We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment

[Crafty_Dog]

http://10news.dk/?p=760

[ccp]

O'Reilly caves.  So instead of simply keeping those on TERROR watch lists from purchasing weapons because we may OFFEND THEM the Left"s and now OReilly's answer is to restrict EVERONE ELSE'S rights!  I am sick of the BS:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-oreilly-takes-stunning-stance-154449244.html?nhp=1

[Crafty_Dog]

 

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

[DougMacG]

More on O'Reilly here, debate with Jon Stewart.  I have to listen more closely but he seems to defend gun rights, crack down on crimes committed with guns, asks Congress to declare war on radical jihad. 

It was Stewart conflating the issue, gun control when the violence is radical Islam declaring and executing a war against the US and we fail to take steps to fight back.

The FBI investigates but finds a guy who hasn't committed a crime.  I am traveling and don't have the facts but wouldn't or shouldn't two trips to Saudi to meet with or train with enemies of the US constitute a crime, if that is what happened and if we had any way of knowing that?

I don't want China's censorship of internet where opposition to the state even in words is banned.  But isn't recruitment of radical Islam, on the internet or in the Mosques, to take up arms against the US and against innocent US civilians a form of speech that is NOT protected by the first amendment?  Isn't a denial of gun sales to people siding with those who have declared war against the US a reasonable restriction not in conflict at all with the second amendment?  Isn't the monitoring of some of these groups and tracking of movements and activities a normal and necessary part of national security not in violation of our privacy rights?  Doesn't a person give up some expectation of privacy and being free of surveillance when they make association with sworn, violent, mass shooting, mass beheading enemies of the United States? 

Slippery slope stuff perhaps and some of the answers need to go in the other threads, but I would pose this question here on the well armed people thread:

What stopped this shooter?  Someone with a gun shot him.

What do you wish would happen if you were trapped in this massacre while it was happening?  You wish someone would pull out a gun and shoot him.

When would be the best time to stop the shooter?  Before he entered the club ideally, but more realistically the need to shoot him was clear as soon as he first shot at innocent people.

Would the strictest gun laws possible stop radical Islam from killing us?  Couldn't he have also used a bomb or a poison gas?  Didn't the 911 hijackers use box cutters?  you won't convice the left, but the gun is not the enemy, the enemy is.

We are at war, in the sense that the enemy has declared it.  Why not identify the enemy and fight back?

The enemy isn't our own right of self defense.  The enemy in the current fight is radical Islam, wherever it rears its ugly head.  If the immediate threat came from Timothy McVeigh types, then that is where our focus should be, but our immediate threat is coming from radical Islam.  The need for law abiding citizens to take up arms and defend themselves only grows when those elected to protect us don't take the most obvious steps to protect us.

[ccp]

Doug everything you post is true.  But the media goes after Trump and Obama as always seems off the hook.  Hardly one peep about how THIS guy was working as a contractor for DHS.

Obamster is now going to Orlando to make give a political lecture to the world.

[DougMacG]

http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/
-----------------------------------------------

Separate from politics and talk, this kind of thing indicates people get it.  If someone is shooting at you or at your loved ones, you would wish that you or someone with you could shoot back and end the carnage.

It is war, a 'gun law' does't stop a criminal or enemy combatant.  Mass beheading are just as gruesome as mass shootings.

(Unless the count has changed) there were 49 victims killed.  The shooter was not a victim.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/16/heres-everything-wanted-say-islam-yesterday-couldnt/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/petitions/ab1673/?mc_cid=cc77fd32d4&mc_eid=c42be3e26b

[ccp]

Fund my department or organization and if you don't you are a disgrace.    Of this is not about the 2 nd amendment.  Of course you are not biased from day #1. 

Of course it is all about helping Blacks who are shooting themselves up worse then Dodge CIty    A waste of $5 million. 

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/06/20/ca-lawmakers-designate-5-million-gun-violence-research/

[DougMacG]

Leftism and guns, the goal is restrict something, anything, just get restrictions passed on guns.  The latest is the terror watch list, ban the sale of guns to people on the "terror watch list", whatever that is.  1.1 million people.  Makes sense.  Unless you examine it.

A couple of points on that.  First is the trick question, which is your favorite right in the Bill of Rights?  Hopefully ALL of them!  In this case, not just the second amendment applies but also due process, the 5th (and 14th).

"[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

I am against selling weapons to terrorists.  Are the 1.1 million people on the terror watch list terrorists?

If you go back to the due process clause, the ones we know are terrorists aren't out buying guns; they are in prison or dead.

