The nation is changing, and not in a good way. Hope and change, pushed by
politicians on the left.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Richard" wrote in message
m...

On 2/24/2013 8:02 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'm not sure there is any way to know. Just my wild guess, but some senior
citizen vetrans more likely to be trouble, and yuppies with B'mers less
likely to resist. But, that's a guess.


Sucks, don't it?

Got some good straw, man! Meet you down at the street corneer. Bring cash.
I'll give you the straw after a nationally mandated waiting period.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Richard" wrote in message
m...

"Straw purchase free zone."


Do you buy it in baggies? ;-)


Hey, man, you got some straw?

So, requring law abiding citizens to apply to the government for permission
to bear arms, isn't an infringement? On what planet?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"George Plimpton" wrote in message
.. .

Works for me. Though to be realistic..a CCW is an Infringement

It isn't.

Ask the Jews what happens when the Germans have full gun registration. So
the streets will be safer.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future. License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

How much closer do we have to get?
We're already plenty infringed, now.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Richard" wrote in message
m...

Ed, if it comes to a law that says we can't buy guns, then I'd have to
join Gunner and the rest of the gun nuts.

And, I would hope, so would you.

We've seen the Rodney King riots, and the looting. And that wasn't even a
power cut, just some looped film footage, out of context, of a couple cops
refraining from shooting a suspect.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...


We'uns only share some land mass with a few Blue areas..and we keep
them to the northwest or to the south..with mountains in between.


Can you imagine a week or two long power outage in the LA area?

In the last few years, we've seen a foreign born Muslim Marxist elected,
twice. Socialized medicine, the two Patriot Acts, prior restraint on retail
gun sales (NICS check) and many other examples of lost freedom. I'm not
Richard, but I am plenty cynical. There is little that I doubt the
government of the US will try, now. The weird hypotheticals you mention, I
can easily imagine happening.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future.

We've had handgun registration in NJ since 1966, IIRC. How much longer
are we supposed to wait for confiscation?

License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:35:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:44:02 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:11:44 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:06:44 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Ed either really, really just doesn't get it or, more likely, he will
NEVER admit he is wrong.

You sit here and say all this is wrong, while REAL Constitutional
scholars -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito...even Thomas and Blackstone, fer
chrissake, all say YOU're wrong.

Heller quotes numerous cases of regulation of guns, including several
outright BANS of concealed carry from the 19th century, as evidence
that there have always been limitations on the "right," that "shall
not be infringed" never meant "no restrictions," as Scalia says,

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy
152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues." -- Opinion of the Court, D.C. v. Heller

19th century...odd..wasnt the 2nd Amendment written in the 18th
century?

What was the various laws at that time? Hummm?

He said from Blackstone (died 1780) *THROUGH* the 19th century.


If he said that..he had better come up with the citations to back up
his claim

VBG

I hope you mean that as a joke, because the Court already DID come up
with the citations.

A few of them are posted above. When you actually get around to
reading Heller, you'll find more.

--
Ed Huntress


Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:39:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:40:34 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:14:16 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:11:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:27:24 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/23/2013 1:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:26:26 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:30:59 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The largest single
source today, though, says the FBI, is straw purchases.

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

Registration and laws requiring (1) securing guns at home and (2)
reporting thefts.

That's the only thing I've heard of that sounds reasonable to me. How
effective it would be would depend on how well it was enforced, the
first requirement for which is an easily accessible database of last
legal owners. Do you have a better idea?



House-to house inspection of gun storage?

How about inspection AFTER your firestick is recovered at a crime
scene, and they ask you what you did to secure it? And if you didn't
secure it, you pay a hefty fine or, if you're a repeat strawman
purchaser, jail.

What part of being a victim is prosecutable?

You're idea of a victim apparently is someone who drives at night with
his tail lights out, who then gets hit in the rear.

Your idea of a non victim is someone who has her jewelry stolen from
her jewelry box in her bedroom by a burglar.

That's what I mean by responsibility. Her responsibility for her
jewelry extends only to herself. Our responsibility to keep guns out
of the hands of criminals extends to all of us.


Do you have issues with behaving responsibly? Wait, don't answer
that...g

Depends on what "behaving responsibly" means. According to a
Leftwinger..not keeping ones weapons in a concrete block is
irresponsible.

According to many of us Red Staters... keeping a loaded rifle behind
the front door is responsible.

While you leave the front door open so the chickens can get in and
out. (Now, don't start with the "elitist" crap; that was a joke.)


You takes your choice, Eddy.

Until your choice impinges on everyone else.

It would be nice if we could do that. And while you're at home, it
makes sense. When you're not, it sounds like an invitation.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:40:36 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:37:03 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:58:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:57:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:10:21 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
I don't think we really know what the founders desired, because there
was almost no recorded debate about it. In any case, the Constitution
they wrote didn't prevent registration. There is a host of court
cases, written by real legal and Constitutional scholars, that says
such regulation is within Constitutional law.

Blink blink....bull****. The writings of the Founders on the right to
keep and bear arms is ****ing huge. From the Federalist Papers to
letters and articles. If they were to appear here today..they would
challenge you , Pelosi and Reid to a duel and shoot you dead.

Where's a good Voodoo witch doctor when you need one?

They're all busy writing economics white papers for Paul Ryan.

So hows that Hopey/Changey thingie working out?

Pretty good. I'm busy as hell -- with a bit of starts and stops. That
isn't the economy, though. It's my clients.

How about you?


Laugh laugh laugh!

....that suggests things aren't working out so well for you, eh?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:44:08 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:26:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Oh..Constitutional Interpretations!! Odd...it was considered
Constitutional for DC to ban guns and of course the Sullivan Law was
considered Constitutional, along with all the Morton Grove Bans..until
it wasnt.

Says who? Not the Supreme Court. Now you have a S.C. decision. Then,
we didn't.


And you are saying bad law is the law we should follow? So if the
Conservatives win big..and vote to simply murder all the
Leftwingers...you are good to go, right?

That would be unconstitutional. g

Not if it was stated by someone to be Constitutional. VBG

But I'll bet dreaming about it helps you get to sleep at night.

I wake up screaming


Dont worry,.it will never happen. The Great Cull will happen first.

See above.

I hope you live through it. But..being a Lefty..I rather suspect you
wont.




Isnt that part of the Shall not be "broken/violated/trangressed" you
blithered out in another post

Not according to the lengthy list of citations contained in Heller,
nor in the Heller decision itself.

You keep spewing about Heller..which was a partial correction for 100
yrs of Unconstitutional law. Next you are going to revert back to
Scalia. You really do have the keyhole view dont you?

That's the law as it stands today. And it is by far the most accurate
recounting of 2nd Amendment history in this country's history.

Except for the other 35 rulings

Pffhhht.


http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm


VBG

You just hate that dont you?

No, we've already discussed it. Plimpton pointed out the same thing to
you: it's a dog's breakfast of dicta and dissenting opinions. No
binding precedent.

It's useful history. It's up to the courts, though, if they'll pay any
attention to it. All they have to pay attention to now is Heller.


Laugh laugh laugh!!

Nitrous?

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/24/2013 4:42 AM, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:42:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:40:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:43:49 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:51:32 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:27:36 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:19:29 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)

Pure paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Tell that to 9 million Jews


This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

Germany of the 1930s wasnt Germany of the 1920s either. Yet one
became the other.

And what is that supposed to mean? Don't duck this one, Gunner. Let's
see what you really know about this stuff you're babbling about.


You are really really weak on history arent you?

No, not especially weak.


