Widow faces jail for possession of late husband's illegal pistol

[sepe]

He has made two...and both seem to approve his socialist/anti-gun agenda.....

And 3 of the GOP candidates have also supported his anti-gun agenda (they have also shown through past actions that they'd go against gun rights if it benefit them). One of the GOP candidates was a Sotomayor supporter. If you think for a second that several of the guys in the race wouldn't continue down the same road, you're silly and only fooling yourself.

 

[Bill of Rights]

yea who signed the 86 hughes bill ??? republican !!!

Let's be very clear on that one... That was the Hughes Amendment, a very late addition to a bill that lots of people worked very hard to get through. The Hughes Amendment was a "poison pill"; President Reagan, like every other president, had to contend with not having a line-item veto available to him: He had to either pass the whole bill, including the poison pill, or he had to trash the whole thing.

Know how you can drive now, state-to-state, and as long as your firearm is unloaded, cased, and inaccessible, no state law can be used to deny you your right to travel through and be armed once you reach your destination where you can lawfully possess the firearm? You can thank all those who worked so hard to get that bill passed including Mr. Reagan for that.

You want to know who to thank for the Hughes Amendment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

But let's not be deceived into thinking that Reagan wanted "gun control".

Was he the perfect President? No, he was not, and yes, he had flaws, some of which became evident only long after he left office.

Too many people forget that when you issue an ultimatum such as "Gun rights: All or None!", that's a 50/50 proposition, and if you make an ultimatum like that, you d*** well better be ready for the person you make it to to say, "OK. 'None' it is."

You don't have to agree with me. I don't see how you can refute that point, however. What Reagan did included some "gun control", but what he did FOR our rights, that so many want to forget in order to demonize him, was much farther-reaching and much more in our favor.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

And 3 of the GOP candidates have also supported his anti-gun agenda (they have also shown through past actions that they'd go against gun rights if it benefit them). One of the GOP candidates was a Sotomayor supporter. If you think for a second that several of the guys in the race wouldn't continue down the same road, you're silly and only fooling yourself.

So, if I understand you, what you're saying is that you'd rather vote for the guy we know both has and will nominate against our rights, rather than any of the people who haven't, but might if they took the office from him. Is that it?

 

[sepe]

So, if I understand you, what you're saying is that you'd rather vote for the guy we know both has and will nominate against our rights, rather than any of the people who haven't, but might if they took the office from him. Is that it?

No sir. My vote is for the man that has been consistent for 30 years. Even if he has no statistical chance in the world, he still gets my vote. If we're stuck in a cycle of bad or worse, do we really have a reason to complain when we vote for bad and they become "worse"? If we can't take a stand and vote for someone that has shown they haven't been influenced by those with money, why should we complain when we get what we wanted?

 

[Bill of Rights]

No sir. My vote is for the man that has been consistent for 30 years. Even if he has no statistical chance in the world, he still gets my vote. If we're stuck in a cycle of bad or worse, do we really have a reason to complain when we vote for bad and they become "worse"? If we can't take a stand and vote for someone that has shown they haven't been influenced by those with money, why should we complain when we get what we wanted?

Fair enough. I support Dr. Paul as well. The concept of votes not going to someone who actually has a chance of beating Barry does disturb me; while we're voting our conscience, saying who we think would do the best job, the other side all seem to be rallying behind BHO, and that has a large chance of us ending up with him again. I think we're all in agreement that that would be a disastrous outcome.

Nonetheless, as I've said before, many people vote to "send a message" on Election Day. You want to send a message, that's what email and the postal service are around to make possible. The only "message" that should be sent from the Presidential ballot boxes is, "This is who I think will best serve the needs of my country and her citizens for the next four years."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[sepe]

Fair enough. I support Dr. Paul as well. The concept of votes not going to someone who actually has a chance of beating Barry does disturb me; while we're voting our conscience, saying who we think would do the best job, the other side all seem to be rallying behind BHO, and that has a large chance of us ending up with him again. I think we're all in agreement that that would be a disastrous outcome.

Nonetheless, as I've said before, many people vote to "send a message" on Election Day. You want to send a message, that's what email and the postal service are around to make possible. The only "message" that should be sent from the Presidential ballot boxes is, "This is who I think will best serve the needs of my country and her citizens for the next four years."

Blessings,
Bill

That would be the message I'd be sending with a vote for Ron Paul. I honestly don't see the other 3 as vastly different from Barry O. I'm not entirely sure that Mitt or Newt would be much different than Barry O and I don't think that Santorum would be much better than Barry O. I wouldn't vote for Obama, Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum to be the local dog catcher. I do not trust one more than any of the others. I have seen absolutely nothing that makes the 3 GOP candidates or Obama look like someone I'd ever shake hands with or have a beer with. I haven't seen anything out of any of them that would make me think I could trust any of them to watch my pet rock.

If you look at the candidates vs. Obama, polls consistently show that none of the GOP candidates would beat Obama. Statistical modeling shows that Obama will win again (the continuous updates have been running similar to the polling). I honestly don't feel that there is a winner in the anyone VS. Obama (if the anyone really means Romney, Gingrich, Santorum). I won't vote that way and I'll feel perfectly fine if my guy doesn't get the nod as I'll know that I didn't compromise and vote for someone I feel is a danger to the country.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Miss me yet????

 

[NYFelon]

Miss me yet????

No, not really, no.

 

[Bill of Rights]

No, not really, no.

Miss me yet?

 

[Glock21]

Let's be very clear on that one... That was the Hughes Amendment, a very late addition to a bill that lots of people worked very hard to get through. The Hughes Amendment was a "poison pill"; President Reagan, like every other president, had to contend with not having a line-item veto available to him: He had to either pass the whole bill, including the poison pill, or he had to trash the whole thing.

