View Full Version : Holder concedes Heller narrows regulation "options"
Winston Smith
01-15-09, 14:57
January 15th, 2009
Holder: Gun-control options ‘narrowed’
Posted: 03:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Attorney General-designate Eric Holder conceded during his confirmation hearing Thursday that the government’s options for regulating the possession of firearms have been narrowed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms.
“Reasonable restrictions are still possible,” Holder said, including measures such as a ban on the sale of what are called “cop-killer” bullets.
But, he granted, “we’re living in a different world” since the high court’s 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Holder said that he previously viewed the Second Amendment as a “collective right” to bear arms, not an individual right.
The Heller ruling, Holder said, was a “very significant opinion.”
January 15th, 2009
Holder: Gun-control options ‘narrowed’
Posted: 03:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Attorney General-designate Eric Holder conceded during his confirmation hearing Thursday that the government’s options for regulating the possession of firearms have been narrowed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms.
“Reasonable restrictions are still possible,” Holder said, including measures such as a ban on the sale of what are called “cop-killer” bullets.
But, he granted, “we’re living in a different world” since the high court’s 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Holder said that he previously viewed the Second Amendment as a “collective right” to bear arms, not an individual right.
The Heller ruling, Holder said, was a “very significant opinion.”
One that I am sure he would be glad to help overturn.
I wrote a bunch of letters to Senators but I am afraid he will be confirmed.
Buckaroo
If I shoot a cop with a .22 in the head is that a "cop killer bullet"? What If I use a .38 and he isn't wearing body armor? Can someone please explain WTF a "cop killer bullet" is? ****ing morons.
variablebinary
01-15-09, 15:20
The fact that this shit is even on their mind means we are in for a fight
Holder is human garbage.
Can someone please explain WTF a "cop killer bullet" is? ****ing morons.
Just political marketing slogan, much like the word extreme or tactical is also used for marketing.I have went through this many times with many people who are not part of the gun culture, even though some have guns and do hunt, they just don't get it, or think it through or in many cases understand. So sad
Winston Smith
01-15-09, 15:27
Exactly. "options" narrowed. Just what shit are they planning now?
"Cop Killer" was a term from the 80s regarding teflon coated ammo developed by the police and only sold to the police for shooting criminals with kevlar vests. Now it could be applied to any centerfire rifle cartidge.
Next, expect to hear about the "Terrorist's Plastic Gun" that airport x-ray machines can't detect.
Non cop killer bullets would be wax plugs fired by the primer only w/o powder. . . . which are suitable for indoor shooting ranges . . . anything more is more than Obama, Holder, and the S.S. believe free citizens NEED.
Next, expect to hear about the "Terrorist's Plastic Gun" that airport x-ray machines can't detect.
And the "high powered rifles" that can "take down 747s"...
Or, as my father-in-law likes to say "those assault rifles that can take out a neighborhood" :rolleyes:
alvincullumyork
01-15-09, 15:45
[QUOTE=Palmguy;288990]And the "high powered rifles" that can "take down 747s"...
oh their out their
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/50caliber/
and for only, " A government study found that a used .50 caliber BMG sniper rifle can be purchased online for just $29.95 "
dirksterg30
01-15-09, 15:47
Exactly. "options" narrowed. Just what shit are they planning now?
"Cop Killer" was a term from the 80s regarding teflon coated ammo developed by the police and only sold to the police for shooting criminals with kevlar vests. Now it could be applied to any centerfire rifle cartidge.
I thought the idea behind teflon coated bullets was to reduce wear and friction in the barrel, and increase velocity.
Winston Smith
01-15-09, 16:08
Lubrication. Right. :o
There was no Internet in the '80s to do research- that is the story I was told.- sorry.
Here is the history:
Teflon is another such lubricant, and bullets coated in which had an interesting political saga in the United States. They were first introduced in the 1960s by three law enforcement officers who worked together to develop new ammunition for police use. The first Teflon coated bullets were known as "KTW bullets", after the initials of the three inventors, and were sold only to law enforcement organizations.
In 1982, the NBC TV network ran a special on the bullets and argued that the bullets were a threat to police. Gun control organizations in the US labelled Teflon coated bullets as "cop killer bullets", and argued that they were capable of penetrating Kevlar bullet-resistant vests. This was, in a sense, true: many of the bullets that had Teflon coatings were capable of penetrating Kevlar vests...but they would be equally capable of penetrating the vests without Teflon coating: the coating has no effect on the ability of a bullet to punch through body armor.
Its just a media buzzword marketing concept. ".50 cal. sniper rifles can be used to shoot down helicopters" sounds more credible as a "legitimate reason" than "first lets ban the largest, and then work our way down..."
One that I am sure he would be glad to help overturn.
I wrote a bunch of letters to Senators but I am afraid he will be confirmed.
Buckaroo
Same here, and I also think he will be confirmed. What a jerk this man is. He backed Clinton in pardons for the FALN. But, he doesn't think the average guy should have a gun to protect himself. Maybe he will let us carry bombs. :rolleyes:
I guess I was being a ranting sarcastic ass. I just find it absurd. What's next? Cop killing knives, cars, etc..etc...or wait a novel idea. Cop killing people.
I agree 110% that Holder is a douchebag and I expressed my doubts about him and a few other Klinton rejects. I just hope this doesn't get ugly.
What I really find ironic is that here in Iraq every household is allowed to have 1 AK47 rifle (or similar IIRC) and a couple of mags.
Just political marketing slogan, much like the word extreme or tactical is also used for marketing.I have went through this many times with many people who are not part of the gun culture, even though some have guns and do hunt, they just don't get it, or think it through or in many cases understand. So sad
Winston Smith
01-15-09, 16:32
"What I really find ironic is that here in Iraq every household is allowed to have 1 AK47 rifle (or similar IIRC) and a couple of mags. "
DC Vs. Heller as interpeted by DC means you have a right to a registered revolver and six (6) cartridges...I assume non-teflon coated.