Now about that pesky "Shall not be Infringed" thingy?

How about it? It really bugs you, doesn't it?

Look it up. Then check the historical accounts cited in Heller.

Constitution was written in 1787....which included the 2nd Amendment.

Yup. But even in 1828, as Webster tells us, the "encroach" usage was
still "little used."

But infringed was used.

In fact, it was a corruption. "Infringe" derives from Latin, "to
break." "Fringe" derives from a back formation meaning "thread," or,
literally, "fringe."

Different roots. Different meanings. And as Webster (1828) says,
"infringed" had only one side of the meaning: "pp. Broken; violated;
transgresses."

So the right to keep and bear arms shall not be broken, violated or
transgressed upon. Thanks!!

Correct. But the right, as we know, is not an unlimited right. There
are all manner of limits that may be placed on gun ownership that do not
infringe the right. This is not in serious dispute.

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.
And not a hypothetical remote chance either.
A very real and frightening agenda in the making.
(But then I'm nutz, remember?)


Second question:

What else is this discussion about?
How far does it have to go before it would be time to act?
How far does it have to go before it's too late to act?

On 2/25/2013 8:56 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

How the hell are the "tough new laws" going to prevent the lawless
from breaking the law?????



A very very good question indeed. Might want to mention that to Eddy.

No law is passed with the expectation of 100% compliance. This law would
provide a tool to reduce the transfer of guns from legal purchasers to
people barred from having guns.



You mean like ATF???

http://www.infowars.com/canada-warns...-confiscation/


Canada Warns: Gun Registration Means Confiscation
a..

Sun News
February 18, 2013

Brian Lilley gives an important warning to his American friends:
Registration of firearms will lead to the confiscation of firearms.



Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future.

We've had handgun registration in NJ since 1966, IIRC. How much longer
are we supposed to wait for confiscation?

License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6143039AAIVbUH


What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun confiscation?

Let's stick to fairly recent examples, say the last 25 years. Anywhere in
the world. Are there any?


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the
name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all
revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list
is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder
with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to
confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every
10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the
registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same
registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or
not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they
needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for
registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs
registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was
illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the
listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the
legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers
had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it
to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no
compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone
who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few
people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on
whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop
Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots
happened.

Show:
VLD
I will not stick to your arbitrary 25 year limit. I find that to be
senseless.

Registration lists have led to gun confiscation in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba,
Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia and other
countries. It has also happened here, and the history of firearms
registration in New York City is particularly instructive.
Source(s):
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/.

dumdum

While gun registration does not in itself lead to confiscation, every
country that confiscated guns used the list of registered gun owners to do
so. I believe that Canada and Australia are two of the most recent countries
to do so, but I am relying on the word of others and have not personally
researched it.

Newell
Los Angeles Gun squad came to houses, slowly over years and took away
registered Assault Weapons. A friend of my Dad lost his, because his
"Paperwork" on an Armalite 180 was "wrong," Appears he didn't fill out the
form correctly. He abbreviated several times. So the police picked up his
gun. Two years before, the State of California asked all owners of Assault
Weapons to register them. They promised they would not use the lists to
confiscate any weapons.

Los Angeles Police Gun Squad is famous. Los Angeles is the second largest
city in America. There is ONE gun shop that sells handguns within the
actuall city limits. The LAPD gun squad found technicalities to run the rest
out. LAPD is very anti gun. If you fill out a report for a stolen gun, you
will get a long, rude, high pressure lecture on why owning guns is wrong.

Joshua
The UK, Australia, and many other countries.

But lets get the facts straight, in New Zealand their gun laws are a little
more relaxed than US gun laws (although they do have registration). Nazi
Germany used registration lists to take guns away from Jews, but otherwise
relaxed gun laws.

gamoNcro...
Heck....just this spring in Toronto, Ontario. Police were knocking on doors
of gun owners who had previously re-registered their long arms. If the
firearm(s) were not in a locked safe/closet....cartridges were not locked
and in another room etc.....they confiscated the offending objects. No
compensation....and quite possibly a fine.

This was all done hush hush....until someone complained to the media....and
then the "Law enforcement" officers said they did this to make the city
safer. Notice no criminals` firearms were seized.....because criminals do
not register their firearms!!!!

Lynx
Only the last 25? What is the point in that? Trying to get people to
conveniently forget Germany, Italy and Poland?

Oh well then Ireland, Australia (partial confiscation) and Bosnia.

No Chance Without Bernoulli
Short memory, Bud?

Guns were confiscated from licensed, registered, legal gun owners in New
Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/10/de.


Jan Luv
every country in Africa, the Arabic countries, the Balkans, Russia and it's
breakaway countries Iraq, Iran, Turkey and the list go's on.

THX 1138
Australia and Canada.



"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:


License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...fiscation.html



Historically speaking, firearm registration invariably leads to firearm
confiscation - the only significant variable is time.
This was true in Canada:
Ten months after Rock's remarks, Parliament passed the Canadian Firearms
Act, and confiscating legally owned firearms is precisely the first thing
the new law did. The first of three major provisions to go into effect
banned private ownership of well more than half of Canada's legally
registered pistols. Any handgun of .32 or .25 caliber and any handgun with a
barrel length of 105 mm (4.14?) or less-more than 553,000 legally registered
handguns-became illegal with the stroke of a pen.
Pistol owners, of course, had been promised that registration would never
lead to confiscation when Canada's national handgun registry was enacted in
1934. When the newer law passed five years ago, they were given three
options: sell their handguns to any dealer or individual legally qualified
to buy them (not a real option because the number of potential buyers was so
small); render them inoperable; or surrender them to the government without
compensation.
This was true in Australia:
He is describing what happened when the Australian government, on pain of
imprisonment, made him hand in his registered .22 rimfire rifle so that it
could be destroyed. After a multiple shooting in Tasmania, in April 1996, in
which 32 people were killed by a madman using a self-loading rifle with a
military appearance, the federal government, under newly elected Prime
Minister John Howard enacted laws banning all self-loading rifles and
shotguns. All pump-action shotguns were also confiscated. (Pump-action guns
were also confiscated in Germany in 2002, and the "Million" Mom March favors
similar confiscation in the United States.)
The firearms being surrendered in Australia were not the property of
criminals. The guns were plainly sporting arms that had always been legal.
This was true in once-Great Britain:
Under regulations implementing Britain's 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act, gun
club members must now register every time they use a range, and must record
which particular gun they use. If the gun-owner does not use some of his
legally-registered guns at the range often enough, his permission to own
those guns will be revoked.
[...]
However, then Labour Party leaders brought Dunblane spokesperson Anne
Pearston to a rally, and, in effect, denounced opponents of a handgun ban as
accomplices in the murder of school children. Prime Minister Major, who was
already doing badly in the polls, crumbled. He promptly announced that the
Conservative government would ban handguns above .22 caliber, and .22
caliber handguns would have to be stored at shooting clubs, not in homes.
A few months later, Labour Party leader Tony Blair was swept into office in
a landslide. One of his first acts was to complete the handgun ban by
removing the exemption for .22s.
This was true in California:
In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared
that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they
acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must be
relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department." This is a reversal
of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January
1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace
officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years.

This was true in New York City:
In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the
city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that
they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had
registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their
right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to
crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and
policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns,
according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun
control.

