Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
would John Kerry as president want to take away all of our guns and would we to allow this to happen? Has anyone looked at the NRA website lately and realized that as an elected president John Kerry may make America as bad off on gun ownership as Australia is.

http://www.nra.org/ NRA 's homepage.

John Kerry's hidden agenda by Wayne Lapierre. http://www.nrapvf.org/news/article.aspx?ID=136

Would Americans stand up, have some backbone and just say "NO" to these abuses of power. Would he imprison 20 to 60 million Americans if we just said no we're not going to obey your new laws that are unconstitutional. It takes a lot of strength and courage to stand up for your constitutional right's and most people don't have it. Well, we better get that courage and get it fast or we could lose our freedoms with the rest of the weak willed and those with weak minds that this man appears to bend and shape with a mere wim.

Would he use liberal judges that leglislate from the bench bypassing the American Constitution and the bill of rights. Would he abuse executive privilege to go around Congress and the Senate leglislating from the oval office Like Bill Clinton and jimmy carter did. What would fellow Ambackforum members do. Are we going to lose our gun rights like so many people in other states and cities across America have allowed to let happen. Are we going to let complacency, treachery, propaganda and tryanny destroy America or are we going to do something about it. Some naive people say that the president cannot change gun laws without going through congress and the Senate. I guess that they have never heard of executive privilege before. Am I avocating violence of any type? no, but in communist China, North Korea or cuba these words alone would be considered a felony or treason and could bring prison or even death. In America we would consider these people to be dessenters or freedom fighters. Would Kerry duplicate in the oval office what he has done in the Senate for twenty years. Checks and balances? Bill Clinton made that phrase and constitutional legal practice into a joke. why is it that many people never believe that it could happen in America. By all accounts John Kerry should have only about 5% of the American public interested in him. The reason for this is that only about 5% of Americans are considered to be as far to the left as our distinguished senator from Massachusetts. How can almost half of America have the interest level that they have in this man? DECEPTION. I have never seen a man that has the power of deception like John kerry does. This man can make an outrageous lie and make people believe it wholeheartedly. Most democrats consider themselfs to be moderates not liberals and if they knew the truth about this man they wouldn't even consider him as a presidential candidate for for one second. Would a president Kerry consider most of us on this site to be criminals, felons or terrorist. I believe that he would. The NRA would be branded as an illegal terrorist organization. Wayne Lapierre has already stated that John Kerry is attempting to paint the NRA as a hate group.
On the other hand we would consider ourself's to be patriots, freedom fighters and constitutionalist. Americans trying to regain our spiritual and democratic freedoms through many different means. Maybe we've lost the right to have freedom and we will have to somehow find our way back to it again. Democracy is an unnatural event in this world that we live in, and our founding fathers always warned us to be on the lookout for those who would try to infringe upon our freedoms. I firmly believe that Senator John F. Kerry is the most dangerous man to our democracy that's ever run for president of this nation. Some gun right's activist believe that John Kerry by a single stroke of the pen (EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE) could quickly destroy all of the laws in every state that currently allow CCW. Remember that federal law supersedes all state law.

A must read by ambackforum members. Wayne Lapierre's article on John Kerry's Hidden anti gun agenda
http://www.nrapvf.org/news/article.aspx?ID=136
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, hold on a second, I'm thinking.

Wait, I think I left something on the stove.

Oh, that's just me. :D :?

Is this multiple choice, essay or Jeopardy style? :?

I've got it!!! I've got it!!!

I'LL MOVE TO FRANCE!!!

That way I won't feel like I'm missing anything. :D :dunno: :duh:

:flush:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
I see no point in getting all worked up over a ..... what if?

I'm certainly not going to make some public expression of an attitude that could be interpreted as "advocating the forceful overthrow of the U.S. government," which is a BIG TIME FELONY!

The fact is that over the past several years (even during the Clinton administration) individual states have been moving slowly but surely toward expansion of individual rights to keep and bear arms, as evidenced by the steady growth of "shall issue" concealed weapons laws.

As a holder of a Florida CCW license, taking into account reciprocity agreements, I can carry a concealed weapon in 28 states. This was undreamed of 10 years ago!