"What I really find ironic is that here in Iraq every household is allowed to have 1 AK47 rifle (or similar IIRC) and a couple of mags. "
DC Vs. Heller as interpeted by DC means you have a right to a registered revolver and six (6) cartridges...I assume non-teflon coated.
That's what Barney Fife had. But he had to keep his bullets in his pocket.
January 15th, 2009
Holder: Gun-control options ‘narrowed’
Posted: 03:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Attorney General-designate Eric Holder conceded during his confirmation hearing Thursday that the government’s options for regulating the possession of firearms have been narrowed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms.
“Reasonable restrictions are still possible,” Holder said, including measures such as a ban on the sale of what are called “cop-killer” bullets.
But, he granted, “we’re living in a different world” since the high court’s 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Holder said that he previously viewed the Second Amendment as a “collective right” to bear arms, not an individual right.
The Heller ruling, Holder said, was a “very significant opinion.”
I see their strategy in light of Heller as being:
(1) Drop overt attempts at regulation at the Federal level and work through their henchmen at the STATE LEVEL to create the regulation there. Fifty times as much work, but much less resistance and publicity. Remember Obama mentioned the states in his famous "just because you have an individual right" speech.
(2) Go after AMMUNITION. If the constitution protects "arms" then forget arms. Attack the consumables.
(3) Use TAXATION as the invisible form of regulation. No one says you can't have a gun or buy ammo. What, you can't afford to buy a gun or ammo? Well that sounds like a personal finance problem to me...
Keep your eye on these things and not the big ban in the sky. Not that they won't try that too, but I think the areas above are where they are going to concentrate their offensive.
This is why IMO a AWB is now impossible due to Heller
It allows restriction but not bans, yet the very features they want to ban actually make it a new type of arm, by their own name of a certain classification and configuration of a rifle, it becomes an "Assault Rifle"
Now, Heller says you cannot ban a weapon in common use at the time, and "Assault Rifles" are definatly in common use
Once you ban certain features, or configurations thereoff, it is no longer an "Assault Rifle" and they cant ban a weapon in common use...yet once those features are gone its no longer an 'Assault Weapon' and they just effectively banned it...
See where im going w/ this! :D
This is why IMO a AWB is now impossible due to Heller
It allows restriction but not bans, yet the very features they want to ban actually make it a new type of arm, by their own name of a certain classification and configuration of a rifle, it becomes an "Assault Rifle"
Now, Heller says you cannot ban a weapon in common use at the time, and "Assault Rifles" are definatly in common use
Once you ban certain features, or configurations thereoff, it is no longer an "Assault Rifle" and they cant ban a weapon in common use...yet once those features are gone its no longer an 'Assault Weapon' and they just effectively banned it...
See where im going w/ this! :D
But if they make a rifle cost $4000 they don't have to ban it.
Business_Casual
01-15-09, 18:09
(2) Go after AMMUNITION. If the constitution protects "arms" then forget arms. Attack the consumables.
I don't think you have to be terribly clever to work out that is a back door ban and creating a challenge wouldn't be difficult.
M_P
I don't think you have to be terribly clever to work out that is a back door ban and creating a challenge wouldn't be difficult.
M_P
This is exactly what they are doing right now:
http://www.ammunitionaccountability.com/
And in many states it has already been up for a vote without any fanfare. It got voted down, fortunately, in my state before I had even heard of it. And I follow these things. It is seen as favorable legislation in many locations, so someone better get their challenges ready.
Now this is not a "tax", which is even more insidious. It is a regulatory requirement intended to drive the cost of ammunition up and make it difficult to obtain. Same result.
AirmanAtwood
01-15-09, 19:11
[QUOTE=Palmguy;288990]And the "high powered rifles" that can "take down 747s"...
oh their out their
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/50caliber/
and for only, " A government study found that a used .50 caliber BMG sniper rifle can be purchased online for just $29.95 "
BAHAHAHAHA lol Wow, the rifle is cheaper than the ammo :eek:
[QUOTE=alvincullumyork;288997]
BAHAHAHAHA lol Wow, the rifle is cheaper than the ammo :eek:
That won't even get you a box of 10:
http://www.cabelas.com/prod-1/0065819217014a.shtml
alvincullumyork
01-15-09, 20:01
My personal favorite is the Washington DC 50 cal threat map.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/50calibermap.pdf
I mean its a wonder no body has shot one of these things and blown up the world with pin point accuracy from up to 4 miles out.
My personal favorite is the Washington DC 50 cal threat map.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/50calibermap.pdf
I mean its a wonder no body has shot one of these things and blown up the world with pin point accuracy from up to 4 miles out.
I'm sure all the putty-brained leftists that look at that map immediately run to the phone to donate money to the Brady Campaign. After all it PROVES no one is safe!!
:confused:
I see their strategy in light of Heller as being:
(1) Drop overt attempts at regulation at the Federal level and work through their henchmen at the STATE LEVEL to create the regulation there. Fifty times as much work, but much less resistance and publicity. Remember Obama mentioned the states in his famous "just because you have an individual right" speech.
(2) Go after AMMUNITION. If the constitution protects "arms" then forget arms. Attack the consumables.
(3) Use TAXATION as the invisible form of regulation. No one says you can't have a gun or buy ammo. What, you can't afford to buy a gun or ammo? Well that sounds like a personal finance problem to me...
Keep your eye on these things and not the big ban in the sky. Not that they won't try that too, but I think the areas above are where they are going to concentrate their offensive.
The gun-grabbers have not done well in most states:
www.wikipedia.com
Type in :
Concealed carry in the United States . Check out the map.
also : Castle Doctrine in the United States.
Outside of the dirty half dozen ( or so) the gun-grabbers have not done well during the last 10 - 12 years.
Finding a .50 for 29 bucks would be a killer deal so I emailed the Brady gang the following.
