Obama and your guns

[David Sorge]

Originally Posted by jpassailaigue

Someone PLEASE educate me on what the second ammendment right says about HUNTING?

This is a valuable point...it doesn't. The 2nd amendment protects a peoples right to keep and bear arms militarily. Meaning that hunting weapons should be banned and I get to keep my collection of assault weapons. Hell...we've been banning the wrong guns

[Randy D. Stufflebeem]

Originally Posted by jpassailaigue

Still haven't been educated about the second ammendment right. What does it say about hunting?

It varies a bit depending on type of game, such as Deer or terrorist!

[Andrew Shick]

The Second Amendment was included to insure that we have the right to protect ourselves from an evil, tyrannical government (redundant - I know).
The Constitution does grant us the right to defend ourselves, it guarantees it.
Law or no law, amendment or no amendment, I believe I have a natural right to defend myself and my family, and I intend to do that if necessary, against anyone who would deny that right to me.

I'm not really worried about it though, tell me how the Government would take 400,000,000 guns away from 100,000,000 gun owners (just the ones they know about)?
It's impossible. There are still more of us than them.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by ashick

I'm not really worried about it though, tell me how the Government would take 400,000,000 guns away from 100,000,000 gun owners (just the ones they know about)?
It's impossible. There are still more of us than them.

I'm sure the Australians thought the same thing.

Gun Confiscation

On the other side of the coin, we have Australia. Throughtout history, Australia has really never had a major problem with violent crime even though gun ownership is commonplace. Until April 28th 1996, when a lunatic shot 35 people in Port Arthur. An anti-gun uproar appeared immediately (even though guns have never been a problem in the past) and a law was passed making it a felony to possess semi-automatic firearms, even those used for hunting. The government confiscated these firearms from law abiding citizens, and these guns (in some cases rare collectibles) were destroyed. Gun Control and left-wing politicians said great things about the new law and anticipated a drop in crime.


As common sense would dictate, just the opposite occurred. In 1997, (12 months after the new laws went into effect) homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent, assaults up 8.6 and there was a 300% increase in homicides in the state of Victoria. Prior to the new anti-gun laws, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms; now, there has been a dramatic increase in break-ins, especially against the elderly.

In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, new figures reveal that the assault rates in the state of NSW has risen almost 20 percent. In fact, Great Britian has surpassed America in its overall rate of violent crime (per 100,000 residents). I'm not going to beat a dead horse here and explain why this happened, but you can put two and two together and figure it out.



Hint: You can bet the armed criminals did not turn in their weapons...

[Randy D. Stufflebeem]

Law or no law, amendment or no amendment, I believe I have a natural right to defend myself and my family, and I intend to do that if necessary, against anyone who would deny that right to me.

I kind of look at it the same way! Hands off the family!

[klott]

I think the fact that so many of us are armed, is a major deterent to those who seek our destruction. I believe we will lose that deterent if we allow a Super Democratic government to take over.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by klott

I think the fact that so many of us are armed, is a major deterent to those who seek our destruction. I believe we will lose that deterent if we allow a Super Democratic government to take over.

Well Kenny because of the liberties we have already lost under the Bush administration and the failures of the Republicans to govern fairly we are going to get a first hand chance to test your theory.

Regardless of who is elected president on November 4th we will see a the House & Senate with a Democratic super-majority, you betcha.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Well Kenny because of the liberties we have already lost under the Bush administration and the failures of the Republicans to govern fairly we are going to get a first hand chance to test your theory.

Regardless of who is elected president on November 4th we will see a the House & Senate with a Democratic super-majority, you betcha.

I have asked this question several times of you and others have not received an answer to my great surprise.

What liberties have you personally lost?

[rbrady]

Originally Posted by mlarson

What liberties have you personally lost?

If you were mistakenly identified as a terrorist threat, just see how quickly you would find out how many liberties you have lost.

Even not being labeled a terrorist, the government wants to know what books you are looking at in the library. They can also tap your phone without a warrant.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rbrady

If you were mistakenly identified as a terrorist threat, just see how quickly you would find out how many liberties you have lost.

Even not being labeled a terrorist, the government wants to know what books you are looking at in the library. They can also tap your phone without a warrant.

I guess it bothers you if suspects and bad actors get checked out.

Have you been?

Do you know anyone who has been?

[rbrady]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Have you been?

Do you know anyone who has been?

It doesn't matter if I have been. Have you even been electrocuted? Do you recommend GFCI's anyway?

Do you think there are people that have had their rights violated? I certainly do, even if I don't personaly know them.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rbrady

It doesn't matter if I have been. Have you even been electrocuted? Do you recommend GFCI's anyway?

Do you think there are people that have had their rights violated? I certainly do, even if I don't personaly know them.

OK, let's her all about them.

If you are so convinced that it's happening to innocent people you must have some examples.

Maybe it's true. Lets find out.

[rbrady]

"Tell that to Steve Kurtz. Kurtz teaches art at NYU at Buffalo. After his wife died of a cardiac arrest, the Feds got suspicious of his art supplies. He was detained because it was suspected that his art supplies could be used to make bioterrorist weapons. While he sat in jail, every inch of his house was gone over with a fine-toothed comb, his computers were impounded, his wife's corpse was investigated, and eventually his house was condemned by the Buffalo Health Department. Later it was discovered that not only was the material that set off this alarm not being used for to make weapons, it wasn't even possible to use the material to make weapons."

http://www.billofrights.com/the_patr..._liberties.htm


"The Los Angeles Times reported that a Pakistani detainee was stripped and beaten in his cell by inmates while guards did nothing; that five Israelis were blindfolded during questioning, handcuffed in their cells and forced to take polygraph tests; and that a Saudi Arabian man "was deprived of a mattress, a blanket, a drinking cup and a clock to let him know when to recite his Muslim prayers."
This is the treatment afforded to detainees who are being held on routine visa violations, people who would not normally be detained at all. The complaint states: "Less than five of the 718 immigration charges detailed by the government relate to terrorism." "

[rbrady]

"The PATRIOT Act has also made many people afraid to exercise their First Amendment rights to write their thoughts, speak their minds in public or on the telephone, sign petitions, demonstrate their opposition to government policies, or borrow or purchase certain books, much less file complaints about their fears with the DOJ."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0204-11.htm

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rbrady

"Tell that to Steve Kurtz. Kurtz

That's one and it is regrettable.

There are 300 million people in this country.

We all have to take our shoes off at the airport now. Do you complain about that too?

I'm not saying that what happened to Mr. Kurtz. is a good but how many serious incidents have been prevented by the increased surveillance of suspicious activity?

the claim is made that when the Patriot Act was passed it was done too quickly.

Fine, then why has it been renewed or extended several times?
Surely the objections could have been dealt with by now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The act expands the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.