When driving, which is the way I usually vacation, I can go virtually anywhere in the country with a firearm; carrying concealed where my license permits and carrying "encased and unloaded" under federal law through unfriendly jurisdictions while enroute to another location where I can carry concealed legally.

The places where I can't carry concealed legally are generally clumped together. They include the west coast states plus Nevada; six midwestern or great plains states; most of New England of course, and strangely South Carolina and West Virginia. It also includes Hawaii, Puerto and the U.S. Virgin Islands - places which I couldn't drive to anyway.

Those places simply do not receive the benefit of my vacation and recreation dollars.

At the same time, there are people in those states who labor on in the struggle to pass right to carry laws and reciprocity agreements.

In the Congress of the United States there are many gun-friendly legislators. We need to elect many more and vote out of office those who we know are anti-gun. It is the legislature, not the President, who has the power to outlaw guns.

The U.S. Congress recently showed strong pro-gun sentiment by passing Public Law 108-277, which permits qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms outside their own jurisdiction. This law faced strong opposition and took ten years to pass. Most police administrators opposed it. Rank and file police officers supported it. The congressmen listened to the officers, who incidentally were voters.

And finally, harking back to the passage of "shall issue" concealed weapon permits in the various states. This has primarily been the result of a concentrated effort by the National Rifle Association. Here in Florida the lobbyist credited with finally getting the law passed was Marion Hammer, who was later elected President of the NRA. I believe she is back in Florida, again lobbying on behalf of gun owners.

I am hard pressed to understand why anyone who is pro-gun is not a member of the NRA and a contributor to the NRA Legislative Action Committee. Political activists generally acknowledge that the opposition of the NRA to an Al Gore presidency was a major factor in Gore's loss. Congressmen acknowledge that the NRA is probably the most powerful lobbyist in Washington.

There may be, and certainly there has been, infighting within the NRA, but there is no more powerful force for gun owners on Capitol Hill than the NRA!

And right here let me throw in a special thanks to Charlton Heston for his able leadership in the past as President of the NRA. As he said, while holding his rifle on high, "......from my cold dead hand!"


OldStar
Endowment Life Member - National Rifle Association
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,812 Posts
Old Star: actually, since you are retired LE, you can get permitted to carry in all 50 states. The Law Enforcement Safety Act (I think it's called) makes it possible for all current and (qualified) LEOs to go armed anywhere in the US.

I am not a big fan of this legislation but not because I'm anti-cop. I don't believe it advances the 2nd Amendment. If it did, I doubt all those anti-gun nuts would have signed on to it. I hope to be proven wrong, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
The law you refer to is The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2004. I discussed it in my post.
The U.S. Congress recently showed strong pro-gun sentiment by passing Public Law 108-277, which permits qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms outside their own jurisdiction.
You may not feel that the law advances the second amendment, but remember that as originally written it was intended to. In the original bill there was a provision that required all states to recognize the CCW licenses of other states just as they have to recognize the driver's licenses of other states. Unfortunately, with this provision in the bill it was impossible to pass. That doesn't mean that there won't be more efforts in the future.

Opponents to this law unsuccessfully argued that one state should not be required to recognize the law enforcement officers firearms training standards of another state. To me this lays the groundwork for another attempt to compel all states to recognize the CCW license standards of other states.

The reason that so many anti-gun legislators signed on to the law was VOTES. As I said, rank and file police officers got this law passed. The legislators recognized that there were a lot of votes out there. They saw Al Gore lose, in part because of an anti-gun stance.

Interestingly, the NRA did not overtly assist the police in this legislative effort. It just shows what a true grass-roots effort can do.

One other interesting thing about this law. It does not make it possible to "get permitted" as you say. What is required is that I carry my retiree photo ID and a certification that I have qualified with my firearm, meeting the standard for active police officers in the state where I reside, in the preceeding 12 month period. There is no separate "permit" to be issued or carried. No government agency has an option to deny me a "permit." All I have to do is comply with these rules.

