Gunfire near my house

[MAXIMAN]

pggg-

That is too bad. I feel for you. I know many other countries have gone the same route.

What good does the NZ government think it does if law abiding citizens are not able to defend themselves?

And if we (the USA) are not vigilante regarding our own Constitution and the idiots we put in office ... we too will loose these fundamental rights as well.

PS: We probably agree on a lot of things...except the final drive issue. But sooner or later you will succumb to the right way of thinking. ...........................

[randy]

And if we (the USA) are not vigilante regarding our own Constitution and the idiots we put in office ... we too will loose these fundamental rights as well.

Cody,

I know you meant "vigilant"

But I got a chuckle none the less!

[MAXIMAN]

No no you read it right ....I meant vilgilante...as in START KILLING TYRANTS NOW!!!!

Ya know ...about half the time when responding to a post I never proof read it...I just hit the "submit" button. I'm sure if you go back and read most of my posts are chock full of spelling errors.

Oh well...it's not like we submitting a paper for publication.

[mro]

Well, since the High Jack continues

we too will loose these fundamental rights as well

Yup......
They been trying for years out here on the left coast.
SF is the "leader" in this and since our state politics are dominated by democrats they just put as much red tape and laws as they can on em. There attempts to out right ban guns has so far been stopped by the courts.

They also have attempted to sue gun manufacturers for how criminals have used there product.

If they had been successful, "legal precedent" would be set and car manufacturers would be libel for every auto injury, all manufacturing would have to cease of any product that someone could harm themself or others with or face paying for even deliberate acts which caused an injury.

There were some politicians backing this crap.
-----------------

Did buy a shot gun once. Will never own a gun in CA. agin.

Something to think about.
Gun registration (in Germany and Russia) was used to confiscate guns from there citizens so they could not oppose there government.

Wonder how many criminals register there guns here in CA CA land???


mro

[MAXIMAN]

Re: Well, since the High Jack continues

Originally posted by mro

They also have attempted to sue gun manufacturers for how criminals have used there product.

If they had been successful, "legal precedent" would be set and car manufacturers would be libel for every auto injury, all manufacturing would have to cease of any product that someone could harm themself or others with or face paying for even deliberate acts which caused an injury.

There were some politicians backing this crap.
-----------------

Did buy a shot gun once. Will never own a gun in CA. agin.

Something to think about.
Gun registration (in Germany and Russia) was used to confiscate guns from there citizens so they could not oppose there government.

Wonder how many criminals register there guns here in CA CA land???


mro

Hahahahahahaha....Oh I'm sure all the nice little...law abiding criminals obey the law and register weapons like good little boys. "RO" - I love the way you think. Too bad most of our countrymen don't get it.

Regarding law suits...this is exactly why Colt has stopped manufacturing handguns. The threat of lawsuits has basically put them out of business. As if Colt has any control over how some idiot will uses the weapons they build. The politicians that back this crap are ...IMO..tyrants...plain and simple. They fear the Jeffersonian principle of "re-course against tyranny" might be applied to their sorry hides. So they are frantically trying to disarm even law abiding citzens.

Isn't it strange how the very same people that claim to adhere to Jeffersonian ideas (read Clinton et. al.) are also the same people that are so vehemently opposed to most of what he stood for?

[mro]

Isn't it strange how the very same people that claim to adhere to Jeffersonian ideas (read Clinton et. al.) are also the same people that are so vehemently opposed to most of what he stood for?

Something that kinda bothers me now is the last election. Democrats took many republican seats (don't have a problem with that, (another story )

So republicans lost for supporting the president and/or the "war in Iraq". I can understand that too.

But what I don't like is that they won't come out and say just what they want to do and what the results of there actions might be.

So they got elected.....but not for who/what they are, but because they oppose Bush and company

So what does that say about the people who voted for em?

Majority of both parties say or do nothing about illegal immigration and nothing has been done for Social Security. These two issues plus the war are changing our county. Our next generation is going to look back and ask WTF happened.

What you ask has all that $hit to do with this post???
As long as we let our politicians get away with mismanagement, poorly written laws designed to sound good but not address a problem and the continuation of BIG money in politics....

Good citizens like mainlylinux will be driven from there homes as well as a host of other problems. I moved for similar reasons as mainlylinux and checked out the new neighbor hood before moving. Many people do not have that choice and should not have to in our country.................



mro

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by mro

So what does that say about the people who voted for em?

Hmmmm...STUPIDITY?

Ro, people don't think. They just react. They may be upset with the Repub's on the war but they don't consider all the consequences of the other side (more taxes...more government...more government...oh yeah and did I say MORE GOVERNMENT?)

But then what do expect from a public that knows every detail about the three stooges (Brittney, Paris, and Nicole) but nothing about the three branches of government.

Majority of both parties say or do nothing about illegal immigration and nothing has been done for Social Security. These two issues plus the war are changing our county. Our next generation is going to look back and ask WTF happened.

Those are the Holy Cows of government today and no one will touch them. Yet both issues...if not solved soon ...will eventually ruin this great nation.

[Special Ed]

Gentlemen:
Spellchecker won't catch the difference between vigilant and vigilante, or the difference between there and their, or (my favorite,) between then and than. If I don't use MS Word and spell check, (like now,) I misspell a lot also.

