IanB
Regular Member
imported post
.
.
-
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.
-
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.
Brady Bunch email shows their concern for Parker decision
- Thread starter IanB
- Start date
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Interesting, that you should be getting Brady Campaign e-mails, nakedshoplifter...:quirky
Interesting, that you should be getting Brady Campaign e-mails, nakedshoplifter...:quirky
CPL_in_WA
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
Know your enemy... :idea:
EDIT: Whytrouble oneself to find out... if you can sign up for the enemy's regular bulletin?
:celebrate
HankT wrote:
Know your enemy... :idea:
EDIT: Whytrouble oneself to find out... if you can sign up for the enemy's regular bulletin?
:celebrate
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
Yup, that's me Hank... you figured me out. I'm the OCDO Brady mole. Drats, my cover is blown. I hope the embassy doesn't recall me.
Yup, that's me Hank... you figured me out. I'm the OCDO Brady mole. Drats, my cover is blown. I hope the embassy doesn't recall me.
openryan
State Researcher
imported post
I just donated $25 dollars for myself, and $25 dollars on your behalf HankT :lol:
I just donated $25 dollars for myself, and $25 dollars on your behalf HankT :lol:
LoveMyCountry
State Researcher
imported post
I carry a gun to defend myself and those I'm with. That group is about defending Gun Laws. :question:
It's not about protecting children, women, elderly or minorities (all of whom are targets of violence), instead their concerns are with protecting laws!
:banghead:
LoveMyCountry
I carry a gun to defend myself and those I'm with. That group is about defending Gun Laws. :question:
It's not about protecting children, women, elderly or minorities (all of whom are targets of violence), instead their concerns are with protecting laws!
:banghead:
LoveMyCountry
GreatWhiteLlama
Regular Member
imported post
Twisted views of the Second Amendment?!
60 years of precedent?!!
I was about to go a rant but, man, where do you start...
Twisted views of the Second Amendment?!
60 years of precedent?!!
I was about to go a rant but, man, where do you start...
openryan
State Researcher
imported post
T-RaV wrote:
T-RaV wrote:
I think a logical place to start would be "_____ you Brady Campaign!"
AtackDuck
Regular Member
imported post
Yep, 60 years of precedent and they blow off the +200 years of precedent in support of our rights. Twits.
Yep, 60 years of precedent and they blow off the +200 years of precedent in support of our rights. Twits.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
CPL_in_WA wrote:
And what's more fun is, I'm also on a few leftists' mailing lists, and EVERYONE demands repeatedly. "Donate now! Click here to now!"
:lol:
CPL_in_WA wrote:
And what's more fun is, I'm also on a few leftists' mailing lists, and EVERYONE demands repeatedly. "Donate now! Click here to now!"
:lol:
BIG SHAFE
Regular Member
imported post
I bet their tune would change if they were ever held at gunpoint.
Retards.:banghead:
I bet their tune would change if they were ever held at gunpoint.
Retards.:banghead:
Warrenton NO CCW
New member
imported post
openryan wrote:
openryan wrote:
The guarantee to be able to own and carry firearms came even BEFORE the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of all 50 states. Framers of the U.S. Constitution knew that this natural right was the simple ability to defend themselves, and ironically, the more dangerous was the government, not the bad guys! The arguments put forth by the D.C. group were weak and they still do not have their act together, filing for, and getting, a second delay at the Supreme Court. People like Bloomberg and cities of Chicago and many others will be looking and helping as much as they can. Because this is a weak case, THIS might be the best one to settle the 2nd amendment question in the eyes of anti-gun zealots. My sense is that if you are among the folks ticked off for one reason or another at the NRA, you might consider getting over it. They will need all the help they can get, and from wherever they can. The Feinsteins of this republic are hell-bent on taking up all handguns, and the rifles and shotguns if they can get them. The fundamental arguments are NOT gun control, they are the registration, confiscation and destruction of every firearm they can get, any way they can get them. (By act of Congress, back-door politics, or by the more liberal Supreme Court members). Remember this anti-gun crowd has already tried to sue gunmakers into oblivion, do straw sales and control legal gun sales in Georgia, Virginia, etc. They are trying to stamp cases with I.D. numbers using the firearm to do it. Pretty soon, you will have to have every shotgun pellet labeled at the rate they are going. Please do not sit this one out, help in any way you can to preserve the 2nd amendment and the individual ownership of firearms. Many of these anti-gun folks are hypocrites, they have carry permits, government and/or personal protection and they want to take away YOUR firearms? So they are not QUITE stupid, they know that firearms can be used to protect themselves and their families, but not yours. Also, we don't need any firearms to hunt, fish, do sport and competition shooting, etc. They will see to that. Please get off your gluteus maximus and get involved, NOW.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
NSL -
You know better than to open a thread like this without a "duct tape" warning. There are heads exploding everywhere.:lol:
But at least they have a new cause. I have never seen anyone take donations to "save" a law Usually donations are taken for monuments, and/or saving lives.
