Government WILL Ban Guns Soon....

[bentom187]

i leave you guys to ponder who the nut jobs really are.(for the sake of keeping the post as small as possible ill post links)



[YOUTUBEIF]yn8CE5ISUSw[/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]XU5I5N0DIyg[/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]TZu1cqTwj70[/YOUTUBEIF]

http://www.wnem.com/story/19503465/family-wants-answers-after-officer-guns-down-family-pet

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/cop_sent_dog_flying_uyB7Yc6gmVFrZD4eRAAMJJ#ixzz1bp6gOTPl

[YOUTUBEIF]Di_sFSw6Re4[/YOUTUBEIF]

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/194...of-arresting-innocent-people-still-on-the-job

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/store-employee-shot-bronx-article-1.1154084

[YOUTUBEIF]0EIzDFeVNm8[/YOUTUBEIF]

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=797763

[YOUTUBEIF]8iwYfTNco[/YOUTUBEIF]

http://www.copblock.org/20057/75-ye...don-ny-police-as-they-shoot-and-kill-her-dog/

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Parents-angry-after-Minn-police-shoot-unarmed-son-3835039.php

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/19395...ormer-cottageville-mayors-fatal-shooting-case

[YOUTUBEIF]BSPhC916GQM[/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]CnBJsBw6yWg[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

iampolluted said "times change, and the bill of rights was written so citizens could change it's attributes to reflect the needs of the current society and situations we faced. not to hold onto text written 221 years ago, thinking it applies to us now."

tell that to those who read the bible if that is the basis of your debate. Because our country is getting older we need to remove our past and all the documents that protected our RIGHTS that we got FROM BIRTH.

If a cop knocks on our door you must have committed a crime or done something to make them think so? Where are you getting this shit brother? Do you really believe the shit you are writing or just trying to see who will take the bait?
View Image

Some of us prefer to leave religion out of governance but you're free to disagree. Our founders not only believed our governmental foundation was subject to reform, they devised a constitutional method to do just that. The amendment process not only requires a majority of states to ratify - it requires 35 states. One of the reasons the idea we'll ban all guns is arguably unrealistic.

The recognition of African Americans as whole citizens, women's right to vote, prohibition (not to mention it's subsequent repeal) were all constitutional amendments that either directly contradicted original constitutional text or expanded on aspects the Constitution never considered. For example, had our founders anticipated religious fundamentalists would repeal our right to drink alcohol they may have pontificated it's positive contributions to Western society. Wouldn't really matter, it's still subject to the will of the people and could theoretically be made illegal again.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This guy isn't afraid of any criminals...

View Image

respect one another... and hang loose!

That guy isn't afraid of body lice.

 

[medmaker420]

Some of us prefer to leave religion out of governance but you're free to disagree. Our founders not only believed our governmental foundation was subject to reform, they devised a constitutional method to do just that. The amendment process not only requires a majority of states to ratify - it requires 35 states. One of the reasons the idea we'll ban all guns is arguably unrealistic.

The recognition of African Americans as whole citizens, women's right to vote, prohibition (not to mention it's subsequent repeal) were all constitutional amendments that either directly contradicted original constitutional text or expanded on aspects the Constitution never considered. For example, had our founders anticipated religious fundamentalists would repeal our right to drink alcohol they may have pontificated it's positive contributions to Western society. Wouldn't really matter, it's still subject to the will of the people and could theoretically be made illegal again.

You know full well I wasn't bringing religion in here to debate it. I brought it up IN RESPONSE to OTHERS stating how OLD the constitution is and how it is OUTDATED and I was simply explaining that MANY follow many documents and articles written way older than the constitution.

come on now man, you are just trying to argue by side stepping the actual debate.

The constitution WILL NEVER BE invalid and for your info I do NOT believe in any organized religion let alone any ONE SPECIFIC god however I believe everyone should have the RIGHT to believe as they see fit and enjoy their LIFE LIBERTY and PROPERTY RIGHTS as written IN all those so called old outdated documents.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

The police represent the largest street gang in america. Nationwide, nearly exempt from accountability and backed by the judges and attorneys that they work with.