I've voted Libertarian for many years, but he last two elections I had to hold my nose and vote for Bush. Damn I hate voting for the lesser of two evils! Are we ever going to have a statesman to vote for instead of politicians? Yes it is a rhetorical question.
E.Liberty

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by E.Liberty


I've voted Libertarian for many years, but he last two elections I had to hold my nose and vote for Bush. Damn I hate voting for the lesser of two evils! Are we ever going to have a statesman to vote for instead of politicians? Yes it is a rhetorical question.
E.Liberty

AND THE CROWD ROARS!!!!!!!!

We have a problem Houston Control...Statesmen are and extinct breed. They're not making them anymore. There's no demand. People care too much about Brad Pitt and Britney Spears. And for the current crop of politicians it's all about just staying in power.

[xs650mike]

Damn, here I am agreeing again with Maximan (at least in part). The main thing that keeps this country from being dominated by a tyranical government is the people's right to keep and arm bears...er...keep and bear arms. (Actually both sound pretty good to me.) I also believe that for most purposes the less gov't. involvement the better. There are of course some things that only gov't. can or should do but in general if you want good things to happen in your neighborhood it's best to get together with your neighbors and do it yourselves. Cheaper too. Uh oh...I think they're coming for my "Card Carrying Liberal" card..."From my cold dead hands!"

[MAXIMAN]

Interesting...we do agree.

But then you must not be a "real" modern liberal. I'm guessing you are a "classical" or Jeffersonian liberal..as I am. Less government...more individual freedom.

Actually we would be considered Libertarians.

I could be wrong thugh. You maybe in favor of "train loads" of government socialist programs. That I am not...and neither was Jefferson.

This is where the modern liberal parts way with my way of thinking. The modern liberal is all about more government...more forced socialism...and less individual freedom. And the modern liberal absolutely detests firearms and ownership thereof...another importan individual liberty.

I'm betting we also agree on drugs. I think drugs should be legalized and taxed! Passing laws to throw people in prison for being addicted to drugs is insane and needs be stopped. Why? because it has not solved the problem since the "War on drugs" began decades ago. It never will...just like it never worked with the war on one of the most potent drugs known to man..alcohol (IE prohibition).

Essentially what we have to today is prohibition for some drugs but legalization for others. This is crazy...it doesn't work and it's proven in all the statistics. When we lifted prohibition on alcohol 70 years ago the rate of alcoholism didn't skyrocket. But the rate of crime related to illegal alcohol dropped like a rock. There was now no reason to have "speak easies" and bootleg operations because it was legal. Plus tax revenues went up! As it stands the government gets NO tax from the multi-billion dollar blackmarket drug industry.

The same would happen with drugs. I doubt drug abuse would climb because only idiots abuse drugs and get hooked. They are going to do that regardless of the legality because they are doing it right now. If legalized the street value would drop and subsequently so would the crime associated with it. Just like it did with alcohol 70+ years ago.

Truth is neither party will even consider doing this. The Republicans have some hang up about punishing people that don't live a moral standard to there liking.

The Democraps won't go along with it because it would destroy massive money wasting bureaucracies like the DEA, ATF and others. This is diametrically opposed to the liberal agenda of squashing indivdual rights. Drug legalization disembowels government and empowers the individual by allowing them the freedom to ruin themselves with drugs. Something they are doing anyway inspite of the Draconian laws that are now on the books.

Rant over!

Max

[HobbyMan]

I am going to bring up this thead as I was surfing the net.
check out these results-support the NRA

[midnight1980]

Originally posted by mainlylinux
By the way, my wife is pregnant.

I did take a M44 Rifle into my basement with me,

Dan

can you shoot this fast with a russian M44 Mosin Nagant?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clz3ZAP1JNU

[prometheus578]

(Sorry, I haven't been following this thread like I suppose I should have)

Gun registration (in Germany and Russia) was used to confiscate guns from there citizens so they could not oppose there government.

MRO..
A little studying might prove enlightening.
Firstly, the National Socialist Govt. in Germany was elected by a huge majority of the people, and hence had no fear of them.
Secondly, there was no mention of gun confiscation that I have stumbled across in my research. (Other than after the war, on Eisenhower's order) If I am incorrect in this, please point me in the right direction.

Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by the Weimar government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power.

In 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting new firearms laws to replace the ones of the previous govt. Some laws were kept, others relaxed.

Long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped).
Handguns could be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit which had to be used within one year from the date of issue.
Holders of a permit to carry weapons or of a hunting license did not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
A hunting license authorized its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
Firearms and ammunition could not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years.
Whoever carried a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit.
A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms could only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness was not in question. Permits were not issued to:
persons under the age of 18 years;
legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
Gypsies or vagabonds;
persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.

This was national law, not a "maybe we will, maybe we won't" state's weapon policy like we have here.

As for Russia since 1917, (not my field of study,) considering the elimination of the Kulaks and "Collectivisation", gun confiscation "probably" came first, but I have not read anything definative.

[mro]

The Night of the Broken Glass
(Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
______
Was not a good time in Germany or other places in Europe for those not considered German enough.
"Laws" were used on not just the Jews.

Got a neighbor you don't like?
How about a disgrunteled son...



mro