Was Omar dumbshit, the gay hating gay Muslim ISIS surrogate (don't want to know his name) on the terror watch list?  No.  He was taken off the list.  Why?  I don't know.  Bureaucrats make mistakes.  Law enforcement missed something.  He hadn't committed a crime. People who manage lists of a million people don't get everything right.  Maybe it was 4:00 in a government office when his name should have been re-entered.  Some didn't want to speak up against him because he was Muslim.  Whatever the reason, this wouldn't have stopped him.  Does that change the minds of liberals?  No.   Their goal is restrict something, anything, just get some restrictions passed on guns.  (I repeat myself.  So do they.)

I am for declaring war on Radical Islam in all its iterations.  If that were the case and if law enforcement and military  intelligence were on it, the man who was communicating with, visiting and training with the enemy would be in jail, so would all his mentors, all with due process, and they would not be out buying guns.

A person on the terror watch list can't fly but can't buy a gun.  Why?  One is an enumerated right.  One is not a recognized right.  In law we have all kinds of standards. preponderance of evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rational basis, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, etc. etc.  What standard goes into putting a person on the terror watch list?  No one knows.  All we know is they aren't right or dertain enough to arrest them and they miss people all the time.

Meanwhile our border is open and while you were reading this more terrorists and illegal guns came in.  I recommend keeping the right to defend yourself.

And for the areas where the constitution has it wrong or times have changed, I recommend the constitutional amendment process, not governing by the willy nilly whims of leftists.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://gunsnfreedom.com/17-years-after-gun-bans-in-australia-police-say-gun-crime-is-out-of-control/1010

[G M]

http://gunsnfreedom.com/17-years-after-gun-bans-in-australia-police-say-gun-crime-is-out-of-control/1010

Shocka!

[DougMacG]

If one were to believe the liberal leftist mantra in all these.shootings stories that the underlying problem is too many guns,  you would still vote them out because their policies accomplished exactly the opposite.

[DougMacG]

The trucker in France had guns, but the larger point remains, he didn't need guns or assault rifle to commit mass murder.  We can ban trucks, limit weight and horsepower on trucks, sue the truck manufacturers for the unintended use if we want.  Will that stop mass murder?

The enemy is the ideology that makes us their enemy, and the terrorist following it, not the device used. 

There are IEDs, dirty bombs, pipe bombs, poison gas in enclosed spaces and homemade nuclear devices.  There are guns, airplanes and trucks and who knows what else?  Ban all of them and we will learn which ones we missed, maybe serial beheadings with a kitchen knife, ban that too. 

Guns have a specific use in self defense and crowd defense in some of these same situations. 

Strangely, we only want to ban the one that is a constitutional right, and the only one widely used in self defense.

Ban mass murder, declare war on ISIS and hunt down their sympathizers, but don't ban self defense or the most obvious way to end a mass murder in process.

[ccp]

Truck and car attacks have happened in Israel and it was reported that Israeli police or citizens with guns actually stopped the attack.

[G M]

"Ban all of them and we will learn which ones we missed, maybe serial beheadings with a kitchen knife, ban that too."

China has had mass stabbings by adherents to the religion of peace. China does try to restrict access to knives. It doesn't work, funny enough.

[DDF]

"Ban all of them and we will learn which ones we missed, maybe serial beheadings with a kitchen knife, ban that too."

China has had mass stabbings by adherents to the religion of peace. China does try to restrict access to knives. It doesn't work, funny enough.

Restricting anything will never work. Some people will not be controlled. Death sentences will not stop them, because they are prepared to die, and they are growing in number.

Oddly enough, one of the best places to get weapons, is by taking them from the people that have them, even if it is the military or police. Everything has a soft spot.

It makes everyone being responsible for their own saftey all that much more relevant.

By the way, anyone halfway worth their salt, already has a handwritten list, of Black Panther Party Huey P. Newton gun club jerks, with their addresses, written down somewhere. Weapons laws? That's funny.

[DDF]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/cleveland-police-baton-rouge-security-open-carry/

They cannot suspend Constitutional rights without serious consequences. Also, if they do not suspend them, they open the door for violence (which is present with out without suspending rights).

I'll add, that the only thing it will take to start a serious, not easily remedied low scale war in the US, is for someone to start killing people at the Republican convention.

We have arrived at the fork in the road. There is no avoiding it. Theynow are willing to take anyone's right to carry, or risk mass casualties.

Also, the police (for the most part) are poorly trained and lack any realworld experience unless they are prior military, proof of that being a reservist schooling 12 police officers in Dallas, a Marine veteran, schooling 7 officers in Baton Rouge.