On your story about .50 caliber rifles you point to a government study that a civilian can purchase one for $29.95. Could you please tell me where I can pick one up for that price. I would love to find one for that price. I realize the study you point to is ten years old so even if you can find one for under fifty bucks I would be tickled pink.
And since your at it finding some cheap ammo would be nice. And maybe some Saturday night specials if you notice some laying around. Just send me the links.
My personal favorite is the Washington DC 50 cal threat map.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/50calibermap.pdf
I mean its a wonder no body has shot one of these things and blown up the world with pin point accuracy from up to 4 miles out.
LMAO that map is hilarious. They forgot to list all of the museums. Think of the children!
:rolleyes:
Ammunition Accountability
Saving lives one bullet at a time is their tag line and then they say
Then when a potential criminal purchases a box of 9mm cartridges, the box of ammunition and the bullets’ coding numbers would be connected to the purchaser in a statewide database. When a bullet is found at a crime scene, the code on the bullet can be read with a simple magnifying glass and then be run through a statewide database to determine who purchased the ammunition and where, providing a valuable investigative lead. So, how does it save a life one bullet at a time? Seems like the crime victim has already been victimized by the time the CSI folks dig up and examine the bullet. . . . .
Looking at that map, kinda makes me wish Sarah Brady had gone into real estate. With that kind of grasp on land and distance, I bet she could hook up some awesome deals.
Wifey and I have been arguing this Holder thing all day. I made the mistake of calling him "the new face of evil" on my route from CNN to the coffee pot & she is just detirmined that there are only evil actions there are no evil people . .. . maddening having the "assault" weapons argument from the other side . . . tried explaining that guns are inanimate and people aren't . . . blah.
He said a PERM AWB WOULD be permissible under Heller.
Winston Smith
01-16-09, 05:45
Uhn...Guys! That Brady map of DC is almost upside down! :confused:
Any reason why they would twist it so far to the Left? :rolleyes:
And that ammo acountability site- it does not say who these people are. Is that accountable? What are they ashamed of?
ID ammo, not people?
Please provide us with some links to some GOOD gun control websites.
30 cal slut
01-16-09, 06:46
i doubt you could get a chinese-made airsoft .50 bmg for $30.
where are brady shopping?
prolly the same places that promise to make your unit grow bigger.
Then when a potential criminal purchases a box of 9mm cartridges, the box of ammunition and the bullets’ coding numbers would be connected to the purchaser in a statewide database. When a bullet is found at a crime scene, the code on the bullet can be read with a simple magnifying glass and then be run through a statewide database to determine who purchased the ammunition and where, providing a valuable investigative lead.
What this sounds like is an opportunity for a lot of ammunition to be stolen. And then a lot of innocent people being railroaded into prison after a lazy criminal investigator and politically ambitious prosecutor conclude that the bullet evidence is all they need to convict.
That was my first thought. Of course their website says they are able to tell the number from a recovered bullet 99% of the time . . . but I imagine the number on the brass would actually be readable closer to 100%. Gather enough brass from your local range or a police range and the waters could get really muddy.
There were a couple things that really caught my eye -
a potential criminal because only potential criminals would buy ammo and
a box of 9mm cartridges because criminals always use 9's. Why the inclusion of the specific caliber? What are they trying to say?
I think it comes back to what I said first in this thread, they won't be happy until we can only fire wax plugs with primers at indoor ranges.
I think it comes back to what I said first in this thread, they won't be happy until we can only fire wax plugs with primers at indoor ranges.
They wouldn't want that either because you would be developing skills they don't want you to possess.
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 09:57
This is exactly what they are doing right now:
http://www.ammunitionaccountability.com/
And in many states it has already been up for a vote without any fanfare. It got voted down, fortunately, in my state before I had even heard of it. And I follow these things. It is seen as favorable legislation in many locations, so someone better get their challenges ready.
Now this is not a "tax", which is even more insidious. It is a regulatory requirement intended to drive the cost of ammunition up and make it difficult to obtain. Same result.
Seriously you need to go back and understand the legislative process. For instance in looking at your map, you'd think that PA had somehow adopted this legislation. It was only proposed and then promptly sent to Committee to die...about a year ago...in the last session. Which of these states DID pass the Ammunition Accountability Act?
90% of proposed legislation never even makes it out of committee to floor debate...fewer still get an up or down vote. That said "ammunition accountability", no matter how distasteful, is still STATE legislation. Even if a state did pass such legislation, it would be completely consistent with their powers under the Constitution. If Brady is content to duke this out on a state-by-state basis, we should be content to do so as well.
The issue posed by the OP is whether FEDERAL regulation is at issue. This is an entirely different issue. The threat to our rights on this issue is that an overriding federal action will make such state by state decisions worthless.
The Ammunition Accountability Act doesn't seem to be going anywhere and doesn't even apply to Holder's power to regulate. An across the board AWB would have to be handled through legislation, not regulation. All we have to do is pay attention.
Seriously you need to go back and understand the legislative process. For instance in looking at your map, you'd think that PA had somehow adopted this legislation. It was only proposed and then promptly sent to Committee to die...about a year ago...in the last session. Which of these states DID pass the Ammunition Accountability Act?
90% of proposed legislation never even makes it out of committee to floor debate...fewer still get an up or down vote. That said "ammunition accountability", no matter how distasteful, is still STATE legislation. Even if a state did pass such legislation, it would be completely consistent with their powers under the Constitution. If Brady is content to duke this out on a state-by-state basis, we should be content to do so as well.
The issue posed by the OP is whether FEDERAL regulation is at issue. This is an entirely different issue. The threat to our rights on this issue is that an overriding federal action will make such state by state decisions worthless.
The Ammunition Accountability Act doesn't seem to be going anywhere and doesn't even apply to Holder's power to regulate. An across the board AWB would have to be handled through legislation, not regulation. All we have to do is pay attention.
John, you seem very confused, and your comments almost completely non sequitur. You've got my "understanding of the legislative process", mixed up with a map I posted of a group pushing state ammunition legislation, mixed up with something about Federal regulation, mixed up with something about Holder. Do you take drugs or something? Or do you just start this crap on account of some personality disorder? Or is it Asperger Syndrome and you don't even realize you are doing it?