Know how you can drive now, state-to-state, and as long as your firearm is unloaded, cased, and inaccessible, no state law can be used to deny you your right to travel through and be armed once you reach your destination where you can lawfully possess the firearm? You can thank all those who worked so hard to get that bill passed including Mr. Reagan for that.

You want to know who to thank for the Hughes Amendment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

But let's not be deceived into thinking that Reagan wanted "gun control".

Was he the perfect President? No, he was not, and yes, he had flaws, some of which became evident only long after he left office.

Too many people forget that when you issue an ultimatum such as "Gun rights: All or None!", that's a 50/50 proposition, and if you make an ultimatum like that, you d*** well better be ready for the person you make it to to say, "OK. 'None' it is."

You don't have to agree with me. I don't see how you can refute that point, however. What Reagan did included some "gun control", but what he did FOR our rights, that so many want to forget in order to demonize him, was much farther-reaching and much more in our favor.



Blessings,
Bill

I completely understand your point - and I'm not sure that I don't somewhat agree - however...

This is what's wrong with compromize when it comes to a RIGHT. Every time you compromize, you loose another fraction of a right, and the other sides gets closer to their goal of eliminating it.

I can't imagine if such things were even suggested about attending church or owning books or voting.

 

[dross]

Too many people forget that when you issue an ultimatum such as "Gun rights: All or None!", that's a 50/50 proposition, and if you make an ultimatum like that, you d*** well better be ready for the person you make it to to say, "OK. 'None' it is."

You don't have to agree with me. I don't see how you can refute that point, however. What Reagan did included some "gun control", but what he did FOR our rights, that so many want to forget in order to demonize him, was much farther-reaching and much more in our favor.



Blessings,
Bill

There's a horrifying scene in the great book by William Styron, made into a great movie starring Meryl Streep, Sophie's Choice.

Upon reaching Auschwitz, Sophie is given a horrific choice - choose which child will go to the gas chamber, or both will go. Choosing one means the other is saved, refusing to choose - the principled, no compromise with evil stance - means both children will die.

I think what some of these people in the no compromise camp can't understand is that refusing to compromise doesn't automatically mean you get your way. It usually means you get nothing. So, to go back to the Sophie's Choice analogy, Sophie must be a terrible mother because she sent one of her own children to the gas chamber.

 

[jgreiner]

No sir. My vote is for the man that has been consistent for 30 years. Even if he has no statistical chance in the world, he still gets my vote. If we're stuck in a cycle of bad or worse, do we really have a reason to complain when we vote for bad and they become "worse"? If we can't take a stand and vote for someone that has shown they haven't been influenced by those with money, why should we complain when we get what we wanted?

the crazy old man with the racist newletters? The one that has ZERO chance of getting the nomination? Or of winning the general election? That will guarantee us 4 more years of Obama.

 

[NYFelon]

Miss me yet?

pure.
unadulterated.
awesome.

I must spread some around first.

 

[Stschil]

​

 

[rambone]

Miss me yet?

 

[Ash]

"Her obviously genuine anxiety when the gun was stolen may serve to illustrate why such items should not be possessed in circumstances whereby they can fall into the hands of criminals," he said.

Guy Whitelaw broke into here home and stole it.
This kind of reasoning makes absolutely no sense.

 

[jdhaines]

I thought it was funny that this is the story linked as "related." No story that I could find, just a picture and a blurb. It's funny in a "I'm going to cry" sort of way.

US gun owners support stricter controls on gun ownership after Arizona shooting spree - Telegraph

 

[octalman]

Don't waste your Vote!

the crazy old man with the racist newletters? The one that has ZERO chance of getting the nomination? Or of winning the general election? That will guarantee us 4 more years of Obama.

Dittos. If somehow Ron Paul gets on the ballot, please do not waste your vote for him. This country can't stand another 4 years of Barry. Get a Republican President elected. Elect Conservative representatives. Then, direct your energies to local, town, city, and State level candidates. Governmental Red Ink must stop at all levels. Work locally where you have the most clout.

Voting for Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader, or ?? is like peeing in the ocean. The water level will not change and nobody cares.

 

[Expat]

Dittos. If somehow Ron Paul gets on the ballot, please do not waste your vote for him. This country can't stand another 4 years of Barry. Get a Republican President elected. Elect Conservative representatives. Then, direct your energies to local, town, city, and State level candidates. Governmental Red Ink must stop at all levels. Work locally where you have the most clout.

Voting for Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader, or ?? is like peeing in the ocean. The water level will not change and nobody cares.

Ron Paul is running in the Republican primary. If he somehow gets on the ballot, that would mean he won the primary and is the Republican nominee (he has said he is unlikely to run as an independent). At that point, we all had better vote for him as he would be the only real alternative to Obama. Obviously that is unlikely to happen though.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Dittos. If somehow Ron Paul gets on the ballot, please do not waste your vote for him. This country can't stand another 4 years of Barry. Get a Republican President elected. Elect Conservative representatives. Then, direct your energies to local, town, city, and State level candidates. Governmental Red Ink must stop at all levels. Work locally where you have the most clout.

Voting for Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader, or ?? is like peeing in the ocean. The water level will not change and nobody cares.

To which so-called "republican" would you advise people to give their vote? That lack of capitalization is important, BTW, in my above sentence: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum... I don't see any of them supporting the Republic. The only claim they have to that title is as members of a party using it as a proper noun.

I agree with you. We need a republican. We need a true conservative representative... I haven't seen many in my lifetime.

From what I know of him, the last I would give those titles to said:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
--Barry Goldwater

The closest candidate we have in the current race to that standard would be Dr. Paul.

Blessings,
Bill