:cheerschug: :cheers: :hypercolor: :wine: :fineprint: :sm_angel:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
Is anyone here familiar with the incident that happened at City Hall in New York City about two years or so ago, when a politician was shot to death by a man who accompanied him inside, a political associate who because of his association with the politician, was allowed to pass around instead of through the metal detector?

Subsequently, not only were many non-uniformed police officers denied permission to carry inside City Hall, but it seems that it had an effect on "carry permits" statewide, but especially in New York City. There was a newspaper article published in the months following that outlined people who were allowed to carry in the city, and people whose old permits had expired and who could not obtain new permits to carry in the city, including one ex-police commissioner!!!

I thought that was preposterous. How can you deny carry permits to retired police officers just because some schmoozing gets out of hand and results in what happened at City Hall? It's pretty silly overall politically, what goes in New York City. The article also published the names of a few prominent people who could no longer carry in the city.

As far as I'm concerned, we reached the point in the 80's where everyone should just walk around openly strapped down, like in the Old West. I really don't see how the murder rate would go up much, if everyone knew that everyone else was carrying. I was calling for tanks and jeeps in the streets of our cities and troops patrolling every area of America because of the crime wave back then. I still think it's a good idea.

How many guys would be slapping their wives around if they knew that a next door neighbor merely had to lean out the window and call to the Army guys in the jeep on the corner, hey, there's some guy beating his wife next door? How much street crime would we have if every neighborhood had its own tank, with jeeps and soldiers, in addition to regular cops going around all the time? Not to knock on anyone's door, beat them up and take their Bibles or their televisions, not to extort money from shopkeepers, just to be there, not to engage in some sort of government-based politically oppressive activities, but to be peacekeepers, to be there when people living in fear of criminally violent acts needed them.

Of course, that would mean having a military personnel base of around 15-20 million, or about one out of every 15-20 citizens, but if you look at all our enemies, they have a much higher per capita rate of military personnel to regular citizens in their countries. If we can't build the military up to that level of personnel, then let's just all strap on gun belts or whatever we can conveniently carry throughout our work day, or when we go shopping, and all go outside armed. Personally, I choose a .30 cal machine gun with a 1,000 round belt to go along with five or ten regular sized clips.

I'm not kidding either.

Hey guys, I know I'm a dumb blond, and I really got off track here, but that's the whole is it chicken or fish thingy that's naturally inherent in my genes. Regarding the original subject, what about my story about the incident in the mayor's office and the tight restrictions on carry permits in NYC? Am I right in remembering what I read? Can they legally hassle some guy like Old Star who visits NYC and then somehow is discovered packing concealed heat?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Hi guys:

I just woke up from my nap, er... ah.... I mean I just finished my doctor's ordered "resting my eyes" period from eye surgery that I had last week, and realized that there was a statement in wuzzagrunt's post that needed a tiny bit of clarification.
"(the new law) makes it possible for all current and (qualified) LEOs to go armed anywhere in the US.
That is technically correct to the extent that it includes all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

However, it does not include all locations in all states. For one thing it does not affect any federal laws. This would include laws about weapons on commercial aircraft.

In addition it does not limit State laws that "permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base or park.

So you see, it would still let the City of New York prohibit carrying a concealed weapon in City Hall, to use Bloofington's example. It could also mean that private entities, like Radio City Music Hall, could say "no out-of-town cops carrying firearms here."

All things considered, these are fairly reasonable limitations when you consider what a quantum leap forward it is for qualified active duty and retired officers to carry concealed weapons throughout the U.S. On the subject of "qualified," there are some specific requirements for being qualified. Anyone who is interested should review the entire law. It is only three pages long, and can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... 108j9Fv1i::

With regard to Bloofington's other statement
I was calling for tanks and jeeps in the streets of our cities and troops patrolling every area of America because of the crime wave back then. I still think it's a good idea.
Nope, I can't get on board with that one.

I've been in the military and I've been a cop. They are entirely different jobs. I could go on at great length, pointing out that the military has it's hands full overseas right now, the violent crime rate has been decreasing dramatically in the past several years, and making a number of other points, but this post is already too long.