Either way, remember, I'm on the list of people who have already witnessed your "behavior issues" and am fully intolerant of them. Say something that makes sense, is socially appropriate, fits the context of the discussion, and is constructive or don't say anything at all. (Good advise I am almost certain you won't follow...)
variablebinary
01-16-09, 11:48
He said a PERM AWB WOULD be permissible under Heller.
The dems will push for a ban, and will probably get it, but I dont think it will survive a firm challenge. The reason being Justice Scalia stated that “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”
This indicates how the court may view a ban on AR15's for two reasons. The first is that they found that the DC ban was against an entire class of firearm and the second is that an Ar-15, the civilian version of the M16, is a military style rifle that is of common use. Not being capable of bearing this type of arm is in direct conflict of one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment.
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 12:15
John, you seem very confused, and your comments almost completely non sequitur. You've got my "understanding of the legislative process", mixed up with a map I posted of a group pushing state ammunition legislation, mixed up with something about Federal regulation, mixed up with something about Holder. Do you take drugs or something? Or do you just start this crap on account of some personality disorder? Or is it Asperger Syndrome and you don't even realize you are doing it?
Either way, remember, I'm on the list of people who have already witnessed your "behavior issues" and am fully intolerant of them. Say something that makes sense, is socially appropriate, fits the context of the discussion, and is constructive or don't say anything at all. (Good advise I am almost certain you won't follow...)
Oh please. Talk about a non-sequitur.
Read the OP and quit blowing smoke.
Finding a .50 for 29 bucks would be a killer deal so I emailed the Brady gang the following.
They often confuse .50 cal muzzle loading rounds with .50BMG rounds. A great example of the anitgunners not knowing what they are talking about took place in the Senate in Feb 2004 when Teddy, before his brain cancer, although it may be hard to tell, stood up and introduced legislation to a debate banning rounds, to ban armor piercing .30-.30s.:D
Oh please. Talk about a non-sequitur.
Read the OP and quit blowing smoke.
Read it. Don't read it. It is not closely related to my post. We are not bound here to some law of compliance with the OP. Conversations take direction. You are just trying to justify your typically inappropriate conduct.
SloaneRanger
01-16-09, 12:50
BHO went to Harvard right?
If he'd studied any philosophy amidst all his sociology and law he'd know that the romans had figured it all out 1,943 years ago.
"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
A sword is never a killer, it is but a tool in the killer’s hands.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 B.C. - 65 A.D.
SloaneRanger
01-16-09, 13:05
Heck we all thought two wars, the worst economy since the great depression, a housing and foreclosure crisis and a plethora of other catastrophes would have them too preoccupied to worry about a gun grab yet they are commenting on the Heller ruling, (and reminding us that it was only 5-4 by the way) before they are even in office. That's a very bad omen.:eek:
alvincullumyork
01-16-09, 13:24
The dems will push for a ban, and will probably get it, but I dont think it will survive a firm challenge.
Please forgive me for getting my information from the Brady site but they said that very few gun laws have been challenged by the second amendment. my question if this info is true is why?
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 13:39
Read it. Don't read it. It is not closely related to my post. We are not bound here to some law of compliance with the OP. Conversations take direction. You are just trying to justify your typically inappropriate conduct.
Wow...I had no idea that you were that delusional. Thanks for the head's up.
The implication that there is some grand conspiracy about to play out with ammunition accountability is fairy tale and ultimately irrelevant to Federal Regulation. So what's the grand revelation you're offering?
That there are anti-gun groups out there that will pull strings to get legislation introduced that goes nowhere? That is shocking how?
That you couldn't respond in anything resembling an adult manner and resorted yet again to mindless ad hominem is far more revealing of your "conduct" than it is of mine.
Winston Smith
01-16-09, 14:14
Significant quote in Bold:
POLITICO.COM:
January 15, 2009
Categories: Leadership
Holder: 'Heller' decision changed everything on gun laws
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a gun-rights proponent, was able to extract some interesting concessions from Holder in the wake of the 'Heller' decision.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that the District of Columbia's ban of handguns was a violation of the Second Amendment and struck it down.
Holder had support[ed SIC] the D.C. ban, but said that in the wake of the high court's ruling, everything has changed.
"Heller is a significant, significant decision," Holder said, noting that it "narrowed" the options for those seeking to implement new gun laws.
Holder had been among those arguing that the Second Amendment provided for a "collective," not individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court found otherwise, though, and Holder said that debate has now been resolved.
"We now now that is not the case," said Holder of his position on the collective right to bear arms. "It is a major difference."
Holder said the Obama administration would only look at relatively minor gun laws, such as closeing the gun-show loophole, or banning "cop killer" bullets that penetrate bulletproof vests. Otherwise, Holder indicated, the new administration is unlikely to pursue new initiatives on this front.
TRANSCRIPT FROM NY TIMES:
Senate Confirmation Hearings: Eric Holder, Day One
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Single Page Reprints Share
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalinkPublished: January 16, 2009
(Page 49 of 88)
Post-Heller, can you kind of give me what your position is now? You've been -- you know, there's a lot of publicity out there in terms of written statements and previous comments about what you believe the Second Amendment.
HOLDER: Well, I think that post-Heller, the options that we have in terms of regulating the possession of firearms has been narrowed. I don't think that it has been eliminated. And I think that reasonable restrictions are still possible.
But any time that we think about interfering with what the Supreme Court has said is a personal right. That has to be factored in now with the Heller decision and the Supreme Court's view of the Second Amendment.
I don't think that that means that we should turn away from the efforts that we have made to make this nation more safe, to be responsible about guns and who has them, how they are used. I mean, our effort, for instance, to go after felons in possession of weapons, I mean, should be as strong now as it was pre-Heller.