Any cop today is a hypocrite. There's no possible way they can remain a rational human while practicing 'selective enforcement' throughout every day on the job. Eventually they succumb to the programming or quit. Some even suicide. *shrug*

Sad and dangerous.

Stay Safe!

 

[iampolluted]

Why when you bring up the constitution people always state that we would allow slavery today? What don't people get about the right to LIFE LIBERTY PROPERTY? That ALL MEN Are created equal?

property isn't a right, or guaranteed. the pursuit of happiness is tho. as far as all men being created equal, it has taken over 221 years for that to happen, and it's still not true. if we were truly all equal women would have been paid the same before obama signed the legislation making it law, and gays could marry just like anyone else. as far as i'm concerned there is still discrimination, so no not all men are created equal even by today's standards. btw slavery wasn't abolished until the 1865. it took 76 years for "most" men to be created equal, and another 100 for the desegregation of schools. again...read a history book. times change, and we (and our constitution), with them.

If we want to argue state rights here then let's do that then. Should a business be able to decide WHO goes into their establishment? Yes they should and those who do not allow a certain type of person whether that is based on color, sex, creed, religion etc will odds are lose out on money and those people who are left out will only allow ANOTHER BUSINESS to thrive due to their business.

actually the federal civil rights act of 1964 ensures this type of discrimination doesn't occur. the only way to legally discriminate nowadays is to make your establishment private. kinda like the augusta national golf club. try again...

Can I decide who goes into my home? Yes, does it matter what reason I deny access into my house? To be honest it isn't anyones business because it is MY PROPERTY RIGHTS, now if I were to go into someone ELSES property spouting what can or can't happen THERE then I would be outside MY RIGHTS.

you're right, you have the right to deny anyone access to your property (aside from the walkway to your front door unless asked to leave, police aren't required to abide by your request tho), and so does anyone else, except to police using your sidewalk to access the front door. if you have a sidewalk or walkway to your door, the police are protected from the 4th amendment in that having a sidewalk or pathway to your front door is an open invitation to the public to access you. this negates any reasonable expectation of privacy. an officers entry onto your driveway is not an exception either, so they can be there if it provides access to the front of your house, and there is legitimate law enforcement business to be remedied.

Would some allow racist pricks the ability to deny access to THEIR property? yes it could but if they are not infringing on OTHERS RIGHTS to life liberty and THEIR property what crime is being committed besides being a prick? NONE.

you're right they can and are legally able to be racists...no argument there. you can be a prick all ya want.

As far as religion, my point is you brought up the fact that the old constitution doesn't hold up in todays age because it is outdated according to you. How is it outdated at all? It upholds all of our rights to LIFE LIBERTY AND PROPERTY just as long as you do not infringe on others rights to do the same right? How can that EVER be outdated?

it's outdated when it's not relevant. our constitution is relevant still because it's been updated periodically. some rights had taken close to 200 years before they were available to all, and some are still oppressed (see gay marriage, medical insurance could even be included....so much for the right to life for some with per-existing conditions pre-obama). again we have no right to property. it's the pursuit of happiness it guarantees.

Someone can believe in their book, their god, people can believe in aliens, goats as gods, believe in having multiple wives among a MILLION of things that is THEIR BUSINESS because as long as they are not pushing it on YOU it is none of your business.

believing in god or anything else is not against the law. the 1st amendment plainly explains this. bigamy IS, and has been, against the law in every state in the nation since 1890. since you're vague on the million things that are none of my business i can't address that statement.

as far as gun rights goes how can this not make sense below:

I should have the right to protect MYSELF, my property and if wanted those around me if I so choose from crime or others infringing on their life, liberty or property and if you choose to NOT arm yourself you have that right. Agreed?

you have that right yes, and i agree.

So for example, lets say you are walking down the street and some asshole goes around shooting. Should I let you get shot because you do not believe in gun rights or the ability to be armed in public or would you HOPE I would use my rights to protect those around me including YOU?

what are the chances i'd know you're packing? zero. in essence, in that scenario, while i would hope someone would shoot him, i wouldn't expect it. i'd find cover as best i could and hope for the best.