This was true for numerous other countries and locations. And this was
especially true when one sociopolitical entity was doing its damnest to
subjugate another:
The Jew Alfred Flatow was found to be in possession of one revolver with
twenty-two rounds of ammunition, two pocket pistols, one dagger, and thirty
one knuckledusters. Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety.
Police First Sergeant Colisle
Via an arrest report from Berlin, October 4, 1938.
He was arrested based on the above while attempting to comply with an order
to turn in all firearms to the government. His firearm was legally owned and
registered. It wasn't until November 11, 1938 that the Weapons Control Act
of 1938 went into effect making it illegal for Jews to own firearms. Hence,
he was arrested while complying with the law at the time.
After his arrest he was turned over to the Gestapo and transported to
Terezin in October of 1942. He died of starvation in the Theresienstadt
concentration camp in December 1942.
The worst part is that Mr. Flatow was damend if he did, and damned if he did
not - since his firearm was registered, in accordance with the laws in
Germany up to that time, if he had not turned it in voluntarily, the police
would have known exactly where to look for him and his firearm, and his life
probably woud have ended in much the same way. Thus, given that "devil and
the deep blue sea" Morton's Fork facing law-abiding firearm owners (and
specifically firearm-owning Jews), Germany's firearm registration policy -
and those politicians who voted for it, and those citizens who supported
it - effectively murdered Mr. Flatow by enabling the confiscation of his
otherwise lawful property, and facilitating his illegal arrest.
It is precisely due to that seemingly inevitable outcome that I will never
register my firearms, should the question ever come up - such an act is
nothing more than a ham-handed prelude to a larger, unconstitutional grab
for power, and I refuse to make a totalitarian government's life any easier.
(On the flip side, what do you think an ATF Form 4473 is, other than a
remarkably ineffective registration system.? Food for thought.)
However, the above blockquote is not solely interesting for its support of
"registration leads to confiscation", but also for the last sentence in the
police report: "Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety."
Such a statement is obviously racist, derogatory, discriminatory, and
without any basis in fact or reason. however, how often do you hear
anti-rights nuts making nearly identical proclamations? "Arms in the hands
of men are a danger to women." "Arms in the hands of anyone in a
high-population area are a danger to public safety." "Arms in the hands of
restaurant patrons are a danger to public safety." The appeals to "public
safety" go on and on and on, and are about as basless and nonsensical as
claiming that firearms in the hands of a socioreligious subgroup of humanity
somehow pose a threat to the rest of the world - so why is that claim by the
German police officer so inherently distasteful, while all of the strikingly
similar claims by anti-rights nuts are somehow more acceptable? How does
that work?
Also, note how the subject of the statement is "arms", not "Jews" - the
latter is part of a dependent clause, while the former is not. It would
appear as though anti-rights nuts' fixations on the tools rather than the
people is not exactly a new development, and it would further seem as though
those who continue that irrational behavior are in some very good company.
Regardless of their motivations, though, anti-rights nuts should understand
one thing, and understand it well - neither I, nor a very large number of
other firearm owners, will register our firearms, regardless of whatever
laws are passed, rules are signed, or orders are given. Such a requirement
provides us no benefits - firearm registration has never demonstrably lead
to a decrease in violent crime - but we would hazard tremendous risks for
complying, and based off known, quantifiable, recorded history of the
matter, it is not a path any of us wish to tread down.
The irony, of course, is that the anti-rights nuts are willing to kill me
and other liberty-minded individuals for not registering our firearms
(should the requirement be imposed), which only serves to prove my point.






Copyright © 2005-2013 walls of the city - All Rights Reserved
Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
75 queries. 7.116 seconds.

..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...fiscation.html
This was true in New York City:
In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the
city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that
they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had
registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their
right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to
crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and
policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns,
according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun
control.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html


Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and
confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967
for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned
semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The
New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city
as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police
Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in
a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their
firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered
inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms
Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of
certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered
during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3,
Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In
addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and
pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death
of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the
California DOJ Firearms Division Page)



Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:06:25 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:19:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Post all the bull**** you want. The Founders used Infringed, not
"encroached". I gave you the English definition of Infringed. Deal
with it.

Hmm. It looks like you chose the one that means "encroached." g

You pulled out the SECOND meaning and you ignored the first meaning.
Do you think the FFs intended the secondary meaning over the primary
one? Here's what you posted:

=======================================
Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]

. 2. act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

=======================================

For the first one, I'll refer you to your own link:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...glish/infringe

Quit trying to b.s. your way through, Gunner. You should know by now
that you aren't going to get away with it.

So you are claiming Gay still means Happy and Carefree?

And I'll refer you again to the 1828 edition of Webster's -- the first
American dictionary -- for a better understanding of the
contemporaneous meaning:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,infringe

infringe

INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See
Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by
contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of
performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or
covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing
what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or
obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

So which one were they using? Laugh laugh laugh!!

The first. To "break." As in, not allowing you to keep and bear any
arms.



I think you slammed yourself in the teeth there, Gunner. As the courts
have said, your right isn't "infringed" unless they keep you from
owning a gun.

Your opinion is noted.

It's not my opinion. It's the clear opinion of the Supreme Court --
all of the conservative Justices, who were the majority in Heller.

Yet the SCOTUS claimed Dred Scott was still a slave while in a Free
State. Until the civil war..which killed a million people.


So you're saying you DON'T have a RKBA, that Heller is wrong?


And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?

Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.

One of. What part of the Founders writings did you and your
Leftwingers seem to ignore..other than ALL of them?

It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)

And we are back to Scalia again. Fascinating. Shall we go back to
Dred Scott again too? Hummm

Only if you want to keep hanging your hat on decisions that have bneen
overturned.

Oh...but they were LAW..and you wish to ..hell you desire to live
under bad law written by assholes with negative agendas.

You mean, like the conservative Justices of the Supreme Court? I have
to keep reminding myself that you know better than them, that they're
just assholes with negative agendas, and you knew the Founders
personally...

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm
the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

So who is being disarmed? Did they come for your handguns and rifles?


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter
XVIII, May, 1788.

So are you properly formed?


"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

Which state was that?


"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep
and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of
Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

Federal restrictions only. Note "Congress." See Barron v. Baltimore
(1833)

quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789,
"Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day,
events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference —
they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

Your buds at Guncite say this is bogus:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

So does everyone else who has looked for it in Washington archives.


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The
same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms,
for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay
them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived
of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

Are you destitute of arms?


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young,
how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is
able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

So, do you have a gun?


"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can
they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our
own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who
do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

Bogus.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...plowsquotation



"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is
inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all
times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom

Bogus. There were only 85 Federalist Papers. These words appear
nowhere in them.

This bogus quote apparently was derived from Hamilton's words about
disciplining the militia (Federalist 29):

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at
large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to
see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them
once or twice in the course of a year."

Hamilton was talking about the militia, and the weakness inherent in a
miltia that is not under more intense training and discipline.

You should read it sometime. hah! fat chance of that...


"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores
the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

Bogus. What he said was that the Federalist’s attacks on liberties
(under Adams), including jailing Republican newspaper editors and
reading his (Jefferson's) mail, were “an experiment on the American
mind, to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the
constitution.”


"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
"
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer

And this relates to gun regulation *how*?


"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784

Which liberties do you think Burke included?


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

So, take your arms. Whom are you planning to shoot?


"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman
Later Quotes on Gun Control

Do you own guns? What "essential liberty" have you given up?


"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it
very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having
left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as
best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame
us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an
honest mistake."
Malcolm Wallop
former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)

You frequently post bogus quotes from Jefferson, including some on
which you've been corrected before but which you continue to post, but
this is the first time I remember you bogus-quoting Washington.