But I think that there is certainly -- we're in a different world. I think we operated for a good many years with the assumption that the Second Amendment referred to a collective right. We now know that that is not the case.
And so, we are still, I think, going to have to grapple with that and understand what that means. But I think it is a huge factor. It's a major difference.
COBURN: Let me ask you specifically. Much of your statements in the past had to do with guns as far as sporting events.
Do you believe there's any assurance given by Heller that, outside of sporting use, there's a right to own and hold a gun?
HOLDER: Outside of...
COBURN: Utilization for sport -- for hunting, for skeet shooting, for target practice. Do you believe that there's a right to own a gun for other than hunting or sportsman's purposes?
HOLDER: I think, post-Heller, absolutely. I mean, that's one of the things that we're dealing with in Washington, D.C., now.
COBURN: What kind of common sense gun regulations would you like to see enacted?
HOLDER: Well, I agree with President-elect Obama. You know, closing the gun show loophole, banning the sale of cop-killer bullets, things of that nature, those are, I think, the things that we need to focus on. Those are things I think have a law enforcement component to them. Those are things that I think are still viable in a post- Heller world.
COBURN: Do you find any irony in the fact that you can serve your country in the military at 18, but in some places we would want to limit your ability to own a weapon until you're 21?
HOLDER: Well, I don't -- well, I guess there is a bit of dissonance there. These decisions are made on, I guess, a state-by- state basis.
Yes, I guess there is some dissonance there.
COBURN: As attorney general, will you make the commitment to defend the Heller's holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms?
HOLDER: Sure. That is the law as the Supreme Court has given it to me.
COBURN: Would you do so, if the Supreme Court granted cert in a case affecting or revisiting Heller?
HOLDER: I'm sorry. Would I...
COBURN: Would you also defend Heller, if the Supreme Court were to grant cert in a case affecting or revisiting Heller?
HOLDER: Oh, I see what you mean.
Well, I mean, you have to examine the facts of the particular case and understand how those facts fit under the Heller determination. But Heller...
COBURN: Well, let's assume it does.
HOLDER: OK. Well, I mean, we follow -- I'm a lawyer who follows the doctrine of stare decisis. The Supreme Court has spoken. And in viewing these new facts, one would have to take into account in a very substantial way, because it is the ultimate -- the ultimate arbiter has said what the Second Amendment means. I have to take that into account in deciding what position the Justice Department will take.
I mean, Heller is a significant, significant opinion.
COBURN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part of that.
HOLDER: Heller was a very significant opinion.
COBURN: Yes, it is. It's one I'm very happy about as a Second Amendment advocate, and as somebody from Oklahoma.
variablebinary
01-16-09, 14:30
Please forgive me for getting my information from the Brady site but they said that very few gun laws have been challenged by the second amendment. my question if this info is true is why?
Cost mostly, and Heller is a game changer.
Winston Smith
01-16-09, 15:10
Cost mostly, and Heller is a game changer.
I think that the Obama administration will use Heller as an excuse to the Left for not persuing what even Barny Frank has called a loosing issue. Most Democrats have come to hate gun controll; the rest are ghetto panderers.
We can expect no help from the AG on fighting unreasonable local/state infringments on the Second Ammendment. The courts may side with whatever is "reasonable" to avoid the possibility of a reversal by the SCOTUS.
The question is where and when do we begin to fight back?
New York State's 10 Round Magazine limit is not reasonable: You must defend yourself with 10 shots, or you get the death penalty?!? Six shots in D.C.?!?!
Slowly, we will roll back GC restrictions, reasuring judges by the slow progress without the "end of the world as THEY know it".
Expect more retorical outrage over any and all shooting incidents.
Something that I am sure that we understand, but the general public and certainly the people that are elected to represent us don't know is almost any rifle would be a "cop killer" unless that officer is wearing a vest with SAPI type plates. So when they speak of banning bullets that can go through an officers vest they are essentially referring to every rifle bullet in common use.
We need to make this clear to those who haven't a clue.
diving dave
01-16-09, 15:29
What worries me is that all that is being said now by these politicians will fly right out the window when something high profile happens..the media will run with it, anti gun groups will scream at the top of their lungs, and the whole issue of gun control/new AW ban will be front and center. I think its just a matter of when. Everyone who owns a firearm needs to make their voice heard. I like the idea of a million law abiding gun owners showing up in DC to stand up for our rights. We're in for a very tough fight.
Something that I am sure that we understand, but the general public and certainly the people that are elected to represent us don't know is almost any rifle would be a "cop killer" unless that officer is wearing a vest with SAPI type plates. So when they speak of banning bullets that can go through an officers vest they are essentially referring to every rifle bullet in common use.
We need to make this clear to those who haven't a clue.
Bet you a 257 Wby would shoot through a SAPI plate.
Wow...I had no idea that you were that delusional. Thanks for the head's up.
The implication that there is some grand conspiracy about to play out with ammunition accountability is fairy tale and ultimately irrelevant to Federal Regulation. So what's the grand revelation you're offering?
That there are anti-gun groups out there that will pull strings to get legislation introduced that goes nowhere? That is shocking how?
That you couldn't respond in anything resembling an adult manner and resorted yet again to mindless ad hominem is far more revealing of your "conduct" than it is of mine.
John, I used to think that maybe you had something to offer here, even though your delivery was uncivilized. Now I just think your delivery is uncivilized. It's just not possible to filter out the crap. At the end of the day you always end up being just another loud mouthed, obnoxious kid pushing the troll-like arguing as far as you believe you can get away with.
You probably figure, so what, who cares? I'll do whatever I want. But the problem is -- your conduct here is impacting the sponsors' business. As someone who has never earned a living in business, that is probably a completely foreign idea to you. You see having some guy like you hanging around stirring up crap with visitors and customers -- as you appear to do just for the entertainment value -- is ultimately costing them money in the long run. It would be like having some freak hanging around in front of your store harassing people who come in. People come here to talk, not have some dork fabricating arguments and interfering with conversations and refusing to shut up no matter what is said to him. If I were the investors, I'd put an end to you today. Business comes first.