As I said, when I finished resting my eyes I was a little concerned that someone with a brief background in law enforcement might mistakenly believe that he was "qualified" to carry under the new law and make a serious mistake. Those who think they might qualify should go to the web site listed above and read the law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
Yes, I know Old Star, many of my cop friends opposed the idea of militarizing our nation even during that horrible crime wave. Just know this. If you watch certain law enforcement oriented shows, like the one Bill Curtis does, you know that criminologists and sociologists have been predicting a new, ever more youth oriented crime wave during the early part of this century. Indeed, violent crime is slightly on the rise in New York City, and at least one precinct was caught in a statistic scandal last year, trying to reflect a drop when there had in fact been a rise in violent crime.

I just think that it's a pretty simple thing, whether you're a soldier or a cop, to know what to do when somebody leans out the window in a certain neighborhood and says, hey, somebody's getting jacked up in the hallway outside my apartment, or some guy's beating his wife next door. Cop or soldier, it seems to me like you go in and stop the violence, and begin questioning and processing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
URL dead

Old Star saith:
On the subject of "qualified," there are some specific requirements for being qualified. Anyone who is interested should review the entire law. It is only three pages long, and can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... 108j9Fv1i::
Unfortunately that was a temporary URL, and is now dead. Suggest search on thomas.loc.gov using standard citations for the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,812 Posts
Old Star: thanks for the clarification. You said what I meant to say. By "permitted" I was refering to the requirement for retirees to meet department quals. It is not carte blanche to strap-on a hog leg pistol and go out of state.

I think the restrictions on carrying on private property are actually a nod to the US Constitution. Something we rarely see from federal legislators, these days. For the US Congress to tell property owners that they can't establish rules for the use of their premises would likely cause the SCOTUS to void the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
If Kerry wins?

If Kerry wins ... this liberal, tree hugging, tax-and-spend Democratic Firearms Enthusiast (and there are damn few of us left) plans to cry a lot. :banghead:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
The upcomming elections and gun ownership

I don't know what to say to you about your predicament BigMike. I consider myself to be a constitutionalist. Someone who believes in the literal interpetation of the constitution. At the moment I'm a registered republican because I feel that the republican party currently adheres closer to my political belief's than the democratic party. At times people like myself will be viciously attacked by both parties because of strong feelings that we have on making our country adhere to our founding fathers belief's. The democratic party in my opinion has been hijacked by the far left wing fringe element that accounts for only about 5% of the democratic party. If you went back a few decades and could look at John Kennedy's politics you would probably consider him to be a stronger republican than George Bush. John Kennedy was a member of the NRA and owned a semi auto version of the M14 now called the M1A that is considered an assault rifle! Why has the democratic party turned so anti gun? because of about 11 party members that currently control it, and the other democrats that seemingly refuse to confront them so that they may regain proper representation for American democrats as a whole.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Old Star said:
I see no point in getting all worked up over a ..... what if?
"Worked up?" Howsa'bout "take into account" as in have a plan for such a possibility. That, sir, is called "tactical thinking" in many quarters.
Bloof said:
Is anyone here familiar with the incident that happened at City Hall in New York City about two years or so ago, when a politician was shot to death by a man who accompanied him inside…
No, but I saw the inevitable L&O episode.
If you watch certain law enforcement oriented shows, like the one Bill Curtis does, you know that criminologists and sociologists have been predicting a new, ever more youth oriented crime wave during the early part of this century.
Kurtis is a fatuous dick! And as anti-gun as they come!
Relay4 said:
I would invest heavily in the companies that produce cosmolene.
And a li'l over ten years ago it was large diameter PVC piping. (Which doubtless accounts for the run on shovels last month.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
DeanSpeir said:
Kurtis is a fatuous dick! And as anti-gun as they come!
And who also was the Chicago broadcast partner of that dweeb Walter Jacobson, whose Alan Keyes' interview video you provided not long ago.

Harvey
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
Okay fine, Bill Curtis may well be whatever you say he is, but Bill Curtis was not my point. And like I said, I don't even know if I heard that remark uttered on one of his shows or not. I said it was on one of those shows like his. The POINT is that we have created a culture in this country that provides an infatuation for young people with the idea of growing up to become criminals.

