Jump to content
ATX Community

NT - No one's coming after your guns, paranoid rightwingers. Oh wait...


kcjenkins

Recommended Posts

Time to sue the pants off (a) the school -- teacher, principal, superintendent, and (b ) the town authorities who pulled the dad's permit for NO reason.

"Shall NOT be infringed" means _exactly_ what it says. Every attempt to disarm just underscores the crucial importance of the 2nd Amendment and exactly the type of government high-handedness the framers were working to prevent!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's hoping they DO file suit. This sort of insanity is happening more and more these days, but this one went a huge step further I do think that spreading the word of what is happening is important too, because when I first started seeing such stories I thought "what idiots" but assumed it was an isolated incident. But it's spreading like wildfire now, and the current political climate is feeding the insanity, it seems. We need to all be looking at how our schools and our police are handling discipline and our rights as both parents and as honest citizens. If the true CRIMINALS have more 'civil rights' than honest citizens, IT IS UP TO US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately we need to take back control of ALL our levels of government - local, state, federal. We, the People, created the government "to preserve these Rights, governments are instituted..." -- the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is to protect our individual rights. As we created it, it is our creature, subordinate and subservient to US, its creators.

We have forgotten that. So have the entrenched bureaucracies at _all_ levels.

Until we take control back, we have to pressure all the various legiscritters and other officials, reminding them they are our servants, not the other way around. This is not a sprint; it is a super-marathon at least. A generational fight that that mcb's new great-grandbaby may see the success of.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So right. Can you believe this is happening in TEXAS?

Police, ‘anti-gun’ prosecutor clash with soldiers in area around Fort Hood

The conflict reached a fever pitch last month, when Texas police arrested an active-duty Army sergeant for “rudely displaying” a hunting rifle. The sergeant, C.J. Grisham, established an online legal defense fund after he was, in his words, “illegally arrested and disarmed” for carrying the firearm.

“While out hiking with my son through backcountry roads to help him earn his Eagle Scout rank, I was illegally arrested and disarmed without cause. I was thrown in jail and my lawfully owned weapons were confiscated without receipt or notice,” Grisham wrote on the website for the defense fund.

Video of the incident obtained by The Daily Caller shows officers defending their behavior to Grisham while restraining him.

“In this day and age, [people] are alarmed when they see someone with what you have,” one of the officers tells Grisham in the video. “They don’t care what the law is.”


Grisham, who is stationed at Fort Hood, was arrested in his hometown of Temple, Texas, east of the base, after police stopped him for carrying an unconcealed rifle slung over his shoulder. Texas is a right-to-carry state, and law-abiding gun permit owners can carry rifles and hunting weapons openly, so long as the weapons are not being carried in a threatening way.

But one of the Temple police officers told Grisham that anyone holding a gun is considered dangerous, according to the video.


Read more, AND SEE THE VIDEO: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/police-anti-gun-prosecutor-clash-with-soldiers-in-area-around-fort-hood-video/#ixzz2QMEGUvvO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS is by bordering town, totally unbelievable but I made a contribution to his legal fund. I also told my daughter that she can;'t count on her fingers anymore. 1-she raises her thumb and 2-she raises her pointer. I am serious that I told her not to count like this anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KC - there are 20+ 6 year olds and teachers/ principal blown to pieces by automatic weaponry and mega clips

Are you not for the curtailment of such weaponry to the general public as well as enhancement of background checks?

Antonia Scalia, says it's a "no brainer" that the general public is not entitled to such weaponry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KC - there are 20+ 6 year olds and teachers/ principal blown to pieces by automatic weaponry and mega clips

Are you not for the curtailment of such weaponry to the general public as well as enhancement of background checks?

Antonia Scalia, says it's a "no brainer" that the general public is not entitled to such weaponry.

NO!!!

You need to go study the Constitution and the history of that time. The 2nd Amendment is the most strongly worded absolute prohibition in the entire Bill of Rights. Additionally, the entire purpose of that amendment is to ensure that We, the People, have a last-ditch protection against a government turned tyrannical (remember the Constitution was written barely FOUR years after the Treaty of Paris - which ended the Revolutionary War - was signed).

The War of 1812 was won because of the efforts of _privateers_ -->privately owned _warships_ that were as heavily armed (or more so!) than our small and, at the time, rather pathetic nascent Navy.

