Gun bans - Don't think it can happen, watch - Page 17
Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 192

Thread: Gun bans - Don't think it can happen, watch

  1. #161
    Hasan was a friggen terrorist, plain and simple! I'll say it and dare someone to tell me i can't!

    When will the Pentagon and the military quit playing these stupid PC games and allow citizens to carry firearms on military installations.

    Gun free zones are killing zones! How many innocent people have to die before you decision making baboons wake up? [my apoligy to the real baboons]!

  3. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    I am hoping that the NWO, one world government clowns that want to disarm the nations of the world will find America a much different place than England and other countries that rolled over and played dead when they came for theirs.
    I'm hoping the same thing
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  4. #163

    Gun Owner Tracking Act Of 2009

    Here it comes folks why we are being distracted with ObamaCare, Legendary Gun Banning Senators Frank Lautenberg, Chucky Schumer and Diane Feinstein just introduced...

    The Gun Owner Tracking Act of 2009:


    Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    The Gun Owner Tracking Act of 2009

    There at it again...

    Arch-senatorial gun-hater Frank Lautenberg & Company is back on the war path against our gun rights.
    Lautenberg, who has already introduced a number of anti-gun measures this years, has just unveiled his latest assault on our rights.
    S.2820, the Gun Owner Tracking Act of 2009, would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to keep all National Instant Check System (NICS) data for every firearm purchased through a federally licensed firearms dealer for up to ten years.
    What does this mean for gun owners? It means that a record of every firearm purchased through a dealer, along with the personal data of the purchaser will be maintained by the federal government.
    The serial number, make and model of every gun you purchase as well as your personal contact information will be available to the FBI and the notoriously anti-gun Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).
    Put simply, if passed this legislation would lay the ground work for a national gun registry. If a federal ban on certain types of firearms were enacted, federal law enforcement agencies would be able to use this gun owner tracking system to begin firearms confiscation.
    Sound far fetched? Remember that tyrants throughout history, from Hitler to Stalin to Mao, have used gun owner tracking schemes as a first step toward total citizen disarmament.
    Of course Senator Lautenberg has masked this legislative abomination in the terms of “homeland security.” He claims this gun owner tracking database will help Big Brother Government protect us from terrorist. But as you know, the Obama Administration and the Department of Homeland Security already think gun owners — like you and me — are “domestic terrorists.”
    The Brady Registration Act of 1993, created the NICS system to verify the legality of firearms sales by licenced dealers. The law currently requires that all the information pertaining to the purchase, including the firearm serial number, and the purchasers contact information be destroyed after 24 hours.
    Let me be clear; the National Association for Gun Rights supports the repeal of the Brady Registration Act. Any attempt to further strengthen this unconstitutional intrusion in the lives and actions of law abiding gun owners, must not be tolerated.
    Click here to contact your Senators and tell them to oppose S.2820, the Gun Owner Tracking Act of 2009.
    Additionally, contact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — who faces a tough re-election in pro-gun Nevada — demand that he block S.2820 from coming up for a vote. Click here to e-mail Majority Leader Reid.

    You know what to do...

    U.S. Senate: Senators Home

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #164
    Following sent to both senators from KY
    Dear Senator McConnell, It has come to my attetion that some of your fellow Senator's have proposed new gun controll legislation,S.2820, the Gun Owner Tracking Act of 2009 to be exact. As a voting gun owner I hope that you plan to not only opposse this bill but will help to rally support for it's defeat. As a veteran and proud citazen of Ky and the U.S.A. I can only hope and pray that you will stand beside myself and millions of other law abiding gun owners across our great nation to insure that our 2nd ammendment rights to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". I know your past voting history has supported gun owners rights and i hope that this positive trend continues. Thank you in advance and please keep up the good work.

    Hope everyone else here does the same

  6. Is it just me or does Feinstein have a concealed carry permit for NY?

  7. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by torontogunguy View Post
    Is it just me or does Feinstein have a concealed carry permit for NY?

    One of the privileged few from the may issue Republic of Kalifornia...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #167

    Latest So-Called Anti-Gun "Poll"...

