In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Ann Coulter - Nuts in the Crosshairs
Henry0Reilly
Member Posts: 10,893 ✭✭✭
I used to recruit for the NRA until they sold us down the river (again!) in Heller v. DC. See my auctions (if any) under username henryreilly
Comments
Should I be worried if I agree??[:)]
I still maintain that if Cho's known mental condition was available in a database to the FBI, two things might have happened as a result:
1. He most likely would not have been able to buy a gun through legal channels and the VT tragedy may never have happened.
2. A red flag would have popped up at the FBI that they might have been able to follow up on, i.e. "Hmmmm, a guy who has been declared a danger to himself and to society by a judge in a court of law now is looking to buy a gun", and perhaps Cho would have been taken off the streets and brought inside for at least an interview.
2. A red flag would have popped up at the FBI that they might have been able to follow up on, i.e. "Hmmmm, a guy who has been declared a danger to himself and to society by a judge in a court of law now is looking to buy a gun", and perhaps Cho would have been taken off the streets and brought inside for
And this is supposed to be the basis of freedom ? Restrict a million people because 10 are insane ? Thusly giving slimy little men untold power over those million decent people...and still NONE over the ten insane..because within one hour, a gun can be bought in ANY major city in America...
How about..." Arm a million people because 10 are insane...so those ten can be stopped...permanently...if they flip out ?"
Of course, this tends to limit the power of slimy little weasels...
quote:1. He most likely would not have been able to buy a gun through legal channels and the VT tragedy may never have happened.
2. A red flag would have popped up at the FBI that they might have been able to follow up on, i.e. "Hmmmm, a guy who has been declared a danger to himself and to society by a judge in a court of law now is looking to buy a gun", and perhaps Cho would have been taken off the streets and brought inside for
And this is supposed to be the basis of freedom ? Restrict a million people because 10 are insane ? Thusly giving slimy little men untold power over those million decent people...and still NONE over the ten insane..because within one hour, a gun can be bought in ANY major city in America...
How about..." Arm a million people because 10 are insane...so those ten can be stopped...permanently...if they flip out ?"
Of course, this tends to limit the power of slimy little weasels...
A peson's name wouldn't go into the proposed database unless he or she is officially determined to be mentally ill by professionals AND then deemed to be dangerous to society by a court of law. That's due process.
How does that restriction on buying a firearm possibly affect the enormous bulk of society, including every other gun owner? How is that any different than the current FBI check which could reject an applicant for a variety of other reasons, i.e history of treatment for a mental disorder, domestic violence, misdemeanor or felony conviction, etc.?
I believe it's about changing the medical privacy laws that are currently in place, not about adding gun control laws and not about infringing upon those who have not been pronounced to be a danger by a court of law.
If nothing else, the ultra-liberal all-forgiving climate in this country will err against caution and as a result keep more names out of the database than it will probably ever include.
If I have to fill out the form and swear to tell the truth, then anyone who's deliberately lying on the form should get caught and ultimately rejected. Seems perfectly fair and completely Conservative in nature to me.
60 % of the populace is in need of counseling...or so I have read.
Perhaps that makes you comfortable.
Slippery Slope MEANS something, if you follow governments in general.
The difference between you and I...you aparently trust your government.
I do not.
The Founders set-up the Second to keep the beast in check. Willingly giving the Beast control over your life is a fatal mistake.
It's actually not about trusting or distrusting government or about the 2nd Amendment right. The issue for me is the myriad of medical privacy laws that need to be addressed.
Let's not keep a gun out of the hands of a guy who as a teenager was a petty thief 25 years ago and who has since paid his debt and become a model citizen while we deliberately turn a blind eye and willingly give a gun to an individual whom THE COURTS ALREADY KNOW (key caveat) is wholly preoccupied with his pseudo-reality that all of his neighbors or schoolmates are purely evil and must therefore be punished with death.
RIIIIIIIIIIGHT.... Those crazies will only think about GUNS to kill people. Not chemical explosives/pathogens, nor a knife, nor any other improvised weapon. Yeah, this law seems to make sense. Oh and probably won't affect anyone that seeks help for problems VOLENTARILY for anger,depressions, ect. Like highball said SLIPPERY SLOPE! You ought to know by now those treasoners in office abuse that power more than NOT. Perhaps when they stop you, then you will see the point.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
It's actually not about trusting or distrusting government or about the 2nd Amendment right. The issue for me is the myriad of medical privacy laws that need to be addressed.
Let's not keep a gun out of the hands of a guy who as a teenager was a petty thief 25 years ago and who has since paid his debt and become a model citizen while we deliberately turn a blind eye and willingly give a gun to an individual whom THE COURTS ALREADY KNOW (key caveat) is wholly preoccupied with his pseudo-reality that all of his neighbors or schoolmates are purely evil and must therefore be punished with death.