I would support regular training requirements (the meaning of "well-regulated militia"), and prohibitions against legal firearms ownership by violent criminals after prison release. Please note that violent criminals rarely bother trying to acquire firearms legally -- they just buy them on the black market. If we can't keep drugs out of constantly-guarded prisons, it will never be possible dry up the black market in firearms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course in that just born nation, guns were flintlocks and the US had no real army to speak of, nor a Navy as you mention. Militias and privateers were necessary to defend the nation. The ability of our armed forces has changed just a wee bit, wouldn't you say?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KC - there are 20+ 6 year olds and teachers/ principal blown to pieces by automatic weaponry and mega clips

Are you not for the curtailment of such weaponry to the general public as well as enhancement of background checks?

Antonia Scalia, says it's a "no brainer" that the general public is not entitled to such weaponry.

Personally, I'm displeased that posts of this nature are even in this room.

No, Ari, Lanza used a semi-automatic rifle, no automatic rifle can be legally purchased. And even those proposing enhancement of background checks admit that it would have had no effect on him, as he stole the weapon, not bought it. While I hate what he did as much as anyone, any sane person anyway, the truth is that you can not stop insane people from doing insane things by passing another law. Are you now going to ask for a law against pressure cookers?

I'd suggest before you totally buy the idea that getting rid of guns would make us safer, you study the actual results when Australia actually did it.

http://www.lexrex.com/articles/australia.htm

gun1.jpg

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/02/gun-confiscation-in-australia-not-shown.html

As for this post being on here, it is clearly marked Non Tax and also the topic name makes it clear, I believe, that if you don't want to read about such things, you can skip it. But given that the national media tends to ignore many of the things like the stories I posted, where law-abiding citizens are being attacked for merely having legal weapons, I feel it makes sense to bring those stories to a larger audience I totally respect your right to ignore them that is why I made the topic clear what this thread was about. I just reserve my right to speak out about things that concern me, as long as they are properly labeled.

After all, mass shootings are extremely rare events. They were even rarer before the modern era of gun regulation and mass media. To take away everyone's ability to protect themselves, in an attempt to prevent events such as Newtown, makes no sense to me at all. Perhaps the fact that I live in the country, where calling the cops would mean at best a response in 25-30 minutes, makes me more sensitive to this. Yes, there have been home invasions near me, in the last year, and in both cases the homeowners were tied up and beaten, and then killed. I do not want to have my ability to defend myself limited by some politicians who have armed guards whenever they travel out in public as well as while they are working. [in the rare cases where they actually work.] I'm not a trained marksman, although I have taken some firearms training, so I want to know I have enough shots that I can take on several thugs without running out of ammo. If you don't want that, that is fine with me.. It is your choice. But it's not your right to take away my rights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And i reserve my right to voice my displeasure with having inflammtory rederick posted to what is an otherwise very pleasant, informative, community oriented site.

What is the benefit to bringing this info to this site?

What is the benefit of your #9 post.

I could go expand upon the problems with your #9 post except all you ahve to do is look at a certain party's own confessions of the ignoble intent

that brought upon the desire for such legislation.

I think there are much more suitable places for you to post such verbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a friendly reminder that the Senate will begin voting on gun control tomorrow. And I don't know what 'my #9 post' means? As this is the 8th post of mine in this thread?

Believe me, I have had a hard time resisting posting about abortion, given the Gosnell trial.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course in that just born nation, guns were flintlocks and the US had no real army to speak of, nor a Navy as you mention. Militias and privateers were necessary to defend the nation. The ability of our armed forces has changed just a wee bit, wouldn't you say?

Joan, dear, you are missing the point. The founders and framers had a very deep mistrust of a standing army as intrinsically DANGEROUS to the country as a whole (but not the same fear of a water-based navy). That is why the Constitution does NOT limit naval funding -- but _requires_ that NO appropriation of funds for the army is for a period of time longer than TWO years. See Article 1, Section 8.

Their concern was that the army would be used as a tool for oppression and tyranny -- just as King George 3rd used it for that purpose.

They wanted, and expected, the states to maintain their own CITIZEN militias, with the citizenry specifically enjoined to remain well-trained (the original meaning of "well-regulated") and the federal government specifically FORBIDDEN to restrict individual ownership of firearms among the law-abiding populace. (The state governments go along for the ride due to Article 6's supremacy clause.)

