2BRKnot2B

I was a teenager back then. If Bob Dole's people were so all fired up gung ho about it, why didn't it become law back then? It's not about the color of this unconstitutional (not a natural born citizen) president's skin, it's about a policy foreign to our constitution, and which, given this is a 2A forum, shouldn't even be being brought up. We do, apparently, have some infil'traitor's here. Here's one for ya, dude. USAPATRIOT Act was sponsored by Dems after Murrah bombing. To be used to target internal militias. Repubs said no way that's getting passed. Same bill is passed about 5 years later, with a few changes, and suddenly it's an OK bill, because it's targeting actual terrorist elements from foreign sources, some who are even "natural born citizens" (unlike our current faux president). Constitutionally, NBC means someone born in this country of a father who was also born in this country, btw. So, since Barry HuJinTau isn't born in this country of a father who was an American citizen from birth, there is no way he can be constitutionally eligible, regardless of him winning a majority of the vote, or having gone thru the electoral college process. He is, in fact, ineligible to e president based on his citizenship status.

I think it is refering to teflon coated. You know the ones that can pass through body armor. Not according to Charles Assini, former lawyer on the staff of former state senator Frank Padavan. Frank Padavan wanted to ban cop killer bullets. I asked Mr. Assini what was meant by that since almost any bullet, even shotgun pelletized weapons can kill. He said he was speaking to ones that can penetrate bullet proof vests. I made note that if bullet proff, then no bllet could pass thru, thus no reason for the law. he said they were going through. I asked what bullets specifically. He didn't know. I said, so you want to make a law against bullets that is so broadly worded that any, and every, bullet type could be banned. He said no, he'd like to work with me, to compromise. So I said i was more than willing to compromise. I would allow some small number of bullets to be banned, perhaps those most used in criminal assaults against police officers, if he could even determine which ones were most used for such, if he would add an addendum to the bill to negate PL 400, or sections of it? He said he wasn;t willing to give up "gains" in legislation so far, only that he was willing to help me help him determine which bullets might be added to the list of banned ones. I noted that such is not compromise on my part but capitulation to his demands solely. He said we had nothing further to discuss if I wasn't willing to capitulate, tho' he refused to call it capitulation. Virgil, I don;t care how long you've been hunting. Because you don't use one, or can probably even give me a description of what one is, doesn;t mean others aren't using them. And whther for hunting, or not, the 2A ISN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING! You are merely another one of those leftist types who think the constitution may be changed at the whim of the legislature, and not thru the amendment process. if it's such a great document, then why don't you agree with this position within it? Reminds me of the Pelosi'ism when asked about where in the constitution the onus for a HC bill was. She said, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" 2A is about a tyrannical gov't, and our ability to throw off its chains, Until we get rid of the imbeciles who don;t nderstand this, or refuse to acknowledge it, we aren't going to make any headway whatsoever. unfortunately, there ar way too many of them even within our own ranks, Whether infil'traitor's or not, their beliefs are anti-constitutional.

What exactly are cop killing bullets? Will a .22 kill a cop? I know one that did a bang up job on his head. He still lives, but he is nothing like what he was. There is no firearm caliber that won't, given the right circumstances, kill, or maim. So, this is another leftist tactic. Same as "ASSault weapon." These are merely misnomers used to scare those without knowledge of weapons, and you sir, perpetuate the idiocy.

Well, now I see the problem. You are a closet, or quasi-socialist. So, you don't want to be called a socialist, or commie, or progressive, or liberal, because it defines your politics. It says to others that you're willing to steal, or let others in power steal for you, as long as you get something provided to you free of charge. There are no jobs out there? Have you been looking at Burger King? I don't care about your degree, nor do they as long as your willing to work for minimum wage, but, therein lies the rub. I have a son who could've graduated college by now who lives at home (his mother's insanity), sponges, could work if he wanted to at a local car wash, but doesn't because it's cold out. Boss told him to call back when he got hungry. He won't, because we feed him. Gets tiring, but he's another sponge like you apparently want to be. You think you gety paid to do nothing, and your all taken care of your going to want to get a job? Doesn;t work that way. If you're not disabled, then get out & get a job, Doesn't matter what the job, I worked at BK until I found a better job, but I had to (wanted to actually) help out my mother with mortgage, food, etc. I paid even tho' other brothers never paid a red cent. It was, in my way of thinking, my responsibility to help out. But, therein lies the key. No one wants responsibility anymore, and gov't lets them not have any of that responsibility. However, "chickens...are coming home...to roost." Barry HuJinTau was listening closely to his mentor, the left Rev. Wright. If you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

Because someone lives in America doesn't mean they have American ideals. Socialists/Marxists/communists/NAZI's/fascists live here, it doesn't make them American minded. No such thing as a liberal in DemoncRATick (Evil, blood sucking vermin) circles. They all lean to the socialist (spread the wealth), Marxist (equality of outcome), communist (all animals are equal, but pigs are more equal), NAZI's (gov't owned, or run, businesses), fascism (gov't run businesses under totalitarian dictatorship). In all such, the leadership dictates who, what, when , where, how. It decides who lives, who dies, and when. They decide who gets care, who doesn't, who will be euthanized, who not, who will work hard labor, who will work cushy jobs. The key here is that people under the regime aren't free to decide for themselves. As for libertarians, they see everything as an equality. Nothing is ever equal of outcome. No one can expect to be free of regulation, or law, or morality, and expect that there aren't consequences for that immorality, lack of law, or regulation. If we all were moral, then no one would ever get divorced, have out of wedlock sex, or extramarital sex, because they would know that such creates more problems.

Given that NYC/NYS was one of the first to try permits (Tammany Hall ring a bell?), what makes us think that we weren't the beginning of the PP system. And, yes, I use the PP as a slight to idiots who think these laws are just fine with them. And, PP Holder for those who go along without making waves, and acknowledging the lunacy of the whole system, not to mention the unconstitutionality.

He forgot the 4th branch. The idiom. He is part of that IMHO! LOL! Of course, many may think that the majority of all 3 of his branches are part of the idiom.

You, sir, are the nut. You want what has never been. You want a lack of responsibility for your own safety, and as Ben Franklin noted, such who want safety above liberty will always become slaves to those who will allow such. How many rounds would be enough? Would you allow six guns, even? Should we all carry? The purpose of concealed carry is to not have to know whether you are, or not. This makes all safer, unless permitted (registered) by gov't. Reason; no criminal knows who is armed, or not, thus making them more wary of whom they choose to target. You, sir, benefit from my concealed carry. No, you'll probably never know the gun(s) is/are on my person. A cop will most likely be able to tell, but no one I have ever been around has ever said anything about the gun(s) I am carrying. I carry multiple weapons usually, and multiple clips for each different caliber. What laws, sir, are "logical"? And, should laws be "logical," or should they be first, "constitutional"? If constitutional, then what part of "...shall not be infringed," don't you understand? By logical, do you mean "common sense." What part of checking people for priors to buy a weapon is "logical", or of "common sense"? Does it stop some criminals? Likely. When was the last time you heard of a prosecution based upon this law? During the Clinton administration 4 people, out of hundreds of thousands, were prosecuted. What part of AW Ban(s) are "common sense"? Does look of a rifle trump action? What makes an AR, or AK, different from a Remington 1187, or .22 cal. Winchester 190/290? The 190/290 have a 17 shot potential with tubular magazine. Should it be outlawed? What part of a ban on martial arts weapons, collapsible batons, baseball bats, etc., makes sense. Town of Gaines, Orleans County, passed a law banning "anything that can be construed as a weapon" from all town property. Would that include pens, pencils, baseball bats, etc.? They can all be used s a weapon? Would it include sticks, stones, slingshots, auto's? They have all been used as weapons in the past. Sir, you sound like a fine individual to me, but a bit naive.

Sorry, that should have read Staub v Baxley.

it does catch up with you. I have been taking a little more time off of late, not being a night watchman as much, but I still keep active. BTW, I also spend time posting on Rochester Democrats Chronicle, Taxidermy.net Current Events forum, and other pro-gun sites. I write for SCOPE Firing Lines, and have had many compliments on my articles. Some asked that I not give up, but sometimes, tho' not often, I find it hard to come up with something that will make a difference. In the realm of things, if you aren;t doing all you can, then you probably aren't doing enough. BPB is one of our most prolific people in SCOPE, as are a few others. Steve Aldstadt's speech at Albany Sportsman's Day was kick ass, and should be in its entirety on the web somewhere. I have yet to see it in its entirety, but I know there were people there videotaping the whole thing. One stood right in front of me. Steve made note that SCOPE expects reclamation of our 2A right in NYS as similar to Vermont, and Alaska. No permits, no infringements, no encroachments, no bans. Any arm that the everyday soldier may carry is the birthright of the American citizen. That, today, would include grenades, LAWS, RPG's, Stinger's, and full auto rifles, as well as knives, swords, martial arts weapons, etc. Today, almost all of that is illegal (unconstitutionally so) under NYS law.

As I noted in another post, no one from the left gives a damn about the law, or the constitution. Our's truly Barry Hussein 'WhoseInsane' MaObama-Soetoro, aka, Barry Soetoro, aka Baraq Hussein Obama, has stated he wants to "fundamentally transform" our country. That means, people, the constitution. That is our fundamental. So, again, how many are getting involved?

Won't happen until more of s speak up, step in, run for office, school board, PTA, etc. One thing I admire about the left is that they are willing to do whatever is necessary to advance their agenda, and they do it quite well. They don't hold back. Even when they lose, they are thinking about the next election cycle. They don;t quit when they get caught doing something illegal, unconstitutional, or even morally. Fact is, they really have no morals. Whatever rules the day, and with which they can get away. No responsibility as Jason said. Worse, they are in our teaching profession to beat the band, and are teaching our children. Nothing speaks more for homeschooling than this one factor.

I'll start. I am a life member of GOA, NRA, NYSR&P, SCOPE. State board member of one. I'm a Tea Party coordinator in a western NY county. I'm vice chair of my counties Conservative Party committee.

He knew his budget, tho'. He could tell you inside out what the budget numbers were, how many people were new hires in the federal gov't., etc. Someone we needed, again, doing himself in.

What better reason to demand that they do away with PP's? Not to mention they are "unconstitutional censorships or prior restraints" (Shuttlesworth v Birmingham from Stab v. Baxley)

So, then, what are each of the people in this group doing, specifically, to stop new anti-gun laws, or to seek repeal of the old laws. For instance, tho' not passed, I offered a proposal to our county legislature to ask that the state legislature repeal PL265, and 400.

What part of "Permits for rights are unconstitutional censorships or prior restraints" doesn't the gun owner community understand?

If I was an Arizonan, I'd be more worried about why someone from NYC thought that AZ was within their jurisdiction, and I'd e wanting to know names, and have extradition papers written up so as to bring these scofflaws back to Az for prosecution, including Bloomberg.

We have to start using the line every time we see "zero tolerance" that zero tolerance = intolerance. Until we start getting this message across the leftards carry the day. I don't even call them liberals anymore, because the name just doesn't fit. Liberal means "Leaning toward democracy." the left is already leaning towards tyranny, and is, in many respects tyrannical. Until we start calling a spade a spade, we'll continue to see this leftard advancement of their agenda. Time to change the direction so that right wing (constitutional republican libertarianism) isn't a bad thing, but that leftism (socialism, communism, fascism, National Socialism=NAZIism) is. We can't be civil to them anymore, because they have drive civility to the tyrannical level. There can be no civility where there is "zero tolerance."

You might also look into UN Agenda 21, UN H.A.B.I.T.A.T. I & II. The purpose is to get all persons into city aras, taken from, or nudged into them from the rural & suburban areas so they can be better controlled. Don;t be so foolish as to think that a DemoncRATick (evil, blood sucking, vermin) senate might approve such one day in the future. If, that is, they haven't used $7 a gallon gas to nudge us there first.

Correct! What is the meaning of infringed, Steve? Means "to encroach." Encroach means "to go beyond what is original, proper & customary; to make inroads." What part of originally there were no gun laws, don't you understand? What part of it is proper for every free man be armed for their own defense, don't you understand? What part of "to hinder" don't you understand, as it, too, is a meaning of infringed. You are either a dunce, deliberately pot stoking, or a leftist disguising as a gun owner. If you believe that others may be infringed, that is also tyrannical on your part. It is your belief, but it is not the constitution to which you are adhering.

NRA was absent for a long time until NRA members started pushing them to get involved, during the Pataki administration when they did absolutely nothing to fight the Pataki 5 point law. Of course, they understood that Pataki was "W"s guy, so they had to tread lightly after their misstep in saying that they had a room in the "West Wing" specifically for them. Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! They have been more active in NYS of late. Maybe it's because some of us in SCOPE have proven we're not complete idiots, and have been doing the research necessary for them to actually make some headway in regards 2A restoration. However, the bickering between SCOPE & NYSR&P has to stop. I know what NYSR&P's game is. It is to get shall issue in NY. However, as I've written in SCOPE "Firing Lines," "permits for rights are unconstitutional censorships or prior restraints." As such, the Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (from Staub v. Baxley) notes that, "anyone faced with such a licensing law need not" ask for permission, and may "engage with impunity in the right for which the law requires a license." I have made it plain to NRA's Wayne LaPierre, and SAF's Alan Gottlieb, that such a ruling exists. They said I was naive in believing that it could be done without first having a SCOTUS decision that said the right was "individual." In fact, it is not one ruling, for as Shuttlesworth (from Staub) also states, there are a multitude of rulings saying such. I asked them years ago to help me with a suit to challenge, all the way to the SCOTUS, the permit system. However, for some reason, and I can only assume it is because they want to seem "reasonable" on the gun issue, they have determined that the best course was to accept the "infringement" on the right to keep & bear. I also wrote for the SCOPE "Firing Lines" in 2007, "The Meaning of Infringed." Basically, where "Congress shall make no law, the infringe goes even further. Tho's congress can ban certain types of speech based on 'public safety' needs, "infringe" goes even further. One of its main meanings is "to encroach." To encroach means "to go beyond what is 'original', proper & customary; to make inroads. As you may see, just this one meaning shows that not only may no law be made infringing, but also, that the original amendment is the only law needed for any U.S. citizen, regardless of state, to keep and bear arms, anywhere within the jurisdiction of the U.S., and any of its territories, etc. That NRA is comfortable with some infringement, whether for a short period of time, or not, shows that they are not in keeping with their bylaws. Article 1, Sec. 2, I believe, without looking it up. There is a huge influence within NRA of Law Enforcement. Not all LE is of a belief in 2A as written. However, many people are of the similar belief that NRA is milking the infringements for all they are worth knowing that if they did get total 2A as it was, and is supposed to be, their mission would be curtailed vastly, and their income would go down drastically. Whether that is true, or not, consider that, like all other gov't positions, the key is not to cut your job, but to grow the gov't so your job is more secure. People aren't ignorant, and our 2A people are more knowledgeable than most in this country. Better, their agenda isn't to destroy the foundation, or to "fundamentally transform" it (As Bary Hussein, and his leftists cronies wish to do), but to make it more secure & solid. That is the end SCOPE works toward, as should all pro-2A organizations. In regards the discussion about Ken Mathison's trying to get shall issue by renewable permits, this was a discussion between himself, and Tom King, according to him, as related. The purpose was to get 'shall issue' as a compromise for 'renewability.' However, SCOPE feels, and has felt since I've been involved that any compromise with evil is still a capitulation. So, what Ken proposed to the board was roundly shot down on several occasions, even tho' Ken kept pressing it. It is understandable that someone in their position (Presidents King & Mathison) would like to do something, the thing is you must do "the right thing." The board understands that, and will not be for any such proposition that further erodes our constitutional right. That is the reason that Stephen Aldstadt said that we intend to regain the ground lost prior, at this years Sportsman's Day in Albany. We do truly mean that. It is our intention, and we would hope that NYSR&P aid us in that endeavor rather than act like they are the only pro-2A organization in NYS. Further, they cannot act like what they say goes. As a life member of both organizations as well as a life member of NRA, and GOA, it is imperative that we maintain a unified belief that 2A "shall not be infringed." If one organization doesn't believe that, then we do have a serious problem. Our job is to work toward repeal of infringements already allowed, not presenting further infringements which may be used against us in the future. As a for instance to this, When one proposes "shall issue" for "renewability," always the enemy of freedom hears "renewable," but they are deaf when it comes to "shall issue." So, when NRA, NYSR&P, SCOPE, or whoever would propose such a thing, the enemies of freedom, the anti-gunners, etc., are willing to jump on the bandwagon to get what they want, but seldom willing to go for the compromise. We have already capitulated a great deal of our rights here in NYS. It is time, as SCOPE President Stephen Aldstadt said, to reclaim our right, not allow further infringement. Anyone who would be for such doesn't deserve to be representing anyone in the pro-2A movement. If NYSR&P can't show a modicum of adult behavior in working together for the common cause, then we shall surely lose it all. After all, our enemy understands, and uses deftly, "divide & conquer."