Gun owners the next Rosa Parks

furbud · **Joined:** Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:51 pm **Posts:** 260

TheSeif wrote:

furbud wrote:

Hi Schlep1967,
The simple answer is NO, the police should not carry those weapons either. Perhaps the swat teams or emergency response teams, never the standard police! As far as Machetes? Get real will ya... Times are changing fast, and also the competency of people who possess these items is. 1 of my friends said the reason they have an assault type weapon is because they can. I said simply, don't cry when it goes wrong... It can happen. I live where the gun totting soccer mom got killed by her husband with her OWN gun! I don't hear much out of that end of town anymore, the danger hit home!!! They got bit in the butt, beware, things do bite people back! I also know a gun collector who gets DRUNK nightly and lives by LIMBAUGH, guess what, he will be the next victim, I hope not as he is my tenant, but he really may well be because of his mouth and unreal thought process! Be glad ya are alive and live for tomorrow, don't make lots of enemies, make friends!

furbud I'm confused, this post is mostly gibberish. What are you trying to say?
Set the record straight, do you support the second amendment or do you think it's alright to restrict the constitutional rights of millions upon millions of honest law abiding citizens by banning certain guns and magazines?
It's gotta be one or the other, there really isn't any in between, you either think it's OK to ban guns or you don't.

I support the 2nd amendment which is the right to protect my family and others... YES! BTW...It does NOT take an assault type weapon to do that and my post was not gibberish, simply common sense and everyday logic for most people. Lets get 1 thing straight, when those amendments were created, they had single shotguns if that, never in their wildest dreams would they have thought of a AK 47 assualt type weapon or the likes, as if they had they would have included them as an exemption because of the danger they may pose, more so the destruction that they create with UNWORTHY users.! Like the NUTS that abuse (I did not say USE) them today! Of course, Respectfully as always....

LocalGrown · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:42 pm

furbud wrote:

Lets get 1 thing straight, when those amendments were created, they had single shotguns if that, never in their wildest dreams would they have thought of a AK 47 assualt type weapon or the likes, as if they had they would have included them as an exemption because of the danger they may pose,

That cannot honestly be said with confidence. Since even the theory of such a weapon didn't exist then, it cannot be said they would have excluded them either. That is mear speculation by the anti-gunners. As well as a poor argument.

ArmyMom · **Joined:** Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:08 am **Posts:** 7

Anybody here arguing the 2nd amendment rights on this issue and voted for Mitt Romney is a hypocrite. Same as the NRA who opposed his gun ban back in 2004, but indorsed him for President. Mitt created a permanent assault weapons ban in Massachusetts.

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban.

Rudey wrote:
furbud I'm confused, this post is mostly gibberish. What are you trying to say?
Set the record straight, do you support the second amendment or do you think it's alright to restrict the constitutional rights of millions upon millions of honest law abiding citizens by banning certain guns and magazines?
It's gotta be one or the other, there really isn't any in between, you either think it's OK to ban guns or you don't.

That is what I call gibberish.. The administration is doing the same thing Mitt did back in 2004. Rudey clearly supported Mitt Romney for President and the NRA a few months ago an intentionally forgets about Mitt's prior actions

Rudey Wrote:

It's just who they are. Our precinct committeewoman asked me a couple of weeks ago if she could put a Romney sign and a Tom Garman (candidate for PA Legislature) sign in my front yard and I said sure. This morning the Romney sign was gone. They left the wire holder--just took the sign, so I knew it wasn't some Romney supporter who thought they were so hard to come by that he had to take it for his yard.

Fortunately, the County Republication Headquarters is one block down the street. I went down and got two more Romney signs and a Tom Smith sign. If they disappear I plan to put out my Bush/Cheney signs from 2000 and 2004 along with a note "To whom it may concern:" written in two languages. I'm not really bilingual but I can spout profanity in many languages. I may even get a "Support the Second Amendment" sign from the NRA .

http://www.abc27talkback.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4508

Rudey · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:50 pm

furbud wrote:

... when those amendments were created, they had single shotguns if that, never in their wildest dreams would they have thought of a AK 47 assualt type weapon or the likes, as if they had they would have included them as an exemption because of the danger they may pose, more so the destruction that they create with UNWORTHY users.!