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has some fabulous articles and videos about the history of victim creation (the true name of what is incorrectly termed "gun" control) at their web site, www.jpfo.org -- I recommend you poke around there some time when you have a bit of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're weighing your ability to own guns -- which did NOT save your neighbors -- against Newtown's danger from a household with guns and a mentally challenged individual?! Why should a household with a mentally challenged individual be allowed to have multiple weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and lots of ammunition? How will that ever contribute to our country's militia? In her entire lifetime, was Mrs. Lanza or her son ever called up legally to defend their state or country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lion, dear, you are also missing the point.

The point is that evil and deranged people will always find ways to destroy and to kill. NONE of the proposed additional regulations would have had even one iota of effect on Newtown.

What COULD have helped in Newtown was a principal who had a locked cabinet with a loaded shotgun. A janitor or teacher with concealed-carry and defensive shooting training. Instead those poor, brave, defenseless souls tried to stop a killer with NOTHING on their side.

If having firearms locked up and declaring "gun free zones" worked, then there would have been NO violence at Newtown -- the school had already been declared gun-free! So there were no guns there, right?

Crazy does NOT mean stupid.

Did you know that the Aurora CO killer purposefully did NOT go to any of the TEN theaters closer to his home? The one he went to, the one he carefully chose, was one that advertised itself as "gun free." He KNEW, going there, that NO ONE would be able to STOP him, and he could continue his murderous, evil spree until the cops showed up -- during which time he had sitting ducks. Victim creation.

There was an attack at a school just a week or two ago, with an Exacto knife used as the weapon. Dozens hurt. Are we going to ban exacto knives? Pressure cookers, like they used just two days ago here in Boston? Fireplace pokers? Cars?

More people are MURDERED every year with CLAW HAMMERS than with firearms.

The worst mass killing in the US was at the beginning of the 1900's by a deranged man in Maine, who used TNT (or dynamite, or something - can look up details online) that he legally obtained (used in rural areas to get rid of tree stumps) and hoarded FOR A YEAR beforehand. Oklahoma City -- fertilizer and diesel fuel.

EVIL is the problem; evil and the choice to commit an evil act. The tool is NOT the problem. Focusing on the tool DOES THE WORK OF EVIL because it leaves the REAL problem -- the problem of evil -- ignored while everyone gets all frantic to DO something about a tool!!

Firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, SAVE tens of thousands of lives EVERY year. Most of those times the gun is never fired; merely brought out in the open.

We don't ban cars because drunk drivers kill (and kill far more people annually than all firearms deaths). We take away the drunks' licenses (and far too rarely, in my view).

Mrs. Lanza may never have been called to defend her town. The Constitution says she should be ready IF called.

The score-political-points-using-dead-children crowd think there should be no magazines with more than 7 rounds. So, it's OK with them for a killer to have 7-round magazines? That can be changed in seconds? And use them uninterrupted for 10-15 minutes until the SWAT team shows up? But not OK for someone defending their family (or the kids in their school) to have a 20-round magazine? Where is the sense in that?

Define "lots" of ammunition? One state nitwit here in Mass said a few years ago she didn't know why anyone would "need" more than 50 rounds for practice in any week. If I am practicing Olympic standard pistol, I can go through 200 rounds in less than an hour. (My husband keeps telling me to try out for the US Olympic Team in Ladies Standard Pistol; someday I just might.) Maybe I don't know why anyone would "need" a BMW 7-series car; what's wrong with a Ford Focus or Pontiac Vibe? WHY is it the government's job to decide what I need? --It is NOT their job; and none of their damned business, either.

A government that decides how much ammunition you "need" will next decide how much soda you can drink -- whether you may purchase water in plastic bottles in your town -- if meat is too "resource intensive" for people to eat -- whether you get treatment for your illness or not -- and turn King George's tyranny into benevolent negligence by comparison.

The Constitution was designed to LIMIT the government's power over individuals and keep it OUT of our day to day lives.

I say again -- the proper place to look for answers is how EVIL gets hold of people, how it twists them, how it grows hatred -- and how to stop evil.

Do NOT help further evil's agenda by blaming the tools it uses.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KC - there are 20+ 6 year olds and teachers/ principal blown to pieces by automatic weaponry and mega clips

Are you not for the curtailment of such weaponry to the general public as well as enhancement of background checks?

Antonia Scalia, says it's a "no brainer" that the general public is not entitled to such weaponry.

Personally, I'm displeased that posts of this nature are even in this room.

An insane person stole guns and commited the atrocity. No guns caused any deaths unless operated by a PERSON! Get real!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...