To be clear, I'm not cheerleading for BLM. In fact, I loathe them. I am on the side of COMPLETE freedom, but it is also clear, that the police and government cannot win this. Anyone doubting that should study the Vietnam war, the US campaign in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, or read on the Soviet-Afghani conflict, in each case, a larger, wealthier, stronger opponent, defeated by a smaller force, with less training, finances, or inferior weapons.. Guerrilla wars cannot be won. That is where this all goes.

For the record, Kasich has denied the idea:

"On Sunday afternoon, Stephen Loomis, the president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, said that Mr. Kasich should temporarily suspend “open carry” for the sake of security. Mr. Loomis said in an interview with CNN that he did not care “if it’s constitutional or not.”
Mr. Kasich’s office rejected the idea as legally impossible."

[G M]

Ambushes usually hold the upper hand. Long guns vs. handguns, the advantage goes to long guns.

[Crafty_Dog]

I have always had a leery feeling about open carry, especially long guns.

In the context of the RNC it may be a really bad idea.

Prayers for all of us.

[G M]

I have always had a leery feeling about open carry, especially long guns.

In the context of the RNC it may be a really bad idea.

Prayers for all of us.

The dems are funding and planning for what is coming to the RNC. This is a Soros/DNC/Obama admin operation. Don't be surprised.

[DDF]

Ambushes usually hold the upper hand. Long guns vs. handguns, the advantage goes to long guns.

After working here, i-ve almost lost any fear that I may have had previously when having ceramic plates and being armed with a FAL, Negev, ARX160, M-4, etc. A glock at that point is a pea shooter. Anyone facing someone armed witht he aforementioned, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, and even less, when ambushed, especially if range and accuracy, as well as amount of rounds down range are taken into acount.

As for anyone carrying long rifles or anything else, I'm wary of placing any limits, because when limits are allowed (felons for example), then all kinds of laws can be allowed, as with Mr. Loomis' comments today (someone who supposedly swore to protect the Constitution), talking about suspending YOUR rights, because HE thinks it's a good idea.

Cynthia and I had a shootout at our house here, with cartel hitmen at the door (10 dead). That is the second time I have had something like that happen at my house, and both times, lucky we didn't wind up hurt or worse. Any legislation regarding one's right to self defense is a bad idea and should NEVER be respected, especially when the ones pushing the laws, demand that they need to be armed, but others don't. I'll never agree with that. Not ever. I want every single one of you armed, even if you're mentally unstable, because my safety is MY responsibility, not YOURS. Your safety is YOUR responsibility, and there is NO ONE that can protect you....ever.

Edit: To be fair, I admit that I am a total anarchist and that most people don't want true freedom, as it is rather chaotic, so I will always be in the minority view on this. The elctricity went out here today. I liked it. A lot of people did not. I missed a few hours on the computer and know where to get my own water if I really had to. Big whoop. I'm hoping this all goes downhill and back a couple of centuries. It would be good for all of us. BLM would quit bitching and either work to feed themselves or die, as would every other non hacker. Nothing bad in that.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/25/knife-rights-the-unseen-side-of-the-second-amendment/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tds-fb

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/foghorn/breaking-obama-issues-executive-order-may-drive-gunsmiths-business/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/04/judge-napolitano-says-obama-admin-is-breaking-federal-law-prohibiting-govt-from-compiling-gun-owner-list/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%208-4-16%20FINAL%20-%20no%20ad&utm_term=Firewire

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160727/just-in-time-for-his-party-s-convention-obama-administration-releases-latest-executive-gun-control

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/foghorn/breaking-obama-issues-executive-order-may-drive-gunsmiths-business/

Is the preceding accurate in light of this?

http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/Applicability%20of%20the%20ITAR%20Registration%20Requirement%20to%20Firearms%20Manufacturers%20%28Publish%29.pdf

[Crafty_Dog]

http://ijr.com/2016/01/510415-10-charts-that-put-obamas-gun-violence-town-hall-in-perspective/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

[DDF]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

WOW.

[G M]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

WOW.

I'd be more concerned if I hadn't lost my gun collection in an unfortunate canoe accident.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/07/1950-to-2010-not-one-mass-public-shooting-where-citizens-could-be-armed/

[DDF]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

WOW.

I'd be more concerned if I hadn't lost my gun collection in an unfortunate canoe accident.

You have to be careful in those canoes... they're so unstable.  

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/07/1950-to-2010-not-one-mass-public-shooting-where-citizens-could-be-armed/

There are principles that transcend the law of man, the right to defense of self being one of them. John R. Lott Jr.'s use of the word "could" is something I take issue with, due to the fact that people can do just about anything they want. Whether or not they choose to do so, is another matter. I refuse to live somewhere, where the government and citizens think that we don't have the right to protect ourselves. I will never submit to that; job, roots, friendships be damned. I won't do it.