    NRA-ILA :: Bloomberg's Billions Buy Opinions

    Friday, December 11, 2009
    Understanding the Latest Anti-Gun "Poll"
    This week, anti-gun New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released the findings of a poll conducted by a political consulting firm called "The Word Doctors," whose slogan is "It's not what you say, it's what people hear." Word Doctors' president is a pollster who has been reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and censured by the National Council on Public Polls, and who says that the key to polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer."
    At some other time in our nation's history, an organization like this would not have been commissioned to conduct a poll, and perhaps it would not even have existed. At a minimum, its poll would have been considered biased and rejected by every newspaper in the country.
    But today, as the distinction between editorials and news has become blurred, information is treated so superficially that a catchy word or two is enough to get someone elected to public office, and some in positions of authority cannot conceive of the concept of shame.
    Thus, earlier this week, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) excitedly called attention to the bought-and-paid-for Word Doctors "poll," which claimed that a majority of NRA members and other gun owners support Lautenberg's bills to prohibit the possession of firearms by people placed (often mistakenly) on the FBI terrorist watchlist (S.1317), to require gun show promoters to send ledgers of customer information to the federal government (S.843), and to let the FBI retain records for 180 days of every gun purchase approved by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) (S.2820). The poll also claimed support for Bloomberg's proposal to rescind the Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents unfettered release of BATFE firearm trace data. (Bloomberg, of course, wants to use the data in lawsuits against the firearms industry.)
    But did the poll really show such strong support? Certainly the participants didn't have much information to go on. The poll didn't explain that the watchlist has been under fire by the Department of Justice's Inspector General's office and the ACLU for improperly including the names of innocent people, and that many innocent people have been mistaken for those who are on the watchlist. It didn't explain that Lautenberg's gun show bill would do much more than require NICS checks on private gun sales at gun shows.
    The poll mischaracterized the issue of NICS record retention. Instead of informing poll participants that the accused Ft. Hood murderer had been investigated by the FBI and found to not constitute a terror threat months before he went through a NICS check to purchase the gun he allegedly used in the murders, the poll simply asked whether "the FBI should be able to access and keep information about gun purchases by terror suspects in cases similar to [the accused Ft. Hood killer's]?" Worse, Word Doctors misinformed poll participants by telling them that the accused killer was still under investigation at the time he purchased the gun.
    The poll also asked if participants agreed that "The federal government should not restrict the police's ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws," when in fact the Tiahrt Amendment fully allows access to trace information, as long as it's related to crimes that they're actually investigating.
    And the poll also claimed that a majority of gun owners want to "balance" their rights against the need to stop criminals from getting guns. But what it actually asked was whether gun owners agreed that "We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them." Coupled with the poll's findings that an overwhelming majority of gun owners believe "Criminals . . . should be punished to the maximum extent of the law" and "Law-abiding Americans should have the freedom to choose how to protect themselves, based on their personal situation," it's fair to conclude that gun owners understand the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Since the ideas are compatible, they don't require a "balance," as suggested by gun control supporters.
    Notably, Lautenberg mentioned none of the poll's findings that undercut the anti-gun agenda, and Dionne mentioned few. These include findings that an overwhelming majority of gun owners:

    • Thinks President Obama will try to ban guns;
    • Agrees that the Supreme Court's decision in last year's Heller case was correct;
    • Agrees that the Second Amendment should prevent all levels of government from infringing the right to arms;
    • Agrees that people should be allowed to carry guns for protection in national parks;
    • Agrees that people should be allowed to transport firearms in baggage on Amtrak trains;
    • Agrees that gun laws should be less strict or left as they are; and
    • Opposes or is neutral about gun registration and an "assault weapon" ban.

    One final note: Since Word Doctors had no access to NRA membership lists, there's no way the pollsters could verify that any of the "NRA members" actually were NRA members. While this is a fatal flaw, we mention it at the end only because the poll's other flaws were even worse.

