2012, 506 people were slain in the city."

Nothing at all.




As I reported the Feinstein purposed ban was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committe, meaning the bill is now dead (post 191). If you read into the Chairmen statement, looks like the gun manufactures and dealers won.

Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt: “I know gun store owners in Vermont”


That's the problem in the US. Too many people read into things what they wish them to say instead of actually reading what they say. Feinstein's AWB was rejected because the Dems were decimated by the AWB at the ballot box in 1994. They do not wish to repeat that ever again. The people speak loudly when you fuck with their Constitutional rights. It's one thing to give someone a right that isn't guaranteed or even mentioned in the Constitution (abortion, for example). It's an entirely different thing to try to remove a right that is clearly written into the Constitution in black and white. Beyond that, some in Congress are even smart enough to realize that more gun laws are not the answer. The strictest gun laws in the nation didn't help the teenager in Chicago. Disarming law abiding citizens will not, either.


_____________________________

While is there no liberal talk radio? There are at least five conservative talk radio shows available over the air every day in the radio market I live in. Why does the liberal message fail to attract listeners?

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 206
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 7:47:02 AM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
That law has been linked specifically for you, and the exact words cited, so you are well aware that to keep making that claim is a deliberate falsehood.
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You are correct, most mass shooters are not "mentally ill" as one would diagnose them, but there are some warning signs in the majority of mass shooters that may give them away.



It has been specifically pointed out to you, over and over, compelete with links to the ATF regs and firearms laws (of which you were unaware), and to medical documentation, that 'mental illness' is a meaningless media hype term in the context of both law and medicine.



According to the current gun law, a person deemed mentally ill cannot purchase a firearm.

The problem, no regulations force a mental health provider to report someone who may be dangerous to the public, so there is no way to enforce the law.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 207
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 8:54:29 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You are correct, most mass shooters are not "mentally ill" as one would diagnose them, but there are some warning signs in the majority of mass shooters that may give them away.



It has been specifically pointed out to you, over and over, compelete with links to the ATF regs and firearms laws (of which you were unaware), and to medical documentation, that 'mental illness' is a meaningless media hype term in the context of both law and medicine.



According to the current gun law, a person deemed mentally ill cannot purchase a firearm.

The problem, no regulations force a mental health provider to report someone who may be dangerous to the public, so there is no way to enforce the law.


Again I correct you, there are State Laws as well as HIPPA that do require health practioners to report persons who are a danger to others and/or themselves to authoritis such as law enforcement. Cho and Holmes were both reported by people to the powers that be however they were ignored and/or not acted on. I should know I have done it.

There does seem to be a problem with the gun law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/gun-control-mental-illness_n_2318421.html

I have corrected you and you still seem to focus on mental illness, I am begining to think they are your scapegoat. The NRA has and still appose any new or modification to current laws claiming as always that it violates their right to guns and the 2nd Amendment, if current laws need to be changed to prevent those with mental illness from obtaining firearms then the laws need to changed, you in your silent on this issue makes me believe you take LaPierre side.

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 1/31/2013 9:49:14 AM >

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 208
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 9:03:48 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

I wonder what Feinstein's bill will do about this:

Teen who performed at Obama inaugural events shot dead in Chicago

"2013 has gotten off to a deadly start in Chicago -- Pendleton was the year's 42nd murder victim. No arrests have been made in the case, police said Wednesday.

In 2012, 506 people were slain in the city."

Nothing at all.




As I reported the Feinstein purposed ban was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committe, meaning the bill is now dead (post 191). If you read into the Chairmen statement, looks like the gun manufactures and dealers won.

Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt: “I know gun store owners in Vermont”


That's the problem in the US. Too many people read into things what they wish them to say instead of actually reading what they say. Feinstein's AWB was rejected because the Dems were decimated by the AWB at the ballot box in 1994. They do not wish to repeat that ever again. The people speak loudly when you fuck with their Constitutional rights. It's one thing to give someone a right that isn't guaranteed or even mentioned in the Constitution (abortion, for example). It's an entirely different thing to try to remove a right that is clearly written into the Constitution in black and white. Beyond that, some in Congress are even smart enough to realize that more gun laws are not the answer. The strictest gun laws in the nation didn't help the teenager in Chicago. Disarming law abiding citizens will not, either.



That is funny President Clinton signed the AWB and the Brady Bill in his first term and got relected for a second. That is a direct quote from Senator Leahy. Then again members of Congress may also fear a cut off of reelection campaign contributions..which is more likely.