Regards
NSL -
You know better than to open a thread like this without a "duct tape" warning. There are heads exploding everywhere.:lol:
But at least they have a new cause. I have never seen anyone take donations to "save" a law Usually donations are taken for monuments, and/or saving lives.
Regards
Allen
Regular Member
imported post
The Brady Bunch is rightfully scared!
They know that if Parker is upheld, that section 922(o) is the next federal target. The two types of bans are essentially the same. Parker being upheld re-opens the D.C. registry. 922(o) being swept away would re-open the NFA registry. Both are bans of a class of guns. Both imposed a time limit when no more registrations would be allowed. Miller strongly implies that machine guns are the specific class of firearms that are covered by the 2A.
It will take time, but if Parker is upheld, the '86 Machine gun ban is toast.
That scares the Brady Bunch to heck and back.
The Brady Bunch is rightfully scared!
They know that if Parker is upheld, that section 922(o) is the next federal target. The two types of bans are essentially the same. Parker being upheld re-opens the D.C. registry. 922(o) being swept away would re-open the NFA registry. Both are bans of a class of guns. Both imposed a time limit when no more registrations would be allowed. Miller strongly implies that machine guns are the specific class of firearms that are covered by the 2A.
It will take time, but if Parker is upheld, the '86 Machine gun ban is toast.
That scares the Brady Bunch to heck and back.
BIG SHAFE
Regular Member
imported post
Allen wrote:
Allen wrote:
There is hope! I have another good reason to keep fighting the good fight.:celebrate
ParaWarthog
Regular Member
imported post
Warrenton NO CCW wrote:
I, for one, will not get over the NRA's acts this year. They have effectively bolstered gun control, and this year, they have done more to further the anti gun movement than even the Brady Campaign. I will continue to write my legislators and teach those whom I come into contact the merits of gun ownership, but I will not support an organization that claims to help gun owners, yet supports the disarming of lawful citizens simply because of heat-of-the-moment controversy.
Warrenton NO CCW wrote:
I totally agree with this statement. The gun control groups' more accurate descriptor would be "gun revocation advates." These purportedly "minor" gun ownership and carrying restrictions will continue to snowball until we have complete registration, and ultimately, confiscation.
I, for one, will not get over the NRA's acts this year. They have effectively bolstered gun control, and this year, they have done more to further the anti gun movement than even the Brady Campaign. I will continue to write my legislators and teach those whom I come into contact the merits of gun ownership, but I will not support an organization that claims to help gun owners, yet supports the disarming of lawful citizens simply because of heat-of-the-moment controversy.
Allen
Regular Member
imported post
ParaWarthog, The NRA have nothing to do with the Parker case. While they may file an amicus brief, they are involved in no other way.
As to the bill you are referencing, I've read it in its entirety. I don't agree that it will do what the GOA and the JPFO says it will do.
I do believe that after the VT massacre, something was gonna get passed and that the NRA did the best they could to make a bad thing less bad than it could have been. Discussing the merits (or not) of that bill, is not what this thread is about, however.
ParaWarthog, The NRA have nothing to do with the Parker case. While they may file an amicus brief, they are involved in no other way.
As to the bill you are referencing, I've read it in its entirety. I don't agree that it will do what the GOA and the JPFO says it will do.
I do believe that after the VT massacre, something was gonna get passed and that the NRA did the best they could to make a bad thing less bad than it could have been. Discussing the merits (or not) of that bill, is not what this thread is about, however.
ParaWarthog
Regular Member
imported post
Allen wrote:
My post was made to answer this point Warrenton made:
Warrenton NO CCW wrote:
I've seen threads go MUCH more off topic than this, but if the posters would like me to create a thread that indicates a few members' feelings of utter betrayal on behalf of the NRA, I will.
Allen wrote:
My post was made to answer this point Warrenton made:
Warrenton NO CCW wrote:
I've seen threads go MUCH more off topic than this, but if the posters would like me to create a thread that indicates a few members' feelings of utter betrayal on behalf of the NRA, I will.