Rudey · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:54 pm

ArmyMom wrote:

Rudey wrote:
furbud I'm confused, this post is mostly gibberish. What are you trying to say?
Set the record straight, do you support the second amendment or do you think it's alright to restrict the constitutional rights of millions upon millions of honest law abiding citizens by banning certain guns and magazines?
It's gotta be one or the other, there really isn't any in between, you either think it's OK to ban guns or you don't.

No I didn't. Look again.

TheSeif · **Joined:** Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:00 pm **Posts:** 981

furbud wrote:

I support the 2nd amendment which is the right to protect my family and others... YES! BTW...It does NOT take an assault type weapon to do that and my post was not gibberish, simply common sense and everyday logic for most people. Lets get 1 thing straight, when those amendments were created, they had single shotguns if that, never in their wildest dreams would they have thought of a AK 47 assualt type weapon or the likes, as if they had they would have included them as an exemption because of the danger they may pose, more so the destruction that they create with UNWORTHY users.! Like the NUTS that abuse (I did not say USE) them today! Of course, Respectfully as always....

Well, we'll have to disagree on that, that excuse to abuse the 2A is really getting old and just plain doesn't stand up to the truth, you don't seem to give our founders much credit for intelligence or foresight, a quality that they have shown time after time in the drafting of our Constitution and it's Bill Of Rights and has been proved out over and over again in over 200 years.
Logically they had already seen a lifetime of technological advances in every theater of life just as we have, so it's entirely safe to assume that they would anticipate advances in firearms accordingly, to what end extent of course they would not know, but they would surely know there would be great advances. The fact that there are no exemptions or restrictions noted in the Bill Of Rights is most definitely by design and is most intentional so as to prevent any attempt to circumvent the intent.

Vic · **Joined:** Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:31 pm **Posts:** 5609

ArmyMom wrote:

Anybody here arguing the 2nd amendment rights on this issue and voted for Mitt Romney is a hypocrite.

Right, we should have voted for that great defender of the Constitution, Barack Obama. :lol:

LocalGrown · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:11 am

Too bad they didn't forsee cars & write an amendment regarding drunk driving. :roll:

Vic · **Joined:** Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:31 pm **Posts:** 5609

NASA is illegal. Our founding fathers never authorized a space program.

Newspolice · **Joined:** Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:34 am **Posts:** 2818

furbud wrote:

Come On People, common sense should prevail! They are not / do not want to take ALL your guns! Perhaps the guns people have no business with should be banned, like a assault gun that the military uses or a clip that shoots 30 rounds? Or any of the likes. If people wanna be heros, go carry those guns and fight in the war, if not the war, let them alone and keep them out of general population! If ya can't hit it with 6 bullets, ya need to go to a gun range and learn how to use a gun honestly. It isn't a guns fault, but till they lock up all the nut cases running loose, ya have to do something, and the shooting item is as good as the shooter that they never catch till it is too late. Mandatory gun & mental health backround checks for all sales and purchases would be a FAIR beginning in my mind. It seems logical and only fair for the safety of other Americans... It is NO solution to these ridiculous massacres that happen... but... It Is A Beginning!!!

~~~~"It Is A Beginning!!" ~~ That my friend is what you should be afraid of.it IS A BEGINING .a begining of what transpired in history more times over with the slaughter of millions of unarmed subjects.~~ I should be able to defend my family and self with what ever legal gun i choose and noy have some one decide they don't like the looks and say I can't have one if I so choose. A 12 ga pump shotgun with 00 buck can put "more" dangerous rds down range in less time that an AR. Fibve shots = 45 pellets larger than the 22 cal AR . SO whats next my Duck Gun ??? "It Is A Beginning!!!" don't cut it, my friend,think with your mind not emotions.

Gun owners the next Rosa Parks

Who is online