Posted on 09/09/2004 6:53:28 AM PDT by from occupied ga
Usually we're talking about DEA thugs and other assorted narcs that enforce the Insane War on (some) Drugs when those terms of endearment are mentioned.
At least some progress has been made in ending that other 'Insane War' that the federal government wages against Americans: the Insane War on (some) Guns.
"Does this mean you are in aother line of work or that you are no longer pro 2A?"
Yea, that was somewhat vague. New line of work, still keeping my powder dry, and encourage others to do the same.
forget metal - springfield XD 9. Excellent piece at a great price. Voted handgun of the year in 2003 (or 2002, I forget which).
Friend of mine did the same thing - didn't like what he saw and what was happening left police work after about 10 years. He testified against some fellow officers who beat a jail inmate and was told that his career was over and he should be especially careful too. So he got out.
Good, but how about the vermont/Alaska carry. No permit needed.
goodnews bump
One bright note - the Alaska no permit carry was just passed this year (over the opposition of the usual suspects: police chiefs, female urban Democrats, and professional cryers for hire)
I'm right behind ya dog. My Glock 20C and M1A have been beggin' me for some hi-cap mags. They're tired of being on a diet.
Whoo-Hoo!!!
Is it time to start the post AWB shopping threads yet?
/jasper
I am a retired Illinois State police officer. I don't pretend to speak for all coppers, but this is how I feel about it and most of the police that I spoke with on this issue agree with me.
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
Although the AWB is set to expire, with very little or no chance of being revived; I think I'll hold off on the official "Post AWB Shopping List" thread until it actually sunsets. Don't want to jinx it.
What Glock(s) do you own?
I bought a Glock 17-with pre-ban hi-cap magazines-when they first came out. I have shot 10's of thousands of rounds through it with no problems whatsoever. I replaced the spring and rod a few times (precautionary) and it just keeps on truckin'. Hopefully I'll get the same service from my Glock 20C & Glock 29. Now if Glock will come out with a 'longslide' pistol in 10mm, I'll be one happy camper
/jasper
/jasper
The usual way where the bedwetters and statists are always looking for more ways to restrict freedom. GC '34 put a $200 tax on full auto. No one objected too much, because full auto was still available, just expensive. GC '68 was the most onerous, getting rid of mail order sales, requiring that gun purchasers fill out a form declaring that they were not a felon, etc. and defining anything (except shotguns) over .50 cal as a "destructive device" The NRA fully collaborated on this one with the statement that this is a gun law we can live with
Then came the flurry of recent attacks on our fundamental rights: "Brady" (may that lying whore rot in hell forever) law that was the final nail in the coffin where the right was turned into a privilege. '86 cut off the sale of newly manufactured full auto, and then King George I's EO banning import of semiautos.
It is all incrementalism. Friend of mine asked Brady where she would draw the line. In an unprecedented moment of candor she answered - "We want them all." The problem is that ours is the only side that suffers adverse consequences. Gun control law doesn't pass? Does that harm the gun grabbers? Of course not. They haven't lost anything. They just try again. They always go on about how lawless gun owners are (the guns cause crime lie), but they know we're law abiding or they'd be dead. Arrgh. I've rattled on enough. Have a great day.
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.