You must be digging deep into your volume of "The Gun Nutz
Encyclopedia of Spurious Quotes, Bogus History, and Wishful Thinking".




If I violate your decisions, nothing happens. If I violate theirs,
I've got real trouble. g

If you buy a gun, nothing happens. If you forbid others from buying
guns..they will sooner or later..come and kill you.


Ayup..you
are indeed a Blue Stater, and you love it there from the looks of it.

I like it well enough to have lived here for about 50 of my 64 years.

Thank you for making my case. VBG




So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?

Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.

No firearms allowed in DC, NYC, Chicago etc etc etc. The Right to
Keep and Bear arms is badly infringed and in fact..broken, violated
and transgressed upon.

It's not quite true that firearms weren't allowed in those places. In
NYC, handguns have always been allowed with a license.

In DC..they were not allowed. In NYC..you couldnt get a liscense.
INFRINGED.

Nope.

Cites? Bring em up..and Ill slap em right back in your teeth

Try it. In fact, here's the list of licensed handgun owners in NYC:

(first, an explanation)

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-ne...ermit-holders/

(next, the list)

http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-...-new-york-city

Getting a "premises permit" in NYC is a PITA, but as you can see,
plenty of people have done it.

What you're doing is mixing up carry permits with premises permits.
There are some carry permits in NYC, but not many.

The situation there is a lot like the whole state of NJ, although
getting a permit to purchase is easier in NJ. Getting a carry permit
here is only slightly more likely than in NYC. I don't know of anyone
who has one, but, as I said, one of my former physicians has a NYC
carry permit.

How are your teeth holding up, Gunner? From here it looks like you
were hit with a boomerang. d8-)



http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pe...ml#HowDoIApply


"How do I apply for a handgun license?

Applicants must personally appear and submit a signed application to
the License Division when applying. Fees may be paid by credit card or
with two money orders. The application fee is $340.00. Effective March
19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50. "

That is not even a CCW permit...but a $450 fee to simply OWN a
handgun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

" all the states that issue carry pistol licenses, New York State has
arguably the strictest handgun licensing policies in the nation.[9]
New York City, which is effectively a "no-issue" jurisdiction for
carry pistol licenses,[10] has even stricter laws, including those
regulating handguns exclusively kept at home, thereby making it
difficult to virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain,
possess, or carry firearms lawfully within New York City.[11]

(This is horse****. That whole Wikipedia entry is poorly written and
full of contradictions. "Ordinary citizens" can "obtain" and "possess"
handguns -- if they want to jump through the hoops and spend a pile of
money.)


The constitutionality of many of New York's restrictive firearms laws,
including the newly-enacted SAFE Act, are being challenged by lawsuits
at the state and federal levels."

****ing Infringed! You damned well know it..yet you toss it into
the mix so I can respond and make you look like an utter ******?????

You really better learn to read your own stuff, Gunner. I only said
that you can own a handgun in NYC. I didn't say you were likely to get
a carry permit.

And getting a handgun in NYC means you have to spend at minimum $450
for a permit and it takes 6 months. You left that out as well.

You dont consider that to be an infringement? And about that pesky
'and bear arms" thingy....? Hummm?

As I said, I think the law is vulnerable to a 14th Amendment argument,
especially since Heller.



I know a physician who has a NYC carry permit. The gun nutz keep
saying they aren't allowed. That's not true.

So are they like LA carry permits? 9 million residents and 37 permits
to big campaign doners?

Something like that. The difference between D.C. and Chicago, on one
hand, and NYC, on the other, is that the first two had NO provision
for owning a handgun. The Court says that's unconstitutional. NYC
does, but it would be up to the courts to decide if their regulations
are so onerous that they violate the Constitution. It seems unlikely,
given the extensive list in that Gawker article. A lot of people
managed to jump through the hoops.

So its Constitutional until its not.

Pretty much. That's a representative democracy for you. 'Got a better
plan for government?


Carry permits are not an issue. I didn't mention them, and the Supreme
Court said in Heller that it is not questioning several types of
regulations. Interestingly, and confusingly, they listed 19th century
prohibitions against carrying guns as examples of the historical basis
for regulations. But they didn't include carrying, except in specific
places, in their short list of regulations they aren't questioning.
This one's a crapshoot, should it reach the Supreme Court.

VBG and you continue to validate my statements. VBG

??? Your "statements" suggest you've decided the issue and that you
know better than the Justices of the Supreme Court. Not likely.


There are several versions of that Gawker list floating around, and
note that some of them are not actually handgun permit lists. But it's
not in question that there are several thousand premises permits for
handguns issued in NYC. The list in Gawker apparently is legit, for
2010.

Several thousand...and the population is 8,244,910




The truth is, they're "may issue," just like NJ, and they're damned
hard to get. But the Court didn't define what restrictions would be
allowed, so it will be unlikely that a case reaches the Court from a
denial in NYC.

Chuckle...see the last line in the quote from Wiki.....VBG

We'll see. The whole law (SAFE Act) is severable, and I don't see
anything in there that's a clear violation of the terms laid down in
Heller. But you never know.

VBG




What Heller decided was that a total ban on handguns, as in D.C. and
Chicago, are unconstitutional. As for what regulations and limitations
the Court will allow, we don't know yet. And the lower federal courts
regularly express their uncertainty about the consequences of Heller.

Yet if you read the Founders words...The Right to keep and Bear Arms
Shall not be Infringed...its pretty must graven in stone. NO INFRINGED

Not broken. Not violated. As long as you can have guns, the right is
not infringed.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Yet you
yourself admitted "they are damned hard to get" and only for 'special
people"

I didn't say only for special people. But that only applies to the
carry law. It isn't clear that the S.C. would overturn that no matter
what the terms of NYC's carry law are. If it were me, and if I were a
lawyer, I think I'd attack it on 14th Amendment grounds. But the Court
may well not even grant cert on a challenge to a carry law. See
Heller.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/artic...arry-2012.aspx




And you dont consider it to be infringement of the worst sort.
Fascinating.

I object to NYC's carry law because of its unequal application -- a
14th Amendment case. I generally favor shall-issue CCW laws, with
sturdy background checks and training requirements. But if the
question is constitutionality, I think you're sucking wind.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.


You and your Leftwinger buddies have spewed your desires for so
long...even the courts are either afraid of rocking the boat too
badly..or are afraid of you and yours.

Is that your new ride in Gun Nutz Fantasyland? Do you need a ticket
for that?

Keep dreaming Blue Stater. Laugh laugh laugh. Hell..even here in
Leftwing California...we can get CCWs.

You keep bouncing back and forth between handgun possession and CCW.
You should first make up your mind about where you think the
constitutional problem is.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

The notible terms are "keep" and "bear"




So Heller was a return to Constitutional
law...somewhat. Still not "legal" to bear arms in those places..so
its not returned to Constitutional mandate...its still broken,
violated and transgressed upon.

That remains to be seen. If a handgun carry case reaches the Supreme
Court, expect fireworks.

They simply need to review the 2nd Amendment, written in 1787

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be Infringed.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Right. And if you can own a gun for personal, legal use (such as
self-defense), your right is not infringed. Nothing more, nothing
less.

You keep forgetting about that nasty little "and bear" portion. Why
is that?

You had better spend the time to actually read Heller.


And in NYC? No-issue CCW except for the very very few.....and
Chicago..a gun ban.

Heller doesn't say carry bans are unconstitutional. The Court may or
may not consider that to be an infringement. I have a problem with
those bans -- especially the highly selective permitting as in NYC --
but I'm more interested in what the law will be, under the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd in Heller. So far, I think they have it
right.