It is possible you could develop some character traits that would allow you become a value added contributor, and probably improve your career opportunities and other opportunities as well. But the odds are dramatically against it. Obsessive behavior is the downfall of many. And you've got it bad.
What worries me is that all that is being said now by these politicians will fly right out the window when something high profile happens..the media will run with it, anti gun groups will scream at the top of their lungs, and the whole issue of gun control/new AW ban will be front and center. I think its just a matter of when. ...We're in for a very tough fight.
You can depend on that.
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 21:52
You've got some very serious issues.
That you think that because someone challenges your moronic assumptions that the firearms industry sponsors are losing business and money just because of little old me is pure delusion.
That you think anyone shares your delusion is pathetic.
Lubrication. Right. :o
There was no Internet in the '80s to do research- that is the story I was told.- sorry.
Here is the history:
Teflon is another such lubricant, and bullets coated in which had an interesting political saga in the United States. They were first introduced in the 1960s by three law enforcement officers who worked together to develop new ammunition for police use. The first Teflon coated bullets were known as "KTW bullets", after the initials of the three inventors, and were sold only to law enforcement organizations.
These so-called cop killer bullets snuck into the movie RONIN as well
Chad
Business_Casual
01-16-09, 22:13
Let's just say that Blueforce probably isn't the only guy who thinks that when you join a thread it is going to end up devolving into unreadable "I know you are but what am I" type posts.
M_P
You've got some very serious issues.
That you think that because someone challenges your moronic assumptions that the firearms industry sponsors are losing business and money just because of little old me is pure delusion.
That you think anyone shares your delusion is pathetic.
You've caused problems with many people here, not just me. I've seen it happen numerous times both in conversations I was a part of, and ones I was not. As an example, though, even I post infrequently I end up with dealing with your garbage a large percentage of the time. Your suggestion that you are just challenging "moronic assumptions" is deep spin. You fabricate and disrupt. And you do it often. And as far as I can tell that's how you get your kicks. Talk about issues.
I know both as a personal customer of the sponsors of this site, and as someone with revenue streams tied to products promoted on this site, that your conduct here is bad for business. And since your comments are a matter of record, no one needs your self-assessment of them. All customers, investors, and the sponsors above need to do is click on your profile and review your postings. And if they agree there is a problem, they should contact the staff and let them know, as I am doing now. I have yet to see you make a single positive contribution in my experience. And there is a large pile on the other side.
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 22:25
Let's just say that Blueforce probably isn't the only guy who thinks that when you join a thread it is going to end up devolving into unreadable "I know you are but what am I" type posts.
M_P
Only from those that have had similarly bizarre assertions challenged and have been unable to cope.
Seems to me, that I challenged him directly on his assertions about "Ammunition Accountability". His only response was something evasive about behavior issues rather than respond to direct questions.
Is that what you mean by "I know you are but what am I"? But is that my problem or his? or yours?
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 22:27
You've caused problems with many people here, not just me. I've seen it happen numerous times both in conversations I was a part of, and ones I was not. As an example, though, even I post infrequently I end up with dealing with your garbage a large percentage of the time. Your suggestion that you are just challenging "moronic assumptions" is deep spin. You fabricate and disrupt. And you do it often. And as far as I can tell that's how you get your kicks. Talk about issues.
I know both as a personal customer of the sponsors of this site, and as someone with revenue streams tied to products promoted on this site, that your conduct here is bad for business. And since your comments are a matter of record, no one needs your self-assessment of them. All customers, investors, and the sponsors above need to do is click on your profile and review your postings. And if they agree there is a problem, they should contact the staff and let them know, as I am doing now. I have yet to see you make a single positive contribution in my experience. And there is a large pile on the other side.
I'm impressed that you think I have this much power.
I breathlessly await the fallout of your delusions. I'm sure that if I have such a negative impact on the industry that I will be banned post-haste.
Riiiight. :rolleyes:
I'm impressed that you think I have this much power.
I breathlessly await the fallout of your delusions. I'm sure that if I have such a negative impact on the industry that I will be banned post-haste.
Riiiight. :rolleyes:
I don't think you have power. I think you are a tortured little dweeb. But even a panhandler can drive customers away.
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 22:36
I don't think you have power. I think you are a tortured little dweeb. But even a panhandler can drive customers away.
I'm not sure I see the difference between your conduct and what you accuse me of.
Are you sure you're not projecting a little?
Sorry but just because someone makes you look more than a little ill-informed, and more than a little alarmist, by challenging assertions that you can't back up by any intellectual method, doesn't really lend credence to your subsequent assertions.
Tortured little dweeb indeed...looked in a mirror lately?
Once again, state by state legislation is NOT "back door" gun control. If you can't explain the relevance of the "Ammunition Accountability" nonsense, than the failure is yours, not mine.
Business_Casual
01-16-09, 22:43
First, let me point out that I don't think personal attacks are necessary and I hope I have not engaged in them.
However, in the spirit of proving my point, I refer you to the last train wreck thread:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=24356&page=3
M_P
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 22:45
First, let me point out that I don't think personal attacks are necessary and I hope I have not engaged in them.
However, in the spirit of proving my point, I refer you to the last train wreck thread:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=24356&page=3
M_P
The last train wreck thread, that continued for 5 more pages after my last post, long after I could have possible "wrecked" it?
I'm sorry but you're confusing vigorous debate with ad hominem attack.
I have NEVER questioned anyone's character that hasn't questioned mine first.
Business_Casual
01-16-09, 22:51
OK, dude, you win.
You always win, or have to win, or whatever.
Congrats! I award you 10 Internets.
M_P
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 22:56
OK, dude, you win.
You always win, or have to win, or whatever.
Congrats! I award you 10 Internets.
M_P
Horsephuckey, there is no winning.
Assertions get made...assertions get challenged.
If they can't survive the challenge...then they should be discredited.