RIIIIIIIIIIGHT.... Those crazies will only think about GUNS to kill people. Not chemical explosives/pathogens, nor a knife, nor any other improvised weapon. Yeah, this law seems to make sense. Oh and probably won't affect anyone that seeks help for problems VOLENTARILY for anger,depressions, ect. Like highball said SLIPPERY SLOPE! You ought to know by now those treasoners in office abuse that power more than NOT. Perhaps when they stop you, then you will see the point.
Before you jump all over my comments, please take a few minutes to go back and read my posts - all of them - especially the ones about the red flag. Here a link to another thread in which I specifically touch upon what you talked about above.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=244824
If it is AT ALL open to abuse (what law isn't?) they WILL find a way.
I believe that at some point in time, a man either circles his life's wagons tighter and tighter until he becomes a veritable prisoner of his own mind's fears or he steps outside, takes some risks - sometimes makes leaps of faith - and lives his life as best as he can, trying to enjoy it. Balance. Objectivity. Sanity. Faith.
I believe that at some point in time, a man either circles his life's wagons tighter and tighter until he becomes a veritable prisoner of his own mind's fears or he steps outside, takes some risks - sometimes makes leaps of faith - and lives his life as best as he can, trying to enjoy it. Balance. Objectivity. Sanity. Faith.
HUH?
Or trying to use the tactic of shifting the topic, by questioning the mental state of a debater?
"prisoner of his own mind's fears" ?
You mean the fears have been PROVEN OUT, time after time after time after.........
Either you believe in the constitution, or you don't. "shall not be infringed" only has ONE meaning for me. For some, a little infringement here, a little infringement there is ok. They argue, but it's only common sense laws.
Look what a little here, and a little there, just a few common sense laws, has gotten us.
20,000 UN-constitutinal gun laws later, it's STILL NOT ENOUGH.
They want MORE.
They will NEVER STOP. [:(!][:(!][:(!]
NO, to ANY NEW GUN LAWS. PERIOD!!!
We should be working to roll back the ones we have.
HUH?
Or trying to use the tactic of shifting the topic, by questioning the mental state of a debater?
No, Pickenup, not at all. But, the last time I checked, it was still legal for a man to think out loud, express his thoughts or just wax philosophical on an internet forum.
Pax vobiscum.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
HUH?
Or trying to use the tactic of shifting the topic, by questioning the mental state of a debater?
No, Pickenup, not at all. But, the last time I checked, it was still legal for a man to think out loud, express his thoughts or just wax philosophical on an internet forum.
Pax vobiscum.
Legal? Of course.
Allowed here? You bet.
I've just noticed over time, that many times, when a person doesn't have anything more to add on a given topic, they sometimes shift the focus to question another members personality, heritage, IQ, race, mental state, whatever, rather than continuing with a discussion. Glad that wasn't the case here.
Given the steady decline in gun Rights freedom at some point in time the words;
MOLON LABE ....
...will loom large...
For some...NEVER.
For some..we are edging very close to the line.
My only function left is too force people to examine their own hearts, minds, and souls....
Will they support the Beast...
Or will they support freedom and the Constitution.
It is what it is...supporting gun control IS SUPPORTING THE BEAST...never freedom...never the Second Amendment...NEVER the Constitution.
I care not one fig the oh-so-honeyed phrases, soothing mummers, or seductive arguments advanced by Fascist/Socialist destroyers...the truth is the truth.
Look what a little here, and a little there, just a few common sense laws, has gotten us.
20,000 UN-constitutinal gun laws later, it's STILL NOT ENOUGH.
They want MORE.
They will NEVER STOP.
Sadly that is true,..........I will not support ANY further gun laws. They DO lead to a slippery slope, and remember,.......the politicians writing, and proposing all of these new "laws", are largely made up of lawyers. What do lawyers do best,.......they find loopholes, and ways to work a regulation, that was never intended.
I don't trust them any further than I could throw them,.....and I am not "paranoid",.......I believe it.
Simply put, we DO NOT need any more gun laws,........just the rollback of what already exist, illegally.
There are more than sufficient laws on the books, to deal with people that break the law with firearms,.......enforce those laws that apply to illegal activities, such as murder, robbery, rape,etc., and quit piling on the means to get to the real goal, which is no guns at all.
The way they get gun owners to go along with these things, is the "feel good" theme,.........usually, "if it only saves one childs life" then isn't it all worth it?
From: "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
I have always known what the ESQ. after an attoneys name, stood for, but did not know the history of it! I always thought, "why do they get the moniker of Esquire"?,..........sounded like royalty.
Now I know where it came from,.....thanks for that post!