Yet you are ok with NYC and Chicagos literal ban on firearms and its
admittedly near impossiblity to get a CCW.

No, I said no such thing. I said that NYC's regulations may or may not
be constitutional.

What I would like is one thing. What the Court decides about the
Constitution is another. What you decide about it is mostly nutz. d8-)


Make up your mind Eddy.

See above.



Hell..even Morton Grove gave up that ghost decades ago

That was a ban on ownership. Are we back to that now, or are you still
on CCW?

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

No answer, eh?



You blue staters...idiots of the very worst sort.

Gunner

You only say that because you know we understand the Heller decision,
and you hate it.

Hate a 75% improvement? Why would you think that?

Because you keep referring to Court decisions "made by idiots."

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:55:56 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.

And who would do this? Chris's "foreign-born Muslim President"?

I've always thought he lives in a different country. Now I'm sure.
d8-)

And not a hypothetical remote chance either.
A very real and frightening agenda in the making.
(But then I'm nutz, remember?)

Parnoia strikes deep.



Second question:

What else is this discussion about?

I thought it was about a host of proposed gun laws, including
background checks, registration, preventing straw purchases, etc.

How far does it have to go before it would be time to act?

Some of the nutz are ready to "act" right now. Or they would be, if
they weren't blustering, big-mouth cowards.

They appear to have a problem with living in a representative
democracy in which all kinds of things are proposed, but few are
enacted into law.

How far does it have to go before it's too late to act?

When a proposal to ban guns looks like it has a chance to pass the
House, the Sentate, and the President, and when the Supreme Court
looks like it will go along, then prime your pan.

Meantime, I keep loading .45 ACP, in case the Mormons attack. d8-)

Don't worry so much, Richard. I have to go now, because my
book-editing project just started coming in. I'll be up to my
eyeballs.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:47:58 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...fiscation.html
This was true in New York City:
In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the
city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that
they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had
registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their
right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to
crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and
policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns,
according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun
control.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

They were arrested for violating gun laws, butthead.

--
Ed Huntress


It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.

On 2/25/2013 10:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:55:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.

And who would do this? Chris's "foreign-born Muslim President"?

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the
nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of
more than 240,000 employees

Gunner wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...n-law/1859727/

Reducing the magazine capacity to 7 rounds makes all of New Yorks
police officers magazines illegal. The law granted NO dispensations
for cops.


Ed wants them left with nothing but old fashioned nightsticks.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:21:58 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 10:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:55:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.

And who would do this? Chris's "foreign-born Muslim President"?

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the
nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of
more than 240,000 employees

Richard, I would not undertake to deal with someone else's paranoia.
Believe what you want.

And I really have to go. Hasta luego.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:21:58 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 10:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:55:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.

And who would do this? Chris's "foreign-born Muslim President"?

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the
nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of
more than 240,000 employees

So they are more important than the US military


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:38:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future.

We've had handgun registration in NJ since 1966, IIRC. How much longer
are we supposed to wait for confiscation?



License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?id=195


Registration Means Confiscation in California & Connecticut
by Stephen Cicero

Gun owners in California and Connecticut have discovered that it
really CAN happen here. Advertising has been strong here in San Diego
recently, urging all owners of the SKS "Sporter" to turn them in for a
$230 reimbursement before January 1, 2000. "If you own an SKS Sporter,
you can’t sell it and you can’t shoot it. You MUST turn it in before
January 1 or face criminal charges and confiscation" goes the ad which
has been run on local radio stations.

This particular problem started with passage of the Roberti-Roos
Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. At that time there were two
available models of the SKS rifle - one with a fixed magazine, and one
designed to accept a detachable magazine, the "Sporter" model.

The Roberti-Roos law banned sales of the SKS Sporter rifle, but owners
of the gun were able to keep them so long as they complied with a
background check and had the gun registered. Apparently, most records
of long gun sales were not retained, but the Sporter was treated
differently. Ownership was actually registered, and the records kept.

There was additional confusion over the SKS since there were
after-market kits available to convert the unregistered fixed-magazine
model to accept a detachable magazine. In response to the confusion,
California passed AB48 which granted immunity to SKS owners, but also
established a buyback program. As an aside, the buyback pays a higher
price than that for which the rifles were originally sold!

NOW, California has a new Attorney General, a Democratic Governor, and
a State Legislature also controlled by the Democrats. NOW the law is
being reinterpreted, and SKS owners who acted in good faith by
complying with the terms of Roberti-Roos are left holding the bag.
There are also some sixty additional models of "assault rifle",
outlawed since 1992, which appear on the list currently designated for
confiscation!

During his run for Governor in 1997, Former Attorney General Dan
Lungren reversed his own earlier decision about the SKS Sporter.
Bowing to political pressure, he declared them illegal, thus
demonstrating that the trust of SKS owners was misplaced.

In Connecticut, Governor John Rowland has signed a new law that allows
police to seize firearms from the home of any person whom authorities
believe may be CONSIDERING a criminal act. A warrant must be issued
based on probable cause, and the judge issuing the warrant may
consider numerous factors including threats or acts of violence,
cruelty to animals, and (of course) drug or alcohol abuse. This is
probably the first law in the nation that allows confiscation prior to
any overt violent act.

Of course, several people have raised Constitutional questions
regarding both of these developments, but here is a chilling comment
from Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California: "When
people turn in these guns and they get their vouchers, you know their
name is going into a hat. It’s going to go into a database as a
previous owner of an illegal assault gun and that concerns us."

The California DOJ has admitted they have records, they know who own
these firearms through the registration process, and have ordered
seizure and/or prosecution by law enforcement agencies throughout the
State.

A flyer printed by the San Diego Libertarian Party warns that "If this
trend continues we can expect that, in the future, other
semi-automatic firearms will be outlawed as well. The policies could
well spread state by state countrywide, outlawing semi-automatic
firearms of every sort. Seizure from those who abide by the law will
follow. Subsequent laws will eventually be targeted at pistols, rifles
and shotguns."

Some opponents of the new Connecticut law call it the 'turn in your
neighbor' law. They fear some people might attempt to use the law to
try to resolve petty disputes or to impose their views about guns on
their neighbors.

"The Constitution is being broken apart, piece by piece," said another
opponent of the new law.

The potential here for wholesale destruction of our remaining rights
is enormous. Opportunistic politicians around the country are sure to
jump onto the bandwagon unless we see serious political opposition,
and see it soon. Remember that this event turned on a weakness in one
political party which was quickly exploited by their victorious
opponents, and even if the tide turns at next election, we have lost
ground which will be difficult to regain."

Eddy again demonstrates that his widdle puddle in his widdle Blue
state matches his brain capacity.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6143039AAIVbUH

What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun
confiscation?
Let's stick to fairly recent examples, say the last 25 years. Anywhere
in the world. Are there any?

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian
states?

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed
in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to
confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this
list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of
the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to
confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about
every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use
the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same
registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was
covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was
closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace
period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that
those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the
grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law
enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the
firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from
the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners
turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or
whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and
counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt,
but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who
demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on
whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean
Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the
LA riots happened."


"Los Angeles Gun squad came to houses, slowly over years and took away
registered Assault Weapons. A friend of my Dad lost his, because his
"Paperwork" on an Armalite 180 was "wrong," Appears he didn't fill out
the form correctly. He abbreviated several times. So the police picked
up his gun. Two years before, the State of California asked all owners
of Assault Weapons to register them. They promised they would not use
the lists to confiscate any weapons.