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  9. #168
    Washington: Gun Ban Upheld by Snohomish County Council

    Thursday, January 14, 2010
    Please Contact the County Council Today!

    Yesterday, the Snohomish County Council decided to uphold a 1970’s-era prohibition on firearms in county parks. Council member John Koster introduced a proposal that would have overturned the county’s ban and brought Snohomish County into compliance with state law but it failed due to a procedural motion.

    The proposal would have modified existing county code so that law-abiding citizens with a Concealed Pistol License could carry a firearm for self-defense while on county park property. The discharge of a firearm, for any purpose other than self-defense, would still have been illegal.

    Please take the time to respectfully voice your disapproval with the County Council’s actions. Also, please contact Council member Koster and thank him for his efforts to defeat this outdated, Draconian restriction. Contact information can be found below.

    Council member John Koster – District 1
    [email protected]

    Council member Brian Sullivan – District 2
    [email protected]

    Council member Mike Cooper – District 3
    [email protected]

    Council member Dave Gossett – District 4
    [email protected]

    Council member Dave Somers – District 5
    [email protected]

    NRA-ILA :: Washington: Gun Ban Upheld by Snohomish County Council

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. #169

    CSU Gun Ban

    CSU Proposed Weapons Ban Raises Controversy and Possible Litigation

    Colorado Gun Ban ...

    It was not that long ago when Cho Seung-Hui perpetrated his massacre at Virginia Tech, killing 33, just four days before the eighth anniversary of the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The events of April 16, 2007, (Va.) and April 20, 1999, (Colo.), were two of the worst shooting massacres on the grounds of an educational institution in U.S. history; although, we would be remiss to forget the University of Texas sniper incident of 1966. These events call into the question security measures for U.S. students, and they presumably have influenced both state and university officials to impose greater gun-control regulations both nationwide and even here in the western states.

    Such was the case with a recent proposal by Colorado State University Board of Governors that will, if approved, ban concealed weapons at the Fort Collins and other state campuses. Next month, a decision will be made final on the issue. But, what has come to the fore surrounding this decision is second amendment advocates who believe such a ban to be a violation of the right to bear arms. The controversy thus emerging is, moreover, in view of statements made by Larimer County Sherriff Alderden, on Monday, that amount to an outright refusal to arrest anyone in violation of the ban if in effect. Likewise, District Attorney Larry Abrahamson said that there would be no criminal violations for violating the ban.

    Spearheaded by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners group, spokesperson Ray Hickman has released to the press, early this week, legal threats to sue CSU if the board goes forward with the ban. On the one hand, RMGO spokesperson Hickman asserts that the university has provided no evidence to support its ban demonstrating that banning guns will improve safety. On the other, CSU officials have defended the ban by asserting the university’s right under state law to impose those means necessary to ensure campus safety thereby imposing disciplinary sanctions against students found in violation; whereas, officials note that visitors and guests will be asked to comply and will only be banned from the campus if they refuse to do so, university spokesman Brad Bohlander said in a statement also this week.

    Alderden and the RMGO are to formalize their position statements at a news conference to be held on February 1.

    CSU Proposed Weapons Ban Raises Controversy and Possible Litigation

    Gun owners protesting CSU's proposed weapons ban on Fort Collins campus:

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  11. Here in Canada, I mean Kanada, the University of Toronto had a gun and rifle club with a range on campus that had been running since 1928 without a single accident. They were defacto the safest club on campus. When the U of T tried to close them down there was such a protest that they backed off.

    The following year, without ceremony, the club was 'de-chartered' and no longer permitted to exist on campus. When asked why the safest club on campus was disbanded and the olympians training there sent packing.. the answer was the Mayor of Toronto declared that it was politically incorrect for a school of higher learning to permit guns on campus and it sent the wrong message.

    I am just waiting for a student massacre to take place on the u of T campus so they can be proven right in their thinking. Guns are bad.

    The empirical data notwithstanding.

    The fact is that guns STOP crime overall. Jurisdictions that have permissive gun laws actually have significantly lower crime rates but then again, I am preaching to the converted here, am I not?

Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts