Posted on 02/22/2018 7:18:45 AM PST by Jim W N
So in the 90s Joe Biden pens law to ban guns from Schools followed shortly by rampage after rampage and now the left wants to create even more gun free zones????....God please have mercy on us!
1) I don’t care how many guns you have if you are not a nut job. You and yourins.
2) I don’t want to pay too much for ammo so the idiots that use bump stocks are driving my prices up. No ping on the first pull you hand it off in shame.
3) If your 18 or 17 or 16 or 15 year old kid expressed interest in military duty you wouldn’t buy them a damn fine long gun? If you don’t and don’t teach them safety HERE IS YOUR SIGN!
“2) I don’t want to pay too much for ammo so the idiots that use bump stocks are driving my prices up.”
The folks at the local gun range (surrounded by homes) only allow you to chamber one round at a time in your rifle due to safety reasons.
I go there to sight-in, but it isn’t much in the way of training with a semi-automatic weapon. However, if everyone in the country was forced to chamber one round at a time - it would probably save on ammo and bring the prices down.
And just think of the fewer casualties we would have in these mass shootings - you could take them down as they are chambering their next round. (That is of course an argument against they have used against semi-autos).
At first blush “bump stocks” seem to just circumvent the law. I saw them years ago and I thought “why in the heck are those things legal?”. But it is a slippery slope. Here in Washington state somebody tried (and failed) to pass a law on bump stocks and other modifications that would increase the rate of fire - and spelled out in it was having a gunsmith work on a trigger to make it smoother or lighter in pull!
I’ve seen photos of the women teachers with their line of kids out on the street (field trip?) with their long rifles (old M-16 styles in some cases). And of course there are often posted photos on FR of the Israeli female soldiers in civilian clothes (and bikini’s on the beach!) with their rifles hanging off their shoulders. I’m pretty sure the soldiers are required to have their firearm with them at all times, on and off duty.
2 video answer.
BTW it is a cockroach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64
Takes some practice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIXUgtNC4Kc
Was it a cockroach he was trying to hit from 6 feet away? (I’m guess he STILL missed it!). Sure sounds kewl though!
So why do you want the government to know? Why does the government want to know?
the idiots that use bump stocks are driving my prices up
Bullcrap.
wouldn’t buy them a damn fine long gun?
What I would or would not do for minor children is irrelevant to 18 year old adults buying their own damn guns.
Yeah, probably requires national reciprocity law passed. Good!
CCW holders are protected by the Constitution against federal interference or regulation. The feds simply have no authority to meddle in owning and carrying guns. A federal law “allowing” CCW implies that the “Gun Free Zone Act” is valid federal law. But it isn’t valid law. The Gun Free Zone Act is patently unconstitutional.
The Constitution gives the feds no authority to regulate owning and carrying guns and the Constitution is the ONLY valid and legal source of federal authority. The Constitution also goes one step further REMINDING the feds that they are prohibited from infringing on the PRE-EXISTING right to bear arms (Amendment II).
Owning and carrying guns is a states’ issue subject to the will of the people of the state.
Watch video 2.
It is a slam on “Lady” Gaga.
The problem is that if the federal government doesn’t step in to define this—and they have to a great extent—then states do so with the disaster of state-by-state laws. The judiciary is not inclined to fix, so the federal government should. Otherwise, you fight this one state at a time, risk and worry about what the law is as you travel around the U.S. Just as other areas, I see no reason for the federal government to set national interpretation and standard. What is the supreme court to do, say each state can infringe to the local choice, let the feds set reasonable national standard, or the court say do not infringe means all gets thrown out? it is a mess and I’d rather have Congress and the president show some leadership instead of leaving this to the state house in Sacramento, for example.
You can't be serious. State sovereignty and state laws are built into the whole structure of our Free Constitutional Republic. Our Free Constitutional Republic has been one of the few exception is the recorded history of freedom and well-being for the average citizen - certainly not a "disaster".
The issue of differing state laws that you're concerned with is moderated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in which one state's courts honor the judgments of courts in another.
it is a mess
Freedom and our Free Constitutional Republic can be slow and messy, but it's WAY ahead of whatever's in second place.
I started it and thought WTH? So I skipped through it, and figured you had linked to the wrong video. I guess I’ll have to watch it again with the knowledge on Lady Gaga.
And - as weird as her outfits are, I saw an interview awhile back with her. She is a very professional, hard working business woman. (That was even weirder than her outfits! Which by the way, she designs her own outfits - and her dancers’, and has her own in-house group that makes them all.)
No, our constitutional rights were never meant to be different when crossing a state line. That is a federal issue. Whether speech, guns, search, whatever, these rights are not subject to state laws. Well, shouldn’t be. The courts haven’t fixed this, so the other branches of government must step in a fix.
The Constitution doesn't give us any rights. It protects our presumed unalienable God-given rights by delegating to the feds certain limited powers that are expressly enumerated. Those delegated and enumerated powers are the feds ONLY legitimate powers. Regulating gun ownership isn't one of them.
Any power not enumerated belongs to the states and the people (Amendment IX & X). Outside those limited, expressed Constitutional powers and restrictions, the states are sovereign whether you like it or not (Id.).
That is the Supreme Law of the Land whether you like it or not. The only way to change it is by Constitutional Amendment. If you can do that, have at it. But I think you'd probably do better in a command and control regime like China or Russia.
Watch the whole thing. Seriously. It is Red Neck South African whites sticking it to all rappers and Lady Gaga. It is a hoot. It is rude crude and socially unacceptable. It is also funnier than hell since Gaga is portrayed in her meat dress. And the Lion. LOL. PM me if you need translation of the last words. I do speak the language.
By the way, from now on I am referring to semi-auto firearms, like a typical rifle before OR after a Bumpfire stock is installed, as a single-shot rifle, since one single trigger pull = one single shot. FULL autos would be multi-shot. Beat’em at their word games!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.