Los Angeles Police Gun Squad is famous. Los Angeles is the second
largest city in America. There is ONE gun shop that sells handguns
within the actuall city limits. The LAPD gun squad found
technicalities to run the rest out. LAPD is very anti gun. If you fill
out a report for a stolen gun, you will get a long, rude, high
pressure lecture on why owning guns is wrong."

http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/1...s-on-the-bayou



That was a 30 second search. Yet Eddy couldnt be bothered to do just
that.

Gunner


3 years ago
The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:41:57 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:35:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:44:02 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:11:44 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:06:44 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Ed either really, really just doesn't get it or, more likely, he will
NEVER admit he is wrong.

You sit here and say all this is wrong, while REAL Constitutional
scholars -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito...even Thomas and Blackstone, fer
chrissake, all say YOU're wrong.

Heller quotes numerous cases of regulation of guns, including several
outright BANS of concealed carry from the 19th century, as evidence
that there have always been limitations on the "right," that "shall
not be infringed" never meant "no restrictions," as Scalia says,

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy
152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues." -- Opinion of the Court, D.C. v. Heller

19th century...odd..wasnt the 2nd Amendment written in the 18th
century?

What was the various laws at that time? Hummm?

He said from Blackstone (died 1780) *THROUGH* the 19th century.


If he said that..he had better come up with the citations to back up
his claim

VBG

I hope you mean that as a joke, because the Court already DID come up
with the citations.

A few of them are posted above. When you actually get around to
reading Heller, you'll find more.

Odd...all I see are conflicts with various generations of SCOTUS

VBG

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm


Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:47:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:39:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:40:34 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:14:16 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:11:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:27:24 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/23/2013 1:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:26:26 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:30:59 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The largest single
source today, though, says the FBI, is straw purchases.

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

Registration and laws requiring (1) securing guns at home and (2)
reporting thefts.

That's the only thing I've heard of that sounds reasonable to me. How
effective it would be would depend on how well it was enforced, the
first requirement for which is an easily accessible database of last
legal owners. Do you have a better idea?



House-to house inspection of gun storage?

How about inspection AFTER your firestick is recovered at a crime
scene, and they ask you what you did to secure it? And if you didn't
secure it, you pay a hefty fine or, if you're a repeat strawman
purchaser, jail.

What part of being a victim is prosecutable?

You're idea of a victim apparently is someone who drives at night with
his tail lights out, who then gets hit in the rear.

Your idea of a non victim is someone who has her jewelry stolen from
her jewelry box in her bedroom by a burglar.

That's what I mean by responsibility. Her responsibility for her
jewelry extends only to herself. Our responsibility to keep guns out
of the hands of criminals extends to all of us.

You have cites for this, Blue Stater?


Do you have issues with behaving responsibly? Wait, don't answer
that...g

Depends on what "behaving responsibly" means. According to a
Leftwinger..not keeping ones weapons in a concrete block is
irresponsible.

According to many of us Red Staters... keeping a loaded rifle behind
the front door is responsible.

While you leave the front door open so the chickens can get in and
out. (Now, don't start with the "elitist" crap; that was a joke.)

VBG..ok Elitist.


You takes your choice, Eddy.

Until your choice impinges on everyone else.

It would be nice if we could do that. And while you're at home, it
makes sense. When you're not, it sounds like an invitation.

So the locks on the doors, the dogs and the alarm system simply arent
good enough. Interesting.

Molon Labe

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/25/2013 11:20 AM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:41:57 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:35:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:44:02 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:11:44 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:06:44 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Ed either really, really just doesn't get it or, more likely, he will
NEVER admit he is wrong.

You sit here and say all this is wrong, while REAL Constitutional
scholars -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito...even Thomas and Blackstone, fer
chrissake, all say YOU're wrong.

Heller quotes numerous cases of regulation of guns, including several
outright BANS of concealed carry from the 19th century, as evidence
that there have always been limitations on the "right," that "shall
not be infringed" never meant "no restrictions," as Scalia says,

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy
152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues." -- Opinion of the Court, D.C. v. Heller

19th century...odd..wasnt the 2nd Amendment written in the 18th
century?

What was the various laws at that time? Hummm?

He said from Blackstone (died 1780) *THROUGH* the 19th century.


If he said that..he had better come up with the citations to back up
his claim

VBG

I hope you mean that as a joke, because the Court already DID come up
with the citations.

A few of them are posted above. When you actually get around to
reading Heller, you'll find more.

Odd...all I see are conflicts with various generations of SCOTUS

VBG

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm

Dicta and dissenting opinions; no holding.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:49:22 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:40:36 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:37:03 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:58:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:57:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:10:21 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
I don't think we really know what the founders desired, because there
was almost no recorded debate about it. In any case, the Constitution
they wrote didn't prevent registration. There is a host of court
cases, written by real legal and Constitutional scholars, that says
such regulation is within Constitutional law.

Blink blink....bull****. The writings of the Founders on the right to
keep and bear arms is ****ing huge. From the Federalist Papers to
letters and articles. If they were to appear here today..they would
challenge you , Pelosi and Reid to a duel and shoot you dead.

Where's a good Voodoo witch doctor when you need one?

They're all busy writing economics white papers for Paul Ryan.

So hows that Hopey/Changey thingie working out?

Pretty good. I'm busy as hell -- with a bit of starts and stops. That
isn't the economy, though. It's my clients.

And the Economy? You know..that big thingy that is supposed to allow
all of us to prosper.

How about you?


Laugh laugh laugh!

...that suggests things aren't working out so well for you, eh?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-plunges-by-22

http://ivn.us/2012/10/28/peter-schif...around-2013-2/

Its not working out for a lot of people. Shrug.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:53:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm


VBG

You just hate that dont you?

No, we've already discussed it. Plimpton pointed out the same thing to
you: it's a dog's breakfast of dicta and dissenting opinions. No
binding precedent.

Yes..it most certainly is. And here you go waving Heller as something
new.

It's useful history. It's up to the courts, though, if they'll pay any
attention to it. All they have to pay attention to now is Heller.

You didnt read the other "its up to the courts" in the provided link
did you?


Laugh laugh laugh!!

Nitrous?

Liberal Buffoonery.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/24/2013 1:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:48:12 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 1:29 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/22/2013 10:05 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:21 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.


Gee, are you saying that polls are targeting the responders they WANT?
Say it ain't so!


Come on, Tom. They get the voter registration information and call
people for the party they want to come out on top.


Any good debater can take either side of an argument.

Any good poll can take whatever direction that the purchasing party pays
for.



Ed would self-destruct if he had to even CONSIDER a non-left position.

I consider them all the time. But only here do I encounter such
consistent, knuckle-dragging rightist positions, that those are the
ones I argue with on this NG.

You've never asked my position on welfare, for example. And I wouldn't
bother discussing it with you, because you think that they're all
eating government cheese.

You should know my position on gun rights. It's hardly left. In fact,
based on the polls, it's well to the right of center.

So baloney to you.


All leftists use ad hominids when all else fails. Glad to see you
follow the crowd!

On 2/24/2013 1:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:00:15 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 1:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:06 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

Tom's question is a nonsense question. My answer was a nonsense
answer.
snip

An excellent example of an ad hominid logic error!