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 209
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 9:18:21 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 210
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 1/31/2013 9:56:18 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961




And I see you again attempt to avoid the issues I have raised...that I am not surprised.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 211
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 8:17:53 AM   
LizDeluxe


Posts: 687
Joined: 10/2/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
That is funny President Clinton signed the AWB and the Brady Bill in his first term and got relected for a second. That is a direct quote from Senator Leahy. Then again members of Congress may also fear a cut off of reelection campaign contributions..which is more likely.


The 1994 AWB mobilized pro-gun voters. President Clinton largely credits gun owners with fueling the Republican Revolution of 1994. Keeping reminding yourself that the GOP did not actually take control of Congress less than two months after the passage of the 1994 AWB. Don't forget to click your heels three times. The real benefactor of the 1994 AWB was Bill Clinton. For the last six years of his administration he was signing stuff that the GOP had sent to him. That's why Clinton was re-elected. He was deemed a success by affixing his name to all of that GOP legislation.





_____________________________

While is there no liberal talk radio? There are at least five conservative talk radio shows available over the air every day in the radio market I live in. Why does the liberal message fail to attract listeners?

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 212
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 9:44:19 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
That is funny President Clinton signed the AWB and the Brady Bill in his first term and got relected for a second. That is a direct quote from Senator Leahy. Then again members of Congress may also fear a cut off of reelection campaign contributions..which is more likely.


The 1994 AWB mobilized pro-gun voters. President Clinton largely credits gun owners with fueling the Republican Revolution of 1994. Keeping reminding yourself that the GOP did not actually take control of Congress less than two months after the passage of the 1994 AWB. Don't forget to click your heels three times. The real benefactor of the 1994 AWB was Bill Clinton. For the last six years of his administration he was signing stuff that the GOP had sent to him. That's why Clinton was re-elected. He was deemed a success by affixing his name to all of that GOP legislation.



A little food for thought The Repulican party won a small majority in the House of Representive, but lost that in the 2006 election. The Repulican had proior to the 2006 election a majority by 28 seats, 30 seat changed in the 2006. The Brady bill is the creation of a Republican, James Brady, the Press Secetary to then Presiden Reagan. John Hinckley in his attempt to kill President Reagan, crippling James Brady in the attempt, came from a Repulican Family. James and his wife Sarah have since the incident become very active in supporting the gun control movement.

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 213
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 9:53:31 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961




And I see you again attempt to avoid the issues I have raised...that I am not surprised.



Yes I did, before your last post, please look here.

As for the reporting of people with mental health issues, please read the following.

quote:

Between November 1999 and November 2007, the number of disqualifying mental health records in the NICS Mental Defective File increased from about 90,000 to about 400,000.3 However, the U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that there should be at least 2.7 million such records in the database.4 Hence, the total number of records currently reported to NICS is still a small fraction of the number of persons prohibited from purchasing firearms due to a history of mental illness. In 2005, of the total number of prospective purchasers who were denied following an FBI background check, only 0.5% were denied for mental health reasons.5
Mental Health Reporting Policy Summary


Please not the bold text, and then tell me that the reporting of people who should be denied firearms do to mental illness is working.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 214
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 10:52:01 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961




And I see you again attempt to avoid the issues I have raised...that I am not surprised.



Yes I did, before your last post, please look here.

As for the reporting of people with mental health issues, please read the following.

quote:

Between November 1999 and November 2007, the number of disqualifying mental health records in the NICS Mental Defective File increased from about 90,000 to about 400,000.3 However, the U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that there should be at least 2.7 million such records in the database.4 Hence, the total number of records currently reported to NICS is still a small fraction of the number of persons prohibited from purchasing firearms due to a history of mental illness. In 2005, of the total number of prospective purchasers who were denied following an FBI background check, only 0.5% were denied for mental health reasons.5
Mental Health Reporting Policy Summary


Please not the bold text, and then tell me that the reporting of people who should be denied firearms do to mental illness is working.



You again change your story from your post 205:

"The problem, no regulations force a mental health provider to report someone who may be dangerous to the public, so there is no way to enforce the law. "

I have corrected you and now you are stating that there are regulations that require reporting, but flawed. I have also pointed that out to you the system is flawed.

