Out Of Stock

[CattyWampus]

Here's a web page (http://www.urbanertslings.com/twopihaform4.html) from a gun accessories seller. Be sure to read all of the "Product Description", all of it. It's long, but it's worthy of your time.

[CitizenBBN]

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

He nailed the important part: the 2nd amendment didn't say anything about hunting. It said "militia". Militias aren't formed to hunt. They're formed to fight armies.

Feinstein's goal is to eliminate all "assault weapons" from circulation within a generation. It won't stop mass murders, but it will put the People at a severe disadvantage in opposing the repression of the State.

FWIW It also puts us at a disadvantage defending ourselves and our property during riots or other unrest when it's clear the power of law enforcement has failed. Of course they see such people as vigilantes.

I won't lie. I find it sickening how we have lost the intention of the Founders regarding the 2nd Amendment but also the 9th and 10th. They were most concerned about putting in place a government as limited as possible. the Left loves government above all else, and wants it to have a free hand in all things. That's why I call them Euro socialists, and you can see in the writings of the Founders that this was the case even at that time, the US dedicated to individual liberty, Europe dedicated to the rule of government and it deciding what the people could and couldn't do as it so chooses.

that difference is the same today, except the Euros are winning this battle now, where those who wanted individual liberty won it in 1776.

[Darrell KSR]

that difference is the same today, except the Euros are winning this battle now, where those who wanted individual liberty won it in 1776.

Why is this the case? I admit, I don't understand much beyond my own little world these days.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

[CitizenBBN]

Why is this the case? I admit, I don't understand much beyond my own little world these days.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

I'll ponder that question, but my knee jerk first thought is we had to go to war to win that time. We'd have never won if we'd stayed within the existing British governmental structure. Maybe us rugged individualists are better fighters than the big government supporters (Loyalists at the time).

From what I hear out there, if Feinstein tries to forcibly tax, register and confiscate guns, she may find out if they are or not. Her move is driving the right even farther at every point on the spectrum. Extremists are going nuts but more mainstream folks are starting to become extreme and adopt the "cold dead hands" view. I see more than one Waco in our future if she has her way.

Personally I think she's going to overplay her hand, b/c even though she didn't ask for what she really wants, a complete confiscation, she's probably overestimated her position and by overreaching she may hurt her chances of getting very much. No way to know but some of what she's asking for like registration (with $200 per gun tax) and confiscation upon death will set off a lot of people who may have listened to a magazine ban.

[KeithKSR]

Personally I think she's going to overplay her hand, b/c even though she didn't ask for what she really wants, a complete confiscation, she's probably overestimated her position and by overreaching she may hurt her chances of getting very much. No way to know but some of what she's asking for like registration (with $200 per gun tax) and confiscation upon death will set off a lot of people who may have listened to a magazine ban.

I think she has definitely overestimated her position, I think Obama has done so as well. It just isn't on this issue, but many issues in which the "progressives" have overestimated their positions.

Outside the mainstream media there appears little movement by the nation toward an assault weapons ban. In fact a Gallup poll ) http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx ) shortly after the shooting indicated that the majority of Americans see other ways to combat the shootings other than banning firearms.

Those on the left viewed November's election to be some sort of mandate that I simply do not see. The extremist on the left see themselves differently than the rest of the country views them. Winning through promised free stuff, fraud and coercion doesn't garner a lot of core support on real issues.