TW200 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 105 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Sensible Gun Control


Gun Control that makes sense. Great Idea! Why didn't I think of this?


In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States ..

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States ..

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .

In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis ..

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives was involved in these shootings and murders.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Best idea I've heard to date.

GaryL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,211 Posts
First time I have heard that word used other than in context of "disgruntled postal worker", nice to hear it has other uses:) Question: can one be "gruntled" if not disgruntled?
Great political humor good for a morning smile with coffee but I hope this doesn't start another vitriolic forum battle. To paraphrase Borneo with great literary license: Gentlemen let us not unsheath our sabers over this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Yes Fred, being gruntled is a person's normal state. Sometimes the confluence of events cause a person to become disgruntled. Over time, with the application of corrective measures, counseling, buying a new motorcyle or good booze, a person can go through the process of regruntlization and become regruntled. Except in the case of some people who are simply ungruntleable and post office workers.



grun·tle
transitive verb \ˈgrən-təl\
to put in a good humor <were gruntled with a good meal and good conversation — W. P. Webb>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
As I said in another post. The E.P.A. has forced the last American lead smelter to close it's doors. With out lead..no more bullets. Unless we can get them fron China and if our goverment lets them import. Seems the turds have done an end run around our rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,496 Posts
Conceal and Carry Laws=another way the Government and it's various agencies can keep tabs on who has the weapons...that along with gun registration are no friend of the 2nd Amendment and those of us who support it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,664 Posts
I am happily gruntled by the feel of a PARA 14-.45 with Pachmyers in my hand.

Shooting range backstops can always be mined for lead. Any old range, a shaker screen, and a bobcat will provide a couple hundred pounds with a couple hours effort.

Yes, the wannabe masters are taking away our rights, all of them, one step at a time. That is why we are supposed to kill them. Really. Read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Should be required reading for all high schoolers.
High School kids don't know diddly squat about what went on in the 1770s in this country while true patriots were forming all the rights and freedoms they now enjoy! I rather doubt that the wars this country has been through are even lightly discussed in grade schools today as they are not politically correct. Keep in mind that 8 out of ten people walking down the street could not name the current Vice President and that gets prove time and again. Is it any wonder why the youth of today are more than willing to give up the rights so very many good patriots have died protecting?

Education is in fact the key to our survival as a free nation but it is very hard to soar like and Eagle when you are being taught by a bunch of Turkeys. Liberalism is the very last step before Socialism, Communism and then Totalitarianism. We are on a very slippery slope and I don't expect the kids of today to brake our fall. I don't blame it on Barack Obama. I do blame this on the fools who elected him-TWICE. If that shoe fits then go ahead and wear it.

GaryL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts
Molds are cheap and most places that have lead will be glad to let you take some rather than pay the disposal fee since it's toxic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,367 Posts
Bear in mind that the Democratic party of the 1800's bore little resemblance to the party of today. That being said...

" In the rough-and-tumble Congress of the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s, politicians regularly wore weapons on the House and Senate floors, and sometimes used them.

During one 1836 melee in the House, a witness observed representatives with “pistols in hand.” In a committee hearing that same year, one House member became so enraged at the testimony of a witness that he reached for his gun; when the terrified witness refused to return, he was brought before the House on a charge of contempt.

Perhaps most dramatic of all, during a debate in 1850, Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi pulled a pistol on Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri. (Someone eventually took it from his hand.) Foote had decided in advance that if he felt threatened, he would grab his gun and run for the aisle in the hope that stray shots wouldn’t hit bystanders.

Most famously, in 1856, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina caned Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the Senate floor so brutally that Sumner had to be virtually carried from the chamber — and did not retake his seat for three years. Clearly, wielded with brute force, a cane could be a potent weapon.

By the 1850s, violence was common in Washington. Not long after Sumner’s caning, a magazine told the story of a Michigan judge who traveled by train to the nation’s capital: “As he entered the main hall of the depot, he saw a man engaged in caning another ferociously, all over the room. ‘When I saw this,’ says the judge, ‘I knew I was in Washington.’”

In Congress, violence was often deployed strategically. Representatives and senators who were willing to back up their words with their weapons had an advantage, particularly in the debate over slavery. Generally speaking, Northerners were least likely to be armed, and thus most likely to back down. Congressional bullies pressed their advantage, using threats and violence to steer debate, silence opposition and influence votes.

In 1842, Representative Thomas Arnold of Tennessee, a member of the Whig Party, learned the hard way that these bullies meant business. After he reprimanded a pro-slavery member of his own party, two Southern Democrats stalked toward him, at least one of whom was armed with a bowie knife — a 6- to 12-inch blade often worn strapped to the back. Calling Arnold a “damned coward,” his angry colleagues threatened to cut his throat “from ear to ear.” But Arnold wasn’t a man to back down. Ten years earlier, he had subdued an armed assassin on the Capitol steps.

As alarming as these outbursts were, until the 1840s, reporters played them down, in part to avoid becoming embroiled in fights themselves. (A good many reporters received beatings from outraged congressmen; one nearly had his finger bitten off.) So Americans knew relatively little of congressional violence.

That changed with the arrival of the telegraph. Congressmen suddenly had to confront the threat — or temptation — of “instant” nationwide publicity. As Senator John Parker Hale of New Hampshire reminded his colleagues within minutes of the Foote-Benton clash, reports were “already traveling with lightning speed over the telegraph wires to the remotest borders of the Republic.” He added, “It is not impossible that even now it may have been rumored in the city of St. Louis that several senators are dead and weltering in their blood on the floor of the Senate.”