The thin-skinned take things personally that they shouldn't.
Not my problem. I don't see anyone else here going out of their way to save people's feelings. You don't hear me whining about it.
They've let you live for almost a year now, so you may live on. Who knows. The way I see it the businesses are paying you to be here, in terms of lost revenue. And you're not by any means worth the price.
OK, dude, you win.
You always win, or have to win, or whatever.
Congrats! I award you 10 Internets.
M_P
It's really sicko isn't it... :(
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 23:04
They've let you live for almost a year now, so you may live on. Who knows. The way I see it the businesses are paying you to be here, in terms of lost revenue. And you're not by any means worth the price.
According to you, but then once again you're projecting your lil world onto everyone else. If I thought you had any idea of what you spoke I might be concerned.
That you think you speak for "them" or their revenue stream is more than a little nutty.
Perhaps you want to get back to the thread? Might help the revenue stream.
In short you're behaving EXACTLY in the manner you decry.
According to you, but then once again you're projecting your lil world onto everyone else. If I thought you had any idea of what you spoke I might be concerned.
That you think you speak for "them" or their revenue stream is more than a little nutty.
Perhaps you want to get back to the thread? Might help the revenue stream.
In short you're behaving EXACTLY in the manner you decry.
I was speaking of MY revenue stream. And as a businessman I do share concern for others' revenue as well. But if this gets rid of you, it is well worth the effort to ruin one last thread, of the many you have tanked. You should be gone.
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 23:14
I was speaking of MY revenue stream. And as a businessman I do share concern for others' revenue as well. But if this gets rid of you, it is well worth the effort to ruin one last thread, of the many you have tanked. You should be gone.
I've cost you business now? Seriously you are obviously nuts.
That being said, you're complaining about businesses who support this site, yet you don't support this site as a sponsor?
Weak....actually pathetic.
Your credibility is waning quickly.
I've cost you business now? Seriously you are obviously nuts.
That being said, you're complaining about businesses who support this site, yet you don't support this site as a sponsor?
Weak....actually pathetic.
Your credibility is waning quickly.
Why would I pay for advertising in a place with an ill-mannered creep like you running off at the mouth with impunity every day? If you were gone, maybe that could change. You completely don't get it. But you may get an education.
That being said, you're complaining about businesses who support this site
Just so the staff doesn't get confused in this muck that is a fabrication.
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 23:26
Why would I pay for advertising in a place with an ill-mannered creep like you running off at the mouth with impunity every day? If you were gone, maybe that could change. You completely don't get it. But you may get an education.
Yep I thought so. All talk...and most of that BS. What's to get?
Are you really that delusional that you think you get to decide who gets banned here?
You've got problems that go well beyond me.
Gutshot John
01-16-09, 23:28
Just so the staff doesn't get confused in this muck that is a fabrication.
No fabrication. You claimed that I was costing them AND you revenue by posting on this site and driving away business.
Yet you're not even a sponsor of this site?
Perhaps you need to clarify, but there is no fabrication.
Once again your delusions are getting away from you.
M1A2_Tanker
01-17-09, 00:16
According to you, but then once again you're projecting your lil world onto everyone else. If I thought you had any idea of what you spoke I might be concerned.
That you think you speak for "them" or their revenue stream is more than a little nutty.
Perhaps you want to get back to the thread? Might help the revenue stream.
In short you're behaving EXACTLY in the manner you decry.
JMO. I think he (BlueForce) speaks for a vast majority of the MEMBERS here. Myself included. I have read thread after thread that have been shredded by your vocabulary grenade's. When I am reading a thread and see a post by you, I literally stop reading that thread and move on to something else. They all end the same way....You arguing until there is no one with the patience to continue.
You "WIN" you probably have the largest vocabulary of the member's, cool now move on and stop shredding the threads!
The Cop killer thing wont pass, its been tried repeatedly by Ted Kennedy as a round about way of banning guns, vis a vi the ammo, and has repeatedly failed as it effect all hunting ammo and most rifle ammo
I am speaking in generalities and not specifics. The point being that almost any bullet can be a "cop killer" or penetrate a vest in the right situation.
Bet you a 257 Wby would shoot through a SAPI plate.
Another thing to keep in mind. As absurd as we think some of this legislation is, and disregarding what someone will say about the legislative process and how it works we need to be vigilant about this stuff. So what if it has been introduced 100 hundred times and died a fiery death? We have by all accounts an incoming administration that is very ANTI-GUN.
Yes, the economy sucks and people are losing homes and jobs but it may just take one horrendous act to give the elected idiots the impetus to do something. I am not saying that the sky is falling nor am I saying that all of us should go to sleep while the scheisters in D.C plan their next run for office and sell us out in the process. What I am saying is that we also need to keep trying to educate those who make choices on our behalf as well as those that are less knowledgeable in the public arena.
Yeah that was my point. Fudd guns fallin' under the ban and all.
· Drug dealers in California, Missouri and Indiana were in possession of .50 caliber sniper rifles that were recovered by state police authorities.37
· An international drug cartel in Mexico was discovered with a .50 caliber sniper rifle and 100 AK47s at the scene of a multiple homicide shootout. The Los Angeles Police Department assisted Mexican authorities in tracing the .50 caliber sniper rifle to a gun dealer in Wyoming.38
· Three members of the radical North American Militia were arrested in a plot to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways, utilities and public roads, and assassinate the state’s governor, senior U.S. Senator, Federal judges and other Federal officials had a .50 caliber sniper rifle in their possession. All were convicted.39
· A member of the radical Mountaineer Militia in West Virginia was arrested by Federal agents in a plot to bomb an FBI office. A search of the suspect’s home recovered a .50 caliber sniper rifle.40
· Seven suspects with two .50 caliber sniper rifles were arrested by the U.S. Coast Guard in the Caribbean in a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro by using the .50 caliber sniper rifles to shoot down his plane off the coast of Venezuela.41
· Canadian officials found a .50 caliber sniper rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition for it, along with explosives, at a remote site. A Texas militia group was suspected of running an illegal training camp.42
· ATF agents reported that the Branch Davidians at Waco fired .50 caliber sniper rifles at ATF agents attempting to execute a search warrant. ATF had requested the use of Bradley Fighting Vehicles to execute the search warrant because the Bradley is believed capable of withstanding .50 caliber firearms. But the Bradleys were not used and four agents were killed.43
· Two members of a doomsday religious cult in Montana that built underground bunkers were convicted for using false identification to stockpile ten .50 caliber sniper rifles along with other firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition. 44
· A survivalist/tax protester in Georgia who had stockpiled firearms including two .50 caliber sniper rifles purchased with false identification was arrested in a joint raid by ATF and the IRS. The suspect also had 100,000 rounds of ammunition, silencers and $400,000 in gold, jewelry and cash.45
· A .50-caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States, was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British soldiers.46
so what they're saying is, this is the worst they could come up with, and aside from one REPORT that a .50 was used at Waco, none have ever been used in crimes. is that what everyone else is getting here?
