• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Assault weapon ban Thursday

Sheldon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
556
Location
Battle Creek, ,
I concur I watched as they said it looks like its surly not to pass.. But it's a tac-tic to get us comfortable.. I read what they are doing in New York an it sickens me.. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but along with this I heard from some friends in the military whom don't want to be named that those who won't fulfill there contract by "defending our country foreign or DOMESTIC" are being let go. Just cause shooting our own people is hard to do.. Any way no need to reply I'm working on uncovering that one myself


-Matt of Hillsboro OR-

Part of their tactic is to ask for the stars but settle on the moon.... In short they produce some BS off the wall bill that they know they will not get consensus on, but then in committee they still produce some atrocity that they attempt to jam down our throats....


WE MUST BE DILIGENT call, snail mail, e mail visit in person your Representative, let them know we are the constituents and not only expect but demand their support!!!

In an unrelated story accusations by the Examiner claim one reason the general was asked to step down he is opposed use of the military against US citizens...

Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens'
story here...http://www.examiner.com/article/sho...ilitary-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens
 
Last edited:

The Airframer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
171
Location
Virginia Beach
Just wrote my reps

"Dear Elected Officials,

As known, Senator Feinstein has introduced a bill that would outlaw many commonly owned firearms that many of your voters depend on--not only for their next meal, but also their personal defense. I beg for your dedication to defeating such an unconstitutional bill that would criminalize many of your law-abiding citizens that put you in that seat to represent us.

When our founding fathers wrote that We the People shall be "Well Armed" and that our Second Amendment right "Shall not be infringed", they didn't leave this up to interpretation for some left-wing extremist in CA to reinterpret and virtually disarm We the People from any reasonable defense against crime and tyranny.

Please defend our rights as law-abiding citizens of the greatest free nation ever known or we will replace you next election with someone that will. I haven't supported and defended the Constitution of the United States of America for nearly a decade just to watch politicians dishonor and disgrace it by contorting its sacred meaning into a diminished, weakened shell of what our founding fathers intended. Thank you for your time and thank you for your auto-generated response ahead of time."

Please feel free to reuse and edit to fit your personal bio, here's a link that will identify and address the emails to your elected officials:

http://nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
As I mentioned in another thread, referencing this one (and an earlier link to the bill), said link is less than USELESS. If anyone actually takes the time to read the bill (or even attempt to do so), they would notice that it is a series of edits to the existing code. What is useful would be the portion of the code in edited form that supports the questioned assertion in the thread.

When someone posts such a bill as this, one that contains only edits to the code, and posts the whole blamed thing indiscriminately, as somehow supporting some contention of what the law will be when it is passed, it is clear that he has not really read it, or he'd know that he was essentially posting gibberish!

I got into a debate some years ago with someone about what a bill said. He said, "Have you read the law? I have, and it says..." I posted back, "Yes, I have. Have you? It says nothing of the kind. It is a series of edits. Now, if you care to apply the edits to the current code, and post the edited part that says what you say it will say, we can discuss from there." No reply was forthcoming. Clearly he had not read the bill, nor had he applied a single one of the edits. I doubt he knew that the law was nothing but hundreds of pages of descriptions of edits!

Now, if someone will apply the edits and show me where the new code will say what folks here have contended the law says, we can discuss from there.

Any takers? Or shall we just move on and assume that these contentions were mythology passed along or, more likely, verbiage passing through headgear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
As I mentioned in another thread, referencing this one (and an earlier link to the bill), said link is less than USELESS. If anyone actually takes the time to read the bill (or even attempt to do so), they would notice that it is a series of edits to the existing code. What is useful would be the portion of the code in edited form that supports the questioned assertion in the thread.

I didn't realize someone posted this link in another thread. I'm usually pretty studious about checking existing threads and I couldn't find it. This thread is about the "Assault weapon ban Thursday" and this is the actual text of the legislation.

As far as the usefulness of the link, it depends on the ability of the reader to, um... read.

When someone posts such a bill as this, one that contains only edits to the code, and posts the whole blamed thing indiscriminately, as somehow supporting some contention of what the law will be when it is passed, it is clear that he has not really read it, or he'd know that he was essentially posting gibberish!

I agree that it is "gibberish... blame that on DiFI.

I got into a debate some years ago with someone about what a bill said. He said, "Have you read the law? I have, and it says..." I posted back, "Yes, I have. Have you? It says nothing of the kind. It is a series of edits. Now, if you care to apply the edits to the current code, and post the edited part that says what you say it will say, we can discuss from there." No reply was forthcoming. Clearly he had not read the bill, nor had he applied a single one of the edits. I doubt he knew that the law was nothing but hundreds of pages of descriptions of edits!

Congrats on confirming you grasp the basics for understanding proposed and enacted legislation. Would you care to go further and sing "How a bill becomes a law" for us? You know... "I'm just a bill, sittin' on capitol hill".

Now, if someone will apply the edits and show me where the new code will say what folks here have contended the law says, we can discuss from there.

SNIP

Do your own dang homework. I've given you a useful link. You're welcome.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Your post is no more useful to supporting the contention in this thread than posting the Encyclopaedia Brittanica would be to supporting the contention that the Earth is suffering from anthropogenic warming. Sure, there are things in there that, when put together a certain way, might lead one to such a conclusion, but if someone were to post such a conclusion, it is not homework to post more targeted support for their contention. It is their intellectual responsibility to do the heavy lifting or risk being dismissed as intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest.

Your behavior is just such intellectual laziness or, worse, intellectual dishonesty. There was a reason I threw you on ignore. I regret removing you to see if you worth talking to again. You are not. Bye.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Your post is no more useful to supporting the contention in this thread than posting the Encyclopaedia Brittanica would be to supporting the contention that the Earth is suffering from anthropogenic warming.

By all means educate me. What is the "contention" of this thread?

Sure, there are things in there that, when put together a certain way, might lead one to such a conclusion, but if someone were to post such a conclusion, it is not homework to post more targeted support for their contention. It is their intellectual responsibility to do the heavy lifting or risk being dismissed as intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest.

Who are you arguing with? Yourself? Allow me to step aside...

Your behavior is just such intellectual laziness or, worse, intellectual dishonesty.

My behavior? I post a link to the text of a bill for which this thread is named. I do so because I had not seen any such link posted on this forum yet. You then want me to read it to you? I never took you for one being on meds, but you might see about getting that prescription refilled.

There was a reason I threw you on ignore. I regret removing you to see if you worth talking to again. You are not. Bye.

By all means stick your head back in the sand. LOL!!
 
Last edited:

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
head-in-the-sand.jpg
 
Top