No longer are one's choices limited to doctor, baseball player, police officer, firefighter, lab technician, etc. Now a young girl can aspire to become a porn queen, knowing that she can become rich, famous, and loved by all of society, because so many people patronize the porn industry. She can also become well respected, with interested news organizations interviewing her about her career, and support from women's groups like NOW who used to abhor pornography, but who now see it as women's empowerment.

So it is with young men (and women), who know that if they grow up to mug people, steal cars, knock over liquor stores in the middle of the night, and eventually graduate to hit men, that they will not only earn money, but a great amount of respect among their peers in the community, a nationwide reputation among the extensions of those peers, fear among the general populace, and have their life styles celebrated in movies, "music" videos and pop culture in general.

It's become all too enticing and popular to explore the criminal life style in this country, and young people are becoming increasingly more enamored with the idea of either dabbling in the criminal life style, or embracing it wholeheartedly. This is why I said the things I did about just letting all law abiding citizens have guns once and for all. Bill Curtis, or whomever you happen to have a disdain for, was not the salient point of my rhetoric.

Hope that clears things up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
I stop short of full blast discussions of the totality of my personal beliefs, regarding hot button social topics and politics. Outside of the fact that I make no bones about my disdain for those who practice violent crime, and that I strongly favor those in various law enforcement professions, I generally steer clear of almost all discussions in forums such as this. During my three and a half years on "another web site" I learned all over again in life, that:

(i) one should not necessarily strive to become a "public figure", because of the weight of the unwanted responsibilities, such as intense personal scrutiny and unwarranted criticism;

(ii) if one strives to become a "public figure" or some semblance of it, you should never think that even in a supposedly "anonymous" forum that you will escape unwarranted criticism and it's direct and indirect effects on your own life.

And since I don't even discuss hot button social topics or politics with those I am closest to and have known the longest in this world, I must respectfully refuse to answer your question, Mr. West. I do so without any disrespect whatsoever, and without any disdain.

I do not take more than one step up on to the soap box anymore, as I finally reached a point in my life nearly three years ago, where I finally overcame the temptation and seemingly uncontrollable urge to have to open my mouth, even though I have always displayed excellent discipline, even with regards to my mouth. I have fully and freely given myself permission to shut my mouth in life once and for all, and have resolved not to feel so burdened about keeping it shut. Even this decision has not pleased many people who know me, but they also realize why they must accept it, and my life in certain very important ways continues to get better, partly as a result of my decision to shut the ____ up, and stay shut.

I will say this, that I do, and have admitted before, right here on this web site, to having a voracious appetite for porn many years ago, mostly in the early 80's. I have also fully and freely admitted that I realize I am a sinner in many ways, right up until this day.

Sometimes when a discussion turns to violent crime, or a subject raises questions that involve offshoot topics like violent crime or the possibility of a violent invasion, as I felt this topic might have, I will interject some comments. I also try hard to mention my support for police officers whenever the opportunity presents itself, because as a "child of the 60's", I bought into some of it for a while, but never the disdain for the police that still mars our nation's culture to this day. As for my beliefs about porn, or anything else, I strive to live according to them, but as for how anyone else lives, that's their business.

To say one thing about porn, we are living in an age when one's 11 year old daughter could have aspirations about becoming a porn queen. Mary Carey has been quoted as saying she idolized Jenna Jameson and always wanted to grow up to be like her. Carey, now 23, a mainstay in the porn business for the past three or four years, and former California boobinatorial candidate, has indeed grown up to be like her idol. If that is okay with father's of 11 or 15 year old daughters out there, so be it.

I believe that someday, someone who promised to return someday, will come and establish his throne as King For Eternity, and teach us what is true and proper for us all in every society, regardless of the color of your skin, or how your people dress, cook, etc. We will then no longer be subject to having to argue over issues or candidates, because that One who will come will be forever, and certain issues need never be discussed again, because His Government will be perfect, and unquestionable as to how it is administered.

So again, sorry for not getting into it, but I know when to keep my mouth shut, and as I near age 48, after three or so years since the reality of doing it hit home, I've become quite good at it. Nothing personal or disrespectful intended.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top