Warrenton NO CCW
New member
imported post
I had no intent to drag up feelings about the NRA. What I did was recognize that some open carry and other organization members may have some issues with the NRA. The fact is the NRA will be a major player in any defense of the 2nd amendment and is in the process of gathering a lot more information and statistics to use, should the Supreme Court agree to hear the Parker/D.C. case. The case is a major assault on the 2nd amendment and seems a relatively weak case on the part of D.C. So, if we all have to go all out, THIS is as good a case as we will get and I was reminding folks that the NRA has a large role of support in this case. I do not even think you should kiss and make up with the NRA if you are one offended by their performance on particular issues. Just don't cut your nose off to spite your face. I would expect virtually every pro-gun organization in the U.S. to make contributions of information, a few bucks and whatever they can do to protect the 2nd amendment, the individual right to have and bear arms. Moreover, I would like it to be much harder for anti-gun zealots to chip away at our rights. If you or I did straw sales, we would be subject to arrest, but apparently Bloomberg and reporters can get away with it. Feinstein can have her concealed carry permit, but she has the brass to try to take our rights away. Coward AND a hypocrite. Did you ever wonder why she feels the need to carry? Same as everyone else. I would suggest that people support the NRA and other organizations on the D.C. case should the Supreme Court take the case. And we should all pray that Justice Kennedy is well during that case, for he will likely be the swing vote once again. I sincerely hope we have more good news later for Washington, D.C., Chicago, Detroit and so forth. Also, it would be nice to give Mayor Bloomberg the finger on this issue. Please remember that the real evil understood by the framers of the U.S. Constitution was the oppression of the citizens by the government. NOT just the bad guys. Some of these framers were REALLY smart, weren't they? The Supreme Court can just confirm the decision of the lower court, or they can take the case. I would predict that if the Court refuses to take the case, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer will have voted to refuse the case and accept the lower court decision. NOT taking the case means that the 2nd amendment question was NOT answered and states and cities can continue to hamper firearm possession for law-abiding citizens and continue to pass local legislation, despite many state preemptions. My sense is that it is better to get the case to the Supreme Court and on record at this time, and for the D.C. case.
I had no intent to drag up feelings about the NRA. What I did was recognize that some open carry and other organization members may have some issues with the NRA. The fact is the NRA will be a major player in any defense of the 2nd amendment and is in the process of gathering a lot more information and statistics to use, should the Supreme Court agree to hear the Parker/D.C. case. The case is a major assault on the 2nd amendment and seems a relatively weak case on the part of D.C. So, if we all have to go all out, THIS is as good a case as we will get and I was reminding folks that the NRA has a large role of support in this case. I do not even think you should kiss and make up with the NRA if you are one offended by their performance on particular issues. Just don't cut your nose off to spite your face. I would expect virtually every pro-gun organization in the U.S. to make contributions of information, a few bucks and whatever they can do to protect the 2nd amendment, the individual right to have and bear arms. Moreover, I would like it to be much harder for anti-gun zealots to chip away at our rights. If you or I did straw sales, we would be subject to arrest, but apparently Bloomberg and reporters can get away with it. Feinstein can have her concealed carry permit, but she has the brass to try to take our rights away. Coward AND a hypocrite. Did you ever wonder why she feels the need to carry? Same as everyone else. I would suggest that people support the NRA and other organizations on the D.C. case should the Supreme Court take the case. And we should all pray that Justice Kennedy is well during that case, for he will likely be the swing vote once again. I sincerely hope we have more good news later for Washington, D.C., Chicago, Detroit and so forth. Also, it would be nice to give Mayor Bloomberg the finger on this issue. Please remember that the real evil understood by the framers of the U.S. Constitution was the oppression of the citizens by the government. NOT just the bad guys. Some of these framers were REALLY smart, weren't they? The Supreme Court can just confirm the decision of the lower court, or they can take the case. I would predict that if the Court refuses to take the case, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer will have voted to refuse the case and accept the lower court decision. NOT taking the case means that the 2nd amendment question was NOT answered and states and cities can continue to hamper firearm possession for law-abiding citizens and continue to pass local legislation, despite many state preemptions. My sense is that it is better to get the case to the Supreme Court and on record at this time, and for the D.C. case.
Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
BIG SHAFE wrote:
BIG SHAFE wrote:
They most certainly do! http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/60/35/