Violence was news, and news could spawn violence. Something had to be done, but what? To many, the answer was obvious: watch your words. As one onlooker wrote to the speaker of the House shortly after Sumner’s caning, “gentlemen” who took part in the debate over slavery should “scrupulously avoid the utterance of unnecessarily harsh language.” There was no other way to prevent the “almost murderous feeling” that could lead to “demonstrations upon the floor, which in the present state of excitement, would almost certainly lead to a general melee and perhaps a dozen deaths in the twinkling of an eye.”

Unfortunately, such admonitions had little effect. The violence in Congress continued to build until the outbreak of the Civil War."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/opinion/12freeman.html?_r=0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Forgive me for citing this from memory. It may not be exactly right.

One morning Ronald Reagan was wearing his Colt .45. The lead secret service agent asked, "Sir, why the hardware?"

He replied, "If you have any trouble, I can help."

I miss him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,367 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
For the second time in as many weeks, the Supreme Court has refused to rule on the Drake vs. Jerejian case. This case asks the Court to answer two common-sense questions: 1) Does the Second Amendment apply outside the home and 2) is it okay for states to force residents to prove why they need this right. In order for a case to receive a date before the Supreme Court, it takes just 4 Justices to vote for it. The fact that this case has been put up for a vote twice, and in each instance was put off, should put a chill down your spine. This shows just how fragile our rights truly are! We need to hammer it home that the 2nd amendment says what it says and needs to be enforced
This is a complete Can-0-Worms case for sure and touches on so many fronts I don't blame the court for refusing to hear it. I assume you mean the Supreme Court of the US and not any particular State SC.

Lets say the federal court ruled yes on point one and no on point two. This would be my ruling but then I can see a thousand issues arising from this even though this is the way the second A reads. Here is just one. Employers have the right to ban guns in the work place. Where do I stash my gun while I am at work if the bar I work at says I can't carry while working? Is your unattended car or TW a good place to leave your 45 while at work all night long? Once the criminal element gets the memo our guns are in our cars while working no car will be safe and every scumbag will have full arsenals.

I do have the right to conceal carry my weapon outside my home and my state never demanded that I prove the need to do so. It is also my duty to secure my weapon in a safe manner at all times and my employer had every right to say no guns at work and refuse to be responsible for any guns stored in my locker or in the parking lot. I am sure we could beat this dead horse to death with thousands of examples for and against such a ruling.

I won't even entertain this argument but I deal with this exact situation according to the laws of my state and what and where I am going.

GaryL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,367 Posts
Bigger can of worms than is really even readily apparent. Largely because we live in a world of Constitutional interpretation involving penumbras, eminations, and incorporation.

Once you read the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers, as mentioned by Qwerty, you may very well arrive at the conclusion that the Constitution was originally designed to restrict only the Federal Government (and of course grant it certain limited and enumerated powers). Once you reach that conclusion, and of course it is an entirely honest and supportable conclusion, you have another issue to address: what then restricts the sovereign States? The answer is of course the people in those States. However, people are no longer comfortable with that idea, looking to the Federal Government these days for everything as they have become accustomed. So, the Second Amendment doesn't restrict the States at all unless you engage in creative interpretation. Congress shall make no laws....

The more of these issues that are considered by the Supreme Court, the more unsustainable the interpretation is. They are afraid of the consequences.

The Federal Government is restrained from making laws that infringe the right to keep and bear arms, the States are not. As for the "home" issue, that is the keep, the bearing of arms cannot to my mind be interpreted to mean anything other than outside the home, largely because I don't believe in making constructions of language that defy common sense.

A great many of the original limitations on the Federal Government have now been interpreted as also being limitations on the various States. Personally I would suggest that is not Constitutionally sound.

The people in their individual States can make their laws as they see fit. If you don't like it change your local legislators or move to a different state. That would require an informed and diligent voting base, something that arguably no longer exists, and scares the pajamas off a great many.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,367 Posts
As in many things, it is important to understand what would have been the mind of the Framers of the Constitution at the time it was drafted. They would have considered the right to keep and bear arms to be a "natural right" of a free people, something not even in question and beyond debate. They wanted to make sure that the Federal Government honored that right which they considered to be beyond the pale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,367 Posts
Nor should the "militia" part be drug into the "keep and bear arms" language. The framers were not creating a restriction with their "militia" language, they were simply stating that the right of a people to arm themselves was important to the continued preservation of freedom. In framing times, the militia was basically any man with a gun, not an organized institution. What they were truly saying is ok, we agree we need a Federal Government to do the few things the individual States cannot practically do for themselves, but we are not giving the Federal Government any right at all to control our natural right to keep and bear arms or form militias if the need may arise. Borneo's construction of course, as is all of the above. As they commonly say here, "your mileage may vary". Qwerty may have a different take on this and I hope at some point he weighs in since I am interested in his thoughts, it is apparent to me he has read all the necessary material to discuss this. It is not really a subject that lends itself well to discussion based on what people "think" or "want", it is one that devolves around a written document and it's intent. As Qwerty has noted, this document can be changed if people "want" or "think" differently, but it should not be made to mean something it does not absent following those (fairly high bar) procedures. To do otherwise simply creates what people like to refer to as a "living document" and in essence relegates the Constitution to meaning whatever those in power at the time want it to mean. That is what is truly scary for the individual American citizen.
 
1 - 20 of 105 Posts
Top