Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Klempel {Admin} on September 5, 2012 at 5:03pm

Dittos Columbia Whatever way it goes We MUST REMAINN VIGILANT!!! We all have overslept TOO LONG!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phillip P. Foreman on September 5, 2012 at 5:14pm

Amen to that. This will make you wet: http://www.cabelas.com/air-rifles-benjamin-rogue-357-epcp-air-rifle... I'm seeing an awful lot of this kind of thing with availability and variety increasing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chancy Yardbird on September 5, 2012 at 5:54pm

I don't wish to argue either and see PARTICIPANTS in the party writing their platform as the tradition, rules, and grass roots efforts provided.

Of course others who didn't participate or did in other ways are free to see or hear what they want.

Columbia, since you don't say which remarks that Romney made following the Co. shooting, I can only assume you meant the one about Holmes obtaining illegal weapons. If it is, are you familiar with what explosives was had and used, and the way Romney said it from London?

"This person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them," Romney told NBC News in an interview. "And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chancy Yardbird on September 5, 2012 at 8:52pm

I was not intending to put you or anyone on the spot. Just wanting to keep it clear that the Republican Party Platform can stand on its own and Mr. Romney can and should be held to his word without confusion.

I'm now inclinded to think you meant the statement That Romney made in this video.

“I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment, and I also believe that with emotions so high right now, this is really not the time to talk about the politics associated with what happened in Aurora,” Mitt Romney said in an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow. “This is really a time, I think, for people to reach out to others in their community that need help or a comforting hand. Let’s do that for now and then we can get on to policy down the road.”

“I still believe that the Second Amendment is the right course to preserve and defend and don’t believe that new laws are going to make a difference in this type of tragedy,” Romney said.

“Our challenge is not the laws. The challenge is the people who are distracted from reality and do unthinkable, unimaginable, inexplicable things,” he said.

http://gillreport.com/2012/07/romney-on-co-shooting-new-gun-laws-wo...

Thanks for your info and dialog, Columbia.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by WarChestNC on September 9, 2012 at 2:50pm

Sounds like you have already convicted this young man without the constitutional right of a trial before his pears. Are you sure that he acted alone in this. The only people handing out explosives and teargas are the officials involved in fast and furious.

So how do you really know?

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/09/aurora_theater_shootin...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Janice on September 14, 2012 at 5:20pm

I have to agree with you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Sowle on September 6, 2012 at 3:24am

I'm a lifelong resident of MA and as I've said before while Romney was our Governor he was not as anti firearm ownership as some suggest. As someone with a CCW I was able to purchase any firearm I wished without restriction, with the exception of "assault rifle's" which were banned not by Romney but by the Feds. Now we have a Dem.in office, Duval Patrick, there are multiple restrictions that have been put in place. The MA Office of Public Safety has a list of approved firearms which includes most modern firearms, yet try to by a Glock in MA just as an example. Glocks are on the approved list, yet the Attorney General has a non published list that makes it immpossible to buy a new Glock and a number of other firearms on the approved list. Private sales are now restricted to a certain number per year, the licence fee has been increased, and it just goes on and on. According to Gov.Patrick it's even illegal to form a militia unit in this state. Things here have gone down dramaticly since Romney was here. Yet I will say we should ALWAYS remain vigilant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Quisno-Son of the Republic on September 10, 2012 at 11:27pm

In Tennessee there is section 1 11 which states that if you dont own a gun you can be charged an amount for others having to service your rights to own one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron OKDF (Admin) on September 9, 2012 at 12:51pm

Honestly, any law that prevents me from protecting my life is a violation of the said Constitution. Right belongs to the people not the goverment in any fashion to regulate my right of self protection. They only have they right to regulate the militia in times of war. Not we the people.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob McDermott on September 15, 2012 at 1:14pm

Well sorta. the concept of banning felons from weapons was proposed and rejected before and during the debates over the 2nd amendment. By creating a class of people who do not have that right you are making it a privilege, one that can be trivially taken merely by criminalizing everyone with no other punishment. If they can pass any law they can surely do something similar to obamacare and place a mandate on everyone to do something with a punishment of only losing gun rights.

Remember "law abiding" does not mean felony, it does not even mean violent. A non-violent offender (say an infraction like a speeding ticket - its still a law) is grouped into this, both in the wording of the existing statutes as well as in the mindset of many.

If someone is so dangerous they cant have guns (but can have knives, sticks, rocks, cars, etc) they should be monitored. Supervision is a modified form of incarceration. It should be "freemen", those that are not currently paying a "debt to society" (something else I disagree with and something that did not exist at the time the constitution was written). You clearly do not have 4th amendment rights while in jail, nor do you have the right to assemble as you see fit, etc. Certainly you are not allowed weapons while incarcerated, so it would hold with that ideal much more.

The phrase "bear arms" goes back to the 1500s, then it meant defense of the realm. By the 1700s it included self defense. Even if my interpretation of the 2nd was what was used (and clearly is what was intended at the time) offensive use of weapons (not just guns all "arms") would still be illegal.

Supporting 2 classes of citizens, those with a right to self defense and those who do not have it just plays into the disarmment mentality and pushes the 2nd amendment to a privilege not a right. It makes it easier for them to expand the scope and include more people.

Did you know that 18 USC 922(g) bans people who have had civil commitments, even if they never were insane? Look at Brandon Raub, the marine who had a civil commitment over facebook posts. The law says that because he was committed, even though released shortly after, he is banned from having firearms. Not because he was inasne but because the government said so.

If they are dangerous to others they should be monitored, if they are no longer monitored they should not have some rights gone for life.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chancy Yardbird on September 15, 2012 at 2:58pm

Most states by their laws and constitutions do have a process where some felons can seek and have their rights restored and or records purged to some extent. This is done exactly for the reasons you mention and most Americans accept a dept to society when paid in full exept for the worst of crimes and the worst of low lifes. Law abiding citizens who bear arms for the common defense don't go around breaking and abusing every law and fellow citizen they can get away with. So, yeah, I'd say some outlaws are of a class who has proven that they can't and shouldn't be trusted like the vast majority can.

• ▶ Reply