Hmmm. "Ad hominid"? Is that someone who opposes all primates? Or only
the ones who think they're being logical? g


Oh look, the spelling police! OK officer, it's "ad Hominem". Aren't
spelling flames ANOTHER form of such?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:28:53 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:06:25 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:19:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Post all the bull**** you want. The Founders used Infringed, not
"encroached". I gave you the English definition of Infringed. Deal
with it.

Hmm. It looks like you chose the one that means "encroached." g

You pulled out the SECOND meaning and you ignored the first meaning.
Do you think the FFs intended the secondary meaning over the primary
one? Here's what you posted:

=======================================
Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]

. 2. act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

=======================================

For the first one, I'll refer you to your own link:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...glish/infringe

Quit trying to b.s. your way through, Gunner. You should know by now
that you aren't going to get away with it.

So you are claiming Gay still means Happy and Carefree?

And I'll refer you again to the 1828 edition of Webster's -- the first
American dictionary -- for a better understanding of the
contemporaneous meaning:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,infringe

infringe

INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See
Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by
contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of
performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or
covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing
what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or
obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

So which one were they using? Laugh laugh laugh!!

The first. To "break." As in, not allowing you to keep and bear any
arms.

Cites? Or is it simply your opinion once again?
VBG




I think you slammed yourself in the teeth there, Gunner. As the courts
have said, your right isn't "infringed" unless they keep you from
owning a gun.

Your opinion is noted.

It's not my opinion. It's the clear opinion of the Supreme Court --
all of the conservative Justices, who were the majority in Heller.

Yet the SCOTUS claimed Dred Scott was still a slave while in a Free
State. Until the civil war..which killed a million people.


So you're saying you DON'T have a RKBA, that Heller is wrong?

So you are claiming that Heller is New Law?


And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?

Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.

One of. What part of the Founders writings did you and your
Leftwingers seem to ignore..other than ALL of them?

It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)

And we are back to Scalia again. Fascinating. Shall we go back to
Dred Scott again too? Hummm

Only if you want to keep hanging your hat on decisions that have bneen
overturned.

Oh...but they were LAW..and you wish to ..hell you desire to live
under bad law written by assholes with negative agendas.

You mean, like the conservative Justices of the Supreme Court? I have
to keep reminding myself that you know better than them, that they're
just assholes with negative agendas, and you knew the Founders
personally...

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm
the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

So who is being disarmed? Did they come for your handguns and rifles?

They certainly are trying to do just that.


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter
XVIII, May, 1788.

So are you properly formed?

Ayup.


"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

Which state was that?

The Several States.


"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep
and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of
Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

Federal restrictions only. Note "Congress." See Barron v. Baltimore
(1833)

See 2nd Amendment.

quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789,
"Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day,
events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference —
they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

Your buds at Guncite say this is bogus:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

So does everyone else who has looked for it in Washington archives.

And?


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The
same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms,
for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay
them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived
of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

Are you destitute of arms?

I certainly am. Im not allowed to own a common STG58 or AR-15.


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young,
how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is
able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

So, do you have a gun?

Yes. And in Chicago?


"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can
they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our
own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who
do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

Bogus.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...plowsquotation

My..you are getting some mileage out of anal retentive arnt you?



"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is
inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all
times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom

Bogus. There were only 85 Federalist Papers. These words appear
nowhere in them.

Cites?

This bogus quote apparently was derived from Hamilton's words about
disciplining the militia (Federalist 29):

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at
large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to
see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them
once or twice in the course of a year."

Yes.

Hamilton was talking about the militia, and the weakness inherent in a
miltia that is not under more intense training and discipline.

Yes and Mr Militia Member?

You should read it sometime. hah! fat chance of that...

VBG Not seen my library have you?


"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores
the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

Bogus. What he said was that the Federalist’s attacks on liberties
(under Adams), including jailing Republican newspaper editors and
reading his (Jefferson's) mail, were “an experiment on the American
mind, to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the
constitution.”

Cites?


"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
"
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer

And this relates to gun regulation *how*?

Blink...blink...you are THAT stupid?


"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784

Which liberties do you think Burke included?

How about those in the Constitution for a start?


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

So, take your arms. Whom are you planning to shoot?

The evil people who wish to harm me and mine, or take my arms.

VBG



"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman
Later Quotes on Gun Control

Do you own guns? What "essential liberty" have you given up?

Owning an AR-15 is a good start.


"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it
very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having
left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as
best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame
us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an
honest mistake."
Malcolm Wallop
former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)

You frequently post bogus quotes from Jefferson, including some on
which you've been corrected before but which you continue to post, but
this is the first time I remember you bogus-quoting Washington.

You must be digging deep into your volume of "The Gun Nutz
Encyclopedia of Spurious Quotes, Bogus History, and Wishful Thinking".

Odd that you have decided you have found (2) bogus quotes out of all I
provided..and they outweigh the rest..which you tried to make jokes
out of.

Desperation on the part of a Leftwinger is so funny to watch. G




If I violate your decisions, nothing happens. If I violate theirs,
I've got real trouble. g

If you buy a gun, nothing happens. If you forbid others from buying
guns..they will sooner or later..come and kill you.


Ayup..you
are indeed a Blue Stater, and you love it there from the looks of it.

I like it well enough to have lived here for about 50 of my 64 years.

Thank you for making my case. VBG




So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?

Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.

No firearms allowed in DC, NYC, Chicago etc etc etc. The Right to
Keep and Bear arms is badly infringed and in fact..broken, violated
and transgressed upon.

It's not quite true that firearms weren't allowed in those places. In
NYC, handguns have always been allowed with a license.

In DC..they were not allowed. In NYC..you couldnt get a liscense.
INFRINGED.

Nope.

Cites? Bring em up..and Ill slap em right back in your teeth

Try it. In fact, here's the list of licensed handgun owners in NYC:

(first, an explanation)

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-ne...ermit-holders/

(next, the list)

http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-...-new-york-city

Getting a "premises permit" in NYC is a PITA, but as you can see,
plenty of people have done it.

What you're doing is mixing up carry permits with premises permits.
There are some carry permits in NYC, but not many.

The situation there is a lot like the whole state of NJ, although
getting a permit to purchase is easier in NJ. Getting a carry permit
here is only slightly more likely than in NYC. I don't know of anyone
who has one, but, as I said, one of my former physicians has a NYC
carry permit.

How are your teeth holding up, Gunner? From here it looks like you
were hit with a boomerang. d8-)



http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pe...ml#HowDoIApply


"How do I apply for a handgun license?

Applicants must personally appear and submit a signed application to
the License Division when applying. Fees may be paid by credit card or
with two money orders. The application fee is $340.00. Effective March
19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50. "

That is not even a CCW permit...but a $450 fee to simply OWN a
handgun.

No comment on the $450 fee as of yet. I wonder why?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

" all the states that issue carry pistol licenses, New York State has
arguably the strictest handgun licensing policies in the nation.[9]
New York City, which is effectively a "no-issue" jurisdiction for
carry pistol licenses,[10] has even stricter laws, including those
regulating handguns exclusively kept at home, thereby making it
difficult to virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain,
possess, or carry firearms lawfully within New York City.[11]

(This is horse****. That whole Wikipedia entry is poorly written and
full of contradictions. "Ordinary citizens" can "obtain" and "possess"
handguns -- if they want to jump through the hoops and spend a pile of
money.)


The constitutionality of many of New York's restrictive firearms laws,
including the newly-enacted SAFE Act, are being challenged by lawsuits
at the state and federal levels."

****ing Infringed! You damned well know it..yet you toss it into
the mix so I can respond and make you look like an utter ******?????

