paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,169
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #41
Yeah, your position on this is becoming very murky. Do you agree with this Democrat or not?
Another Democrat Who Gets It. Ice-T: "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"...
- Thread starter paulitician
- Start date
Yeah, your position on this is becoming very murky. Do you agree with this Democrat or not?
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,733
- 1,830
Uh huh, most Democrats don't support Gun-Bans. They support 'Gun-Control.' Yeah, don't even bother. Just let them enjoy their delusions. It's just willful ignorance on their part. Whatever floats their boats i guess. It is just a Message Board. Waddayagonnado?
I wouldnt be able to enjoy my delusions if you provided one shread of evidence to back up your statements. See, I ask for proof, you agrue why you dont need too, then blame me for not understanding the evidence...that you didnt provide.
I've seen gymnasts that couldnt pull off that one
paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,169
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #43
Uh huh, most Democrats don't support Gun-Bans. They support 'Gun-Control.' Yeah, don't even bother. Just let them enjoy their delusions. It's just willful ignorance on their part. Whatever floats their boats i guess. It is just a Message Board. Waddayagonnado?
I wouldnt be able to enjoy my delusions if you provided one shread of evidence to back up your statements. See, I ask for proof, you agrue why you dont need too, then blame me for not understanding the evidence...that you didnt provide.
I've seen gymnasts that couldnt pull off that one
Look, we already said we agreed with you. Most Democrats don't support Gun-Bans. They support 'Gun-Control.' So we're moving on. But you still haven't made your position on Gun-Bans clear. Do you agree with this Democrat on Gun-Bans or not?
NRA Fights for Second Amendment as U.N. Moves Forward on Arms Trade Treaty
Posted on July 13, 2012
As the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty entered its second week of negotiations, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the conference and made the position of the NRA and American gun owners crystal clear: No treaty that includes civilian arms is acceptable.
Here is the text of the speech:
Mr. President, thank you for this brief opportunity to address this conference. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 21 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.
The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world, with four million members who represent 100 million law-abiding Americans who own firearms.
On behalf of those 100 million American gun owners, I am here to announce NRA's strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens' right to self-defense.
No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteedto us.
We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based.
For six years, the NRA has closely monitored this effort for an Arms Trade Treaty.
We have watched with increasing concern and, one year ago, I delivered to the Preparatory Committee our objections to including civilian arms in the ATT. I said then … and I will repeat now … that the only way to address NRA's objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty.
That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom. Period.
Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment so Americans would never have to live in tyranny.
For any foreign entity to attempt to encroach on that great freedom is offensive to every American who has ever breathed our free air, or who has ever used a firearm to fend off an evil attacker – whether a criminal breaking into their home, or in defense of their family against a tyrant halfway around the world.
Our Second Amendment is freedom's most valuable, most cherished, most irreplaceable idea. History proves it. When you ignore the right of good people to own firearms to protect their freedom, you become the enablers of future tyrants whose regimes will destroy millions and millions of defenseless lives.
Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms.
NRA-ILA | NRA Fights for Second Amendment as U.N. Moves Forward on Arms Trade Treaty
Posted on July 13, 2012
As the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty entered its second week of negotiations, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the conference and made the position of the NRA and American gun owners crystal clear: No treaty that includes civilian arms is acceptable.
Here is the text of the speech:
Mr. President, thank you for this brief opportunity to address this conference. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 21 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.
The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world, with four million members who represent 100 million law-abiding Americans who own firearms.
On behalf of those 100 million American gun owners, I am here to announce NRA's strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens' right to self-defense.
No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteedto us.
We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based.
For six years, the NRA has closely monitored this effort for an Arms Trade Treaty.
We have watched with increasing concern and, one year ago, I delivered to the Preparatory Committee our objections to including civilian arms in the ATT. I said then … and I will repeat now … that the only way to address NRA's objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty.
That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom. Period.
Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment so Americans would never have to live in tyranny.
For any foreign entity to attempt to encroach on that great freedom is offensive to every American who has ever breathed our free air, or who has ever used a firearm to fend off an evil attacker – whether a criminal breaking into their home, or in defense of their family against a tyrant halfway around the world.
Our Second Amendment is freedom's most valuable, most cherished, most irreplaceable idea. History proves it. When you ignore the right of good people to own firearms to protect their freedom, you become the enablers of future tyrants whose regimes will destroy millions and millions of defenseless lives.
Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms.
NRA-ILA | NRA Fights for Second Amendment as U.N. Moves Forward on Arms Trade Treaty
ItsjustmeIthink
Social Capitalist
I think my fav part of that article is when Ice-T says its easier to kill someone by straping on explosive than killing someone with a gun. That must be why so many people die in the US each year due to explosives instead of handguns lol.
paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,169
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #47
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,733
- 1,830
Uh huh, most Democrats don't support Gun-Bans. They support 'Gun-Control.' Yeah, don't even bother. Just let them enjoy their delusions. It's just willful ignorance on their part. Whatever floats their boats i guess. It is just a Message Board. Waddayagonnado?
I wouldnt be able to enjoy my delusions if you provided one shread of evidence to back up your statements. See, I ask for proof, you agrue why you dont need too, then blame me for not understanding the evidence...that you didnt provide.