[G M]

I think the role of gun confiscator would be a very dangerous one in large swaths of the US.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-show-customers-license-plates-come-under-scrutiny-1475451302

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/10/04/texas-store-employee-uses-ak-47-stop-4-armed-robbers/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/european-criminals-and-terrorists-have-67-million-guns-to-choose-from-despite-strict-gun-control/

[G M]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/european-criminals-and-terrorists-have-67-million-guns-to-choose-from-despite-strict-gun-control/

But Europe is supposed to be what we aspire to!

[G M]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/11/trump-to-support-nationwide-concealed-carry/

Trump to Support Nationwide Concealed Carry
 BY MICHAEL WALSH NOVEMBER 11, 2016

Leftist heads now exploding like popcorn kernels:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump -- who said he has a concealed carry permit -- called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide. In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a "total failure."
"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.

It's not a departure from what he's said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.

"Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," Trump wrote Friday. "What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans."


 
Liberals have long argued that guns should be regulated like automobiles. So what's not to like?

Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said. "If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege," Trump said.
Trump just called their bluff. Hoo boy.

[G M]

Under LEOSA (HR218) I can and have carried a concealed handgun in Los Angeles. Why not all law abiding citizens?

[Crafty_Dog]

I LOVE the idea of being able to legally carry here in Los Angeles.

OTOH, as a matter of intellectual integrity, I'm seeing a couple of issues:

a) States Rights:  Under the Tenth Amendment, don't the individual states have sovereignty in matters pertaining to the "police power"?

b) Laboratory of Democracy:  Is not a key ingredient of federalism that we have a laboratory of democracy, which allows us to try different approaches and compare the results?  Are not the various States different?  Why impose a one size fits all approach?

[DDF]

I LOVE the idea of being able to legally carry here in Los Angeles.

OTOH, as a matter of intellectual integrity, I'm seeing a couple of issues:

a) States Rights:  Under the Tenth Amendment, don't the individual states have sovereignty in matters pertaining to the "police power"?

b) Laboratory of Democracy:  Is not a key ingredient of federalism that we have a laboratory of democracy, which allows us to try different approaches and compare the results?  Are not the various States different?  Why impose a one size fits all approach?

Exactly the problem with the States currently, in regard to everything from abortion, religion, weapons, or anything else that's been legislated, that is not clearly spelled out as a federal power.

The problem in that the Constitution, like anything, is left to interpretation. It shouldn't be that way. Law needs to be clear, and the Federal government, passing Commerce Code, or any of the any other things they use to justify their overreach, needs to be rescinded, and given back to the individual state.

The fact that the ATF even exists is ludicrous.

[G M]

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/10/three-gun-laws-reform-president-trump/

Freedom!

[ccp]

For what it is worth studied in Jama are there because the New England Journal of Medicine did not accept them.   There are a lot of liberals with an agenda publishing in medicine these days.
Perhaps I was simply not paying attention but I don't recall doctors and medical researchers getting into social issues so much.   OTOH that is where the money was for research grants under the Obama rule.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442217/guns-stand-your-ground-law-journal-american-medical-association-study-fatally-flawed

[G M]

https://thelibertyzone.us/2016/11/28/ohio-state-stabbing/

A gun-less gunman armed with only a car and a edged weapon, and a really peaceful belief system.

Motive unknown It's Trump's fault!

[G M]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/28/five-libs-who-pushed-gun-control-narrative-on-twitter-after-ohio-state-stabbing-attack/?singlepage=true

Control.

[DougMacG]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/28/five-libs-who-pushed-gun-control-narrative-on-twitter-after-ohio-state-stabbing-attack/?singlepage=true

Amazing.  Not just obscure liberals either.  Tim Kaine!

The knee jerk reaction to this is not more stupid than the other situations where the rules and laws they propose (gun free zones?) are either already in place or wouldn't have prevented the carnage.  This one is just more obvious!  Gun control to prevent knife and vehicle attacks!  How about Somali-control?  Or radical-Somali-control.  The knowledge of this vulnerability swayed the election.  For the left, nothing learned.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.tacticalshit.com/atf-clarifies-whether-marijuana-users-can-by-guns/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/with-obama-leaving-republicans-target-dcs-gun-laws-abortion-funding-assisted-suicide-and-marijuana/2017/01/18/fd4eed14-dda0-11e6-918c-99ede3c8cafa_story.html?tid=ss_fb-amp&utm_term=.dfd8a638ce99

[Crafty_Dog]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations/2325/