Do you really believe that whether I had an uzi, rocket launcher, knife, thors hammer or anything I will just start SPRAYING and killing men women and children or do you think if I was willing to CARRY I would have the training to handle the TOOL I had on me?

you don't need training to own a gun do you? to carry a concealed weapon yes. how many people do you know who carry, do it legally? women included. some people take the class, some just carry it anyway, mainly women, and a few men presumably. that being said, some men can't even control the tool they were born with let alone a gun. again, i've said i'm all for education, most just think point and shoot, and that's the problem.

Can accidents happen? Yes, could a CCW miss his shot? Yes but if you haven't gone through the ccw training you have ZERO room to talk because they put you through the paces trust me. It isn't as easy as you think to get that license and the training DOES make you more than capable of hitting your mark EVERYTIME.

i don't need concealed weapons training. i can hit my targets, and i know how to handle a gun safely. i've had one in my hand for close to 30 years, plus i'm not able to carry any weapon anymore, period. taking the class doesn't make you a marksmen, it does teach you to be safe with a firearm. i'm all for that. i couldn't even get a hunting license without taking a safety class. i could have bought a shotgun, or even a pistol without so much as a grade school diploma though.

Anyone who carries knows to keep training, to keep practicing because this isn't a joke and any bullet that flies out of your gun whether AUTOMATIC or not is ON YOU and the damage it causes is on YOU.

not everyone keeps training, and some who buy pistols never take the class, and still carry weapons. you're right, the gun doesn't matter in most cases, it's the person shooting it, but collateral damage can occur twice as fast with an automatic as it can with a semi auto. had the cops in the empire state building shooting been carrying automatic weapons those injured would have been killed most likely. that's the reason they DON'T carry fully auto weapons.

my thoughts are in red. have a good one.

 

[Hydrosun]

I thought both guns and politics were against the TOU's. To be honest, I am tired of the anti American talk in this thread.

Please Mr. Censorship crush other's 1st amendment spirt, and 2nd amendment spirit so that I may not seem tired?

Obviously this thread has been moved and relegated to the far back corner of the pub as it deserves, but if you are really tired of the noise back here how about move to the middle of the pub and help some newbs learn to grow.

We have all done our time in the middle helping, and we deserve some time on the outside bitching and moaning amongst ourselves like a bunch of hunted stoners.

Peace my Organic Brother

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You know full well I wasn't bringing religion in here to debate it.

Nah, it sounded like you were suggesting we can't amend the Constitution any more than we might amend the Bible.

I brought it up IN RESPONSE to OTHERS stating how OLD the constitution is and how it is OUTDATED and I was simply explaining that MANY follow many documents and articles written way older than the constitution.

Sounds like a substitution of constitutional rights for "natural" or "God-given" rights.

come on now man, you are just trying to argue by side stepping the actual debate.

Nah, just pointing out the Constitution is sometimes subject to the amendment process.

The constitution WILL NEVER BE invalid

Not sure if I know where you're going with that one. As far as I know, I never inferred whether it was here to stay or otherwise.

... and for your info I do NOT believe in any organized religion let alone any ONE SPECIFIC god however I believe everyone should have the RIGHT to believe as they see fit and enjoy their LIFE LIBERTY and PROPERTY RIGHTS as written IN all those so called old outdated documents.

I don't remember referencing "outdated". IMO, governing documents are not subject to static interpretation. Even if we we're still in the late 18th century, many of us would read the verbatim text and come away with different meaning. The fact the Constitution isn't an operators manual and doesn't cover all areas of governance means we have to make it up on the fly.

 

[Littleleaf]

My God is bigger than your God and he's packing a RPG!!!!

Jesus is coming and boy He's PISSED

WWJD Fractional banking

 

[medmaker420]

my thoughts are in red. have a good one.

oh thank you for explaining that because I thought that was my response and I was sitting here wondering where or better yet HOW I got so damn confused.