I've seen gymnasts that couldnt pull off that one
Look, we already said we agreed with you. Most Democrats don't support Gun-Bans. They support 'Gun-Control.' So we're moving on. But you still haven't made your position on Gun-Bans clear. Do you agree with this Democrat on Gun-Bans or not?
Yeah, I agree with him. Thought I was going the other way huh? Now, I'll sing Cop Killer...a song I also support BTW
he Right To Keep And Bear Arms
The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The right to arms derives from the right of self-defense, and therefore is an individual right. Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.” Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed.” Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” Thomas Paine said, “[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe.”
James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, said its amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson said the amendments “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe said the Second Amendment protected the people’s “right to keep and bear their private arms.”
The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” and that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms, without regard to a person’s relationship to a militia, including “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Dissmissing the idea tht only 18th century muskets are protected, the Court said “the Second Amendment extends , prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” The Court previously recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).
Constitutional scholar Stephen P. Halbrook has found no historical evidence that the amendment was intended to protect a “collective right” of states to arm militias, or a “sophisticated collective right” to use arms only when serving in a militia. Richard Henry Lee said the militia are “the people themselves.” George Mason said the “the whole people” are the militia. In U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court described the militia as “civilians, primarily, soldiers on occasion . . . a body of citizens. . . . bearing arms supplied by themselves.”
The National Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990). When federalized, it is not part of the militia. At other times, it is the “organized militia. ”At all times, the “unorganized militia” consists of other able-bodied males of age and certain other citizens.
NRA-ILA | NRA-ILA Firearms Fact Card 2012
The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The right to arms derives from the right of self-defense, and therefore is an individual right. Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.” Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed.” Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” Thomas Paine said, “[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe.”
James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, said its amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson said the amendments “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe said the Second Amendment protected the people’s “right to keep and bear their private arms.”
The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” and that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms, without regard to a person’s relationship to a militia, including “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Dissmissing the idea tht only 18th century muskets are protected, the Court said “the Second Amendment extends , prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” The Court previously recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).
Constitutional scholar Stephen P. Halbrook has found no historical evidence that the amendment was intended to protect a “collective right” of states to arm militias, or a “sophisticated collective right” to use arms only when serving in a militia. Richard Henry Lee said the militia are “the people themselves.” George Mason said the “the whole people” are the militia. In U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court described the militia as “civilians, primarily, soldiers on occasion . . . a body of citizens. . . . bearing arms supplied by themselves.”
The National Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990). When federalized, it is not part of the militia. At other times, it is the “organized militia. ”At all times, the “unorganized militia” consists of other able-bodied males of age and certain other citizens.
NRA-ILA | NRA-ILA Firearms Fact Card 2012
paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,169
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #51
Yeah, I agree with him. Thought I was going the other way huh? Now, I'll sing Cop Killer...a song I also support BTW
Glad we could agree on something.
ItsjustmeIthink
Social Capitalist
I was reading your link.
This part caught my eye:
Is "the imposition of gun registration and owner licensing and vast new record keeping and tracking requirements. " necessarily a bad thing?
gallantwarrior
Gold Member
Hardly! Nice try at deflection, though. Why not use the search function for a Rezko thread? Maybe someone there will care. It's really ridiculous that one would equate Rezko with killing cops! Have you no shame?
Maybe you could ask yourself about what laws are already in effect? Ask yourself how many Gun Incidents, are already outside of the Law?
Centralized Control, has traditionally been viewed as the first step towards confiscation. Many lame attempts in the past to dress it up as something else. As a Non Gun Owning Member of the NRA, living in NYC, I can tell you that from personal experience, draconian gun legislation, by design, discourages against gun ownership.
ItsjustmeIthink
Social Capitalist
Would you care to explain?
I could see it being a terrible thing if America were to start to 'round up everyone's guns. But THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. If you happen to think that way, please try to have a little more faith in America.
I
Last edited:
paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,169
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #57
Yes, they're whittling away at the right to bear arms. Banning by way of attrition. NY especially, has mastered that art. It's an incredibly difficult process to legally owning a firearm in NY. And this is done intentionally to discourage Citizens from even attempting to. It's a very disturbing tactic.
Put on your thinking cap, slow-wit.....
Your pronouncement was that the thread was bogus because of something said....
...I upped the ante by showing a case of something actually done...i.e., Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) had an intimate relationship with a felon.
Think Obama was in Rezko's pocket....or perhaps he helped Obama buy a home out of the goodness of his heart? Ya' think?
Here, let me help you answer: "Yeah....that's the ticket!!!!"
Last edited:
There are practices you don't want to encourage.
Inside the City, yes. State is better.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
There Was a Heavy Police Presence for a Reported Shooting Near a Top Government Official in DC- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 1
-
Far-left Democrat Analilia Mejia wins NJ special election to replace Mikie Sherrill in Congress
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 4
-
Remember lying Islamic Republic trying the "Lebanon" excuse? What now?- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 6
-
GOP Rep. Luna accuses Sen. Ruben Gallego (D) of misconduct (Sexual)- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 16