You really better learn to read your own stuff, Gunner. I only said
that you can own a handgun in NYC. I didn't say you were likely to get
a carry permit.

And getting a handgun in NYC means you have to spend at minimum $450
for a permit and it takes 6 months. You left that out as well.

You dont consider that to be an infringement? And about that pesky
'and bear arms" thingy....? Hummm?

As I said, I think the law is vulnerable to a 14th Amendment argument,
especially since Heller.

Tell that to NY. Afterall..they just banned cop magazines that hold
more than 7 rds.

VBG




I know a physician who has a NYC carry permit. The gun nutz keep
saying they aren't allowed. That's not true.

So are they like LA carry permits? 9 million residents and 37 permits
to big campaign doners?

Something like that. The difference between D.C. and Chicago, on one
hand, and NYC, on the other, is that the first two had NO provision
for owning a handgun. The Court says that's unconstitutional. NYC
does, but it would be up to the courts to decide if their regulations
are so onerous that they violate the Constitution. It seems unlikely,
given the extensive list in that Gawker article. A lot of people
managed to jump through the hoops.

So its Constitutional until its not.

Pretty much. That's a representative democracy for you. 'Got a better
plan for government?

Yet..you claimed it was graven in stone with Heller.


Carry permits are not an issue. I didn't mention them, and the Supreme
Court said in Heller that it is not questioning several types of
regulations. Interestingly, and confusingly, they listed 19th century
prohibitions against carrying guns as examples of the historical basis
for regulations. But they didn't include carrying, except in specific
places, in their short list of regulations they aren't questioning.
This one's a crapshoot, should it reach the Supreme Court.

VBG and you continue to validate my statements. VBG

??? Your "statements" suggest you've decided the issue and that you
know better than the Justices of the Supreme Court. Not likely.

Which justices? These?

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm



There are several versions of that Gawker list floating around, and
note that some of them are not actually handgun permit lists. But it's
not in question that there are several thousand premises permits for
handguns issued in NYC. The list in Gawker apparently is legit, for
2010.

Several thousand...and the population is 8,244,910

What...no comment on Shall not be Infringed?




The truth is, they're "may issue," just like NJ, and they're damned
hard to get. But the Court didn't define what restrictions would be
allowed, so it will be unlikely that a case reaches the Court from a
denial in NYC.

Chuckle...see the last line in the quote from Wiki.....VBG

We'll see. The whole law (SAFE Act) is severable, and I don't see
anything in there that's a clear violation of the terms laid down in
Heller. But you never know.

VBG




What Heller decided was that a total ban on handguns, as in D.C. and
Chicago, are unconstitutional. As for what regulations and limitations
the Court will allow, we don't know yet. And the lower federal courts
regularly express their uncertainty about the consequences of Heller.

Yet if you read the Founders words...The Right to keep and Bear Arms
Shall not be Infringed...its pretty must graven in stone. NO INFRINGED

Not broken. Not violated. As long as you can have guns, the right is
not infringed.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Yet you
yourself admitted "they are damned hard to get" and only for 'special
people"

I didn't say only for special people. But that only applies to the
carry law. It isn't clear that the S.C. would overturn that no matter
what the terms of NYC's carry law are. If it were me, and if I were a
lawyer, I think I'd attack it on 14th Amendment grounds. But the Court
may well not even grant cert on a challenge to a carry law. See
Heller.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/artic...arry-2012.aspx




And you dont consider it to be infringement of the worst sort.
Fascinating.

I object to NYC's carry law because of its unequal application -- a
14th Amendment case. I generally favor shall-issue CCW laws, with
sturdy background checks and training requirements. But if the
question is constitutionality, I think you're sucking wind.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.


You and your Leftwinger buddies have spewed your desires for so
long...even the courts are either afraid of rocking the boat too
badly..or are afraid of you and yours.

Is that your new ride in Gun Nutz Fantasyland? Do you need a ticket
for that?

Keep dreaming Blue Stater. Laugh laugh laugh. Hell..even here in
Leftwing California...we can get CCWs.

You keep bouncing back and forth between handgun possession and CCW.
You should first make up your mind about where you think the
constitutional problem is.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

The notible terms are "keep" and "bear"




So Heller was a return to Constitutional
law...somewhat. Still not "legal" to bear arms in those places..so
its not returned to Constitutional mandate...its still broken,
violated and transgressed upon.

That remains to be seen. If a handgun carry case reaches the Supreme
Court, expect fireworks.

They simply need to review the 2nd Amendment, written in 1787

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be Infringed.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Right. And if you can own a gun for personal, legal use (such as
self-defense), your right is not infringed. Nothing more, nothing
less.

You keep forgetting about that nasty little "and bear" portion. Why
is that?

You had better spend the time to actually read Heller.

Oh I have. And Ive read the experts takes on Heller. And Ive read the
experts take on the experts take on Heller.

VBG



And in NYC? No-issue CCW except for the very very few.....and
Chicago..a gun ban.

Heller doesn't say carry bans are unconstitutional. The Court may or
may not consider that to be an infringement. I have a problem with
those bans -- especially the highly selective permitting as in NYC --
but I'm more interested in what the law will be, under the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd in Heller. So far, I think they have it
right.

Yet you are ok with NYC and Chicagos literal ban on firearms and its
admittedly near impossiblity to get a CCW.

No, I said no such thing. I said that NYC's regulations may or may not
be constitutional.

Oh be still my beating heart!

What I would like is one thing. What the Court decides about the
Constitution is another. What you decide about it is mostly nutz. d8-)

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm



Make up your mind Eddy.

See above.



Hell..even Morton Grove gave up that ghost decades ago

That was a ban on ownership. Are we back to that now, or are you still
on CCW?

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

No answer, eh?

The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.



You blue staters...idiots of the very worst sort.

Gunner

You only say that because you know we understand the Heller decision,
and you hate it.

Hate a 75% improvement? Why would you think that?

Because you keep referring to Court decisions "made by idiots."

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm

You dont?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:12:34 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:47:58 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...fiscation.html
This was true in New York City:
In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the
city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that
they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had
registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their
right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to
crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and
policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns,
according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun
control.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

They were arrested for violating gun laws, butthead.


Oh..you mean unconstitutional gun law? That goes back to the question
I asked earlier...will they be paid a settlement for their arrest and
imprisonment for enforcement of an Unconstitutional Law?

Hummm?

VBG

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/25/2013 11:28 AM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:53:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm


VBG

You just hate that dont you?

No, we've already discussed it. Plimpton pointed out the same thing to
you: it's a dog's breakfast of dicta and dissenting opinions. No
binding precedent.

Yes..it most certainly is.

No, absolutely it is not. There isn't a single holding in it. It's
nothing but dicta and dissents - nothing binding at all.


And here you go waving Heller as something new.

Heller is, indeed, the *first* time the court has held that the right to
keep and bear arms is an individual right.

On 2/25/2013 11:44 AM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:12:34 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:47:58 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...fiscation.html
This was true in New York City:
In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the
city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that
they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had
registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their
right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to
crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and
policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns,
according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun
control.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

They were arrested for violating gun laws, butthead.


Oh..you mean unconstitutional gun law?

When were they held to be unconstitutional? Cite.

On 2/25/2013 11:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:21:58 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 10:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:55:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.

And who would do this? Chris's "foreign-born Muslim President"?

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the
nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of
more than 240,000 employees

Richard, I would not undertake to deal with someone else's paranoia.
Believe what you want.

And I really have to go. Hasta luego.



Sorry, Ed.
That was quoted straight off of their web site.