And to disco biscuit you jumped into a quote from a response I made to iampolluted and that has been a back and forth for a bit. To get my point you have to go back to when we first started chatting. You jumped into the middle of the debate and picked out the ONE religious statement and are still trying to say I am making this a religious basis.

Not everything I write is directed at you specifically just like I assume the same goes for your posts. If you would have read my response you would have seen me write me debating OTHERS and it was in caps btw lol. I think you missed that BUT its all good we all make mistakes, I make plenty all day long.

More power to both of you and your opinions but I think we need to agree to disagree because I feel like WE ARE debating LIKE fourth graders now and while it is fun it really isn't benefiting anyone.

I am glad to have gotten your thoughts though and hope you continue to educate others the way you feel life should be.

props to everyone but like I said, agree to disagree

 

[StellarP]

Regarding Uzi's.........the Country of Israel and Uzi Galil would highly disagree to the usefulness...........select fire.....YOU the operator control the rate of fire.

The walkway on my property is not an invite........the sidewalk in front of property is public....sidewalk on property is private......same with driveway........YOU and the police(as i have told) are trespassing.......if posted(where i reside) i have the right to shoot without requesting........but since you know all State laws.........and Federal.......then YOU do realize that some do possess an MP5SD.....they are legal....at least for some......

Cheers
StellarP

 

[medmaker420]

My God is bigger than your God and he's packing a RPG!!!!

Jesus is coming and boy He's PISSED

WWJD Fractional banking

Considering I don't believe in one I would have to agree, your god would kick my gods butt all day.

 

[medmaker420]

Regarding Uzi's.........the Country of Israel and Uzi Galil would highly disagree to the usefulness...........select fire.....YOU the operator control the rate of fire.

The walkway on my property is not an invite........the sidewalk in front of property is public....sidewalk on property is private......same with driveway........YOU and the police(as i have told) are trespassing.......if posted(where i reside) i have the right to shoot without requesting........but since you know all State laws.........and Federal.......then YOU do realize that some do possess an MP5SD.....they are legal....at least for some......

Cheers
StellarP

I haven't shot a mp5sd yet, that would be a blast man and I don't think I will be going up to your door anytime soon LOL unless I am wearing bright orange haha j/k

 

[iampolluted]

stellarp read here....http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/police_trespassing.pdf start fencing in your property so that it isn't accessible, up to and including a gate, because they CAN come onto your property without those impediments in place. better yet, lay out nude on the walkway to your door, and test your theory.

medmaker....it wouldn't just let me repost your quote, so i had to add something outside the quote box, and that was the best i could come up with lol.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

And to disco biscuit you jumped into a quote from a response I made to iampolluted and that has been a back and forth for a bit. To get my point you have to go back to when we first started chatting.

Fair enough.

You jumped into the middle of the debate and picked out the ONE religious statement and are still trying to say I am making this a religious basis.

Not necessarily,

... tell that to those who read the bible if that is the basis of your debate.

I thought you were making a parallel but now I realize you're not. I'll settle for the idea the Constitution is indelible(?) yet the founders created rules for amendment.

Not everything I write is directed at you specifically just like I assume the same goes for your posts. If you would have read my response you would have seen me write me debating OTHERS and it was in caps btw lol. I think you missed that BUT its all good we all make mistakes, I make plenty all day long.

Sorry if I broke protocol.

More power to both of you and your opinions but I think we need to agree to disagree because I feel like WE ARE debating LIKE fourth graders now and while it is fun it really isn't benefiting anyone.

I respect other folks' opinions...

... I can understand the principle exists even if I don't agree with it.

I am glad to have gotten your thoughts though and hope you continue to educate others the way you feel life should be.

props to everyone but like I said, agree to disagree

View Image

I respect your opinion no less.

 

[demasoni]

Hey bentom nice to hear you're looking to purchase.

gonna save my penny's and get my license.what do you guys think of the m1? im more than likley just going to shoot at the outdoor range with my friends,but its seems very multi-purpose.a new gun store opened up in my city they have a indoor range and offer courses im gonna go check it out somtime and see what they have available.