You show that there is a reporting system, flawed yes, I have also pointed that out. You are stating that two seperate government agency are disagreeing about the numbers. My question is what mental illnesses are they talking about? And are they in the Axes I or Axes II catagory? Now do I believe the reporting system is flawed, yes. I have pointed out in two incidents that the person was reported but no action taken. This I feel is one of the biggest errors that need to be corrected.

Now, if there was an attempt to change the law to make the reporting more effective, NRA would scream that it violates law bidding gun owners second admendment right to own guns, as they did with the Brady Bill which required back ground checks prior to purchase.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/a-misguided-focus-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0

http://www.thekimfoundation.org/html/about_mental_ill/statistics.html

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Shoot-Across-nation-a-grim-acceptance-when-mentally-ill-shot-down.html

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 2/1/2013 11:06:48 AM >

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 215
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 11:17:54 AM   
LizDeluxe


Posts: 687
Joined: 10/2/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
A little food for thought The Republican party won a small majority in the House of Representative, but lost that in the 2006 election. The Republican had prior to the 2006 election a majority by 28 seats, 30 seat changed in the 2006. The Brady bill is the creation of a Republican, James Brady, the Press Secretary to then President Reagan. John Hinckley in his attempt to kill President Reagan, crippling James Brady in the attempt, came from a Republican Family. James and his wife Sarah have since the incident become very active in supporting the gun control movement.


Small majority. Large majority. It doesn't really matter if you can muster the votes to maintain control. The majority leader position is very important to them. Ask the Dems and Nancy Pelosi if they would feel bad if they only had a one seat majority in the House right now.

I don't mean to be harsh but once Jim Brady was shot he was no longer republican or democrat. He was a gunshot victim and that's where his and his wife's gun control advocacy derives from. Not to diminish their opinions at all but his/their political affiliation at that point is moot for the purposes of this discussion. Continuing to make a point of it is equally moot. Would Jim Brady have authored the Brady Bill had the assassination attempt on Regan not occurred? Likely not. President Reagan (also a Republican) was also shot and continue to support gun rights.


_____________________________

While is there no liberal talk radio? There are at least five conservative talk radio shows available over the air every day in the radio market I live in. Why does the liberal message fail to attract listeners?

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 216
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 11:56:26 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
A little food for thought The Republican party won a small majority in the House of Representative, but lost that in the 2006 election. The Republican had prior to the 2006 election a majority by 28 seats, 30 seat changed in the 2006. The Brady bill is the creation of a Republican, James Brady, the Press Secretary to then President Reagan. John Hinckley in his attempt to kill President Reagan, crippling James Brady in the attempt, came from a Republican Family. James and his wife Sarah have since the incident become very active in supporting the gun control movement.


Small majority. Large majority. It doesn't really matter if you can muster the votes to maintain control. The majority leader position is very important to them. Ask the Dems and Nancy Pelosi if they would feel bad if they only had a one seat majority in the House right now.

one or one hundred, the point is the Repulicans lost

I don't mean to be harsh but once Jim Brady was shot he was no longer republican or democrat. He was a gunshot victim and that's where his and his wife's gun control advocacy derives from. Not to diminish their opinions at all but his/their political affiliation at that point is moot for the purposes of this discussion. Continuing to make a point of it is equally moot. Would Jim Brady have authored the Brady Bill had the assassination attempt on Regan not occurred? Likely not. President Reagan (also a Republican) was also shot and continue to support gun rights.



Brady has not changed is political party membership, which for me takes an amount courage on his part, since he has taken up the gun control issue. By your rationalization are you also saying Gabrielle Gifford is no longer a Democrate?
You left out an important part of the oath you state.... The oath says "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution", it goes further on "from all enemies foreign and domestic"
"If we let them take out guns we deserve what happens next" you something against a reduction in the death rate? In the United States in 2010 there were 30,470 firearm-related deaths reported.

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 2/1/2013 12:03:17 PM >

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 217
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 6:29:01 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 218
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 6:32:43 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961




ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

(You already show this...try something new, if you can but repetition seem to be your stock and trade)

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 2/1/2013 6:36:28 PM >

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 219
RE: Feinstein's Bill - 2/1/2013 6:55:56 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And they have the remedy, read the constitution,.........to provide for the common defense.   if they had said individual defense, we would have a different kettle of fish, but as it stands they did not envision a hatfields and mccoys nor a Zimmerman and Farakhan america.



Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. - George Washington


by the way the quote is bogus Washington never said it.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 220
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Feinstein's Bill Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125