[youtubeif]JcNdEbW5AIM[/youtubeif]

View Image

View Image

View Image

I looked at sprngfields site and its still standard, match, and socom, none of the above pictured setups . the setups in the pics are interesting looking custom mods (as you may know). but I doubt they are are reliable and accurate as the proven factory models. If you want M1 I say go with the standard, match, super match, or socom as they're made. med/long range accuracy is the game. if you particularly want an m1 but are thinking close quarters to medium range, get factory m1 socom. I'd say leave the custom builds to AR platforms and make that your CQC platform. All the fun deciding on a manufacturer, upper, lower, accessories etc. The number of options makes my head spin, but others here are gurus of the AR and can guide you well. If you can get two guns get m1 standard or match with powerful optics, and an AR platform for the rest. If only one, it is a damn hard choice who to get first.

 

[StellarP]

stellarp read here....http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/police_trespassing.pdf start fencing in your property so that it isn't accessible, up to and including a gate, because they CAN come onto your property without those impediments in place. better yet, lay out nude on the walkway to your door, and test your theory.

medmaker....it wouldn't just let me repost your quote, so i had to add something outside the quote box, and that was the best i could come up with lol.

Nice try.........that is regarding police trespassing....and what constitutes illegal search and seizure..........but as stated , my State has its own laws regarding trespassing...........and a sign posted is all that is needed.........being nude in your front yard is different laws.....unless you live in nudist colony....no hiding weapons there........

Cheers
StellarP

 

[iampolluted]

what's to stop leo from walking up to your front door? nothing, and that's the point i'm trying to make. a civilian is completely different. those you have a right to shoot, but i'm pretty sure you don't shoot everyone who comes to the door. that being said, your front sidewalk is considered an open invite for the public to access you in the eyes of the law. a trespassing sign doesn't apply to leo when they are doing their due diligence in investigating complaints. even if it doesn't directly apply to you, the knowledge is still useful. the more informed you are the safer you can be. just some food for thought i guess.

 

[StellarP]

Are you talking about law enforcement doing their "job" or criminal trespassing? Uniform or not...once again if posted....or verbally notified.....written is better, no grey area , you are criminally trespassing walkway from sidewalk or not. State statute does not lie, pretty straightforward. Ever told a cop "get the fuck off my property"! Feels good, because if they have no business they are breaking the law..........try to use .gov links for legal references as .org.........well.

cheers
StellarP

 

[Treetops]

GHEI: ATF’s latest gun grab

GHEI: ATF’s latest gun grab

Just keeps gettin better and better....NOT!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/atfs-latest-gun-grab/


The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.

It’s a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property — not a person — is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don’t apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.

Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.

Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because it’s extremely lucrative. The Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund had $2.8 billion in booty in 2011, according to a January audit. Seizing guns from purported criminals is nothing new; Justice destroyed or kept 11,355 guns last year, returning just 396 to innocent owners. The new ATF rule undoubtedly is designed to ramp up the gun-grabbing because, as the rule justification claims, “The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established.”

The main problem is that civil forfeiture creates a perverse profit motive, leaving bureaucrats with strong incentives to abuse a process that doesn’t sufficiently protect those who may be wrongly accused. Criminal forfeiture is more appropriate because it’s tied to a conviction in a court with the option of a jury trial and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocents like Mr. Lieto have to fight against the might of the U.S. government with a watered-down standard that stacks the legal deck so prosecutors can get a quick win.

The rule extending civil-forfeiture power to the ATF recognizes this dynamic, stating with perhaps unconscious cynicism that an uncontested civil forfeiture “can be perfected for minimal cost” compared to the “hundreds or thousands of dollars” and “years” needed for judicial forfeiture. Nowhere is there any recognition of the burden placed on innocent citizens stripped of their property, or of the erosion of their civil liberties. In fact, the rule argues that, because in the past the ATF could turn over requests for civil forfeiture to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there has been no change in “individual rights.”

Instead of expanding the profit motive in policing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should be working to eliminate it.

Nita Ghei is a contributing Opinion writer for The Washington Times.



Read more: GHEI: ATF's latest gun grab - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/atfs-latest-gun-grab/#ixzz26M1to16j