i bet you more Brady coffee mugs have been used in crimes than .50BMGs.
alvincullumyork
01-17-09, 03:51
so what they're saying is, this is the worst they could come up with, and aside from one REPORT that a .50 was used at Waco, none have ever been used in crimes. is that what everyone else is getting here?
i bet you more Brady coffee mugs have been used in crimes than .50BMGs.
Every once in a while I go to their site for laughs and to see what they are up and its just insane. I actually got really sick of it today after reading part way through a paragraph I had to quickly close my browser because it made me that sick. I know that sounds ridiculous but what can I say.
No you're absolutely right, and I was proven wrong.
Indeed. This is the case more often than not, on so many things I've seen you post up on. But keep trucking bro. You gotta use that JD for something.
;)
JMO. I think he (BlueForce) speaks for a vast majority of the MEMBERS here. Myself included. I have read thread after thread that have been shredded by your vocabulary grenade's. When I am reading a thread and see a post by you, I literally stop reading that thread and move on to something else. They all end the same way....You arguing until there is no one with the patience to continue.
Well said.
Gutshot John
01-17-09, 07:32
Wow let's see El Mac AND Blueforce don't like me? Whatever shall I do. I'm sure there are a few more members who've had statements challenged and when they couldn't defend their points intellectually resorted to the same schoolyard nonsense as has been evidenced in this thread. Honestly I'm sure you can get a handful more. That said, so what? Is this some sort of high school popularity contest? If that's the case than I'm content to let you win as I thought this forum was about ideas. If your ideas can't handle critique and you take it personally, than your skin is far too thin to be posting here.
Basically those that dislike me shredding posts are those that do much of it themselves. This thread has become a perfect example of this phenomena.
I've given BF multiple opportunities to get back to the relevance of "Ammunition Accountability" and yet he's failed to do so.
I remain unimpressed...and unmoved.
Any luck in getting me banned? I'm still waiting for my education. :D
All, here's some interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Gutshot John
01-17-09, 07:45
All, here's some interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Sounds a lot like you.
Even still, I'm not sure what relevance this has to the OP.
So basically you're content to engage in the same sort of behavior you decry.
Why don't you take wiki and see what the word "hypocrite" says.
I admire your dedication, you are indeed more tedious than I am.
Anytime you want to explain the relevance and/or answer the questions I posed about the Ammunition Accountability nonsense, I'd be happy to get back to the topic at hand. In the meantime I'm content to watch you flail. I can keep busting you up all day. :D
Gutshot John
01-17-09, 07:49
Indeed. This is the case more often than not, on so many things I've seen you post up on. But keep trucking bro. You gotta use that JD for something.
;)
JD? You must have me confused with someone else.
JD? You must have me confused with someone else.
Well pardon me if I'm wrong. I may have to go back and do some digging, though I probably won't - don't have the time really. I could have sworn you had said in the past you were a shyster.
My apologies.
Wow let's see El Mac AND Blueforce don't like me?
I never said I didn't dislike you GJ. I find you humorous!
Gutshot John
01-17-09, 07:56
Well pardon me if I'm wrong. I may have to go back and do some digging, though I probably won't - don't have the time really. I could have sworn you had said in the past you were a shyster.
My apologies.
Nope, this might explain much of your problem.
You don't actually READ what I write.
Gutshot John
01-17-09, 07:57
I never said I didn't dislike you GJ. I find you humorous!
Then why interject at all? Why not just enjoy the fun?
Sorry, but as they say "that dog don't hunt".
It's ok not to like me, somehow I'll go on. :cool:
Nope, this might explain much of your problem.
You don't actually READ what I write.
:) Naw... I do read it, but the arguments you put forth go circular so often, I lose track. Besides, it gets kinda tiresome really. But like I said, I look on the bright side and have to laugh.
Top o' the morning to ya sir! :)
Gutshot John
01-17-09, 08:01
:) Naw... I do read it, but the arguments you put forth go circular so often, I lose track. Besides, it gets kinda tiresome really. But like I said, I look on the bright side and have to laugh.
Top o' the morning to ya sir! :)
I see...you read, you just don't understand.
Fair enough. Good morning to you as well.
Those Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Cluster B symptoms are certainly interesting:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]
has a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
believes that he or she is "special" and unique
requires excessive admiration
has a sense of entitlement
is interpersonally exploitative
lacks empathy
is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
And a person is clinically cracked with five or more of these? Wow. What would somebody be like if they pegged all nine? Probably ought to be checked into an institution...
Gutshot John
01-17-09, 08:11
Those Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Cluster B symptoms are certainly interesting:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]
has a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
believes that he or she is "special" and unique
requires excessive admiration
has a sense of entitlement
is interpersonally exploitative
lacks empathy
is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
And a person is clinically cracked with five or more of these? Wow. What would somebody be like if they pegged all nine? Probably ought to be checked into an institution...
Are you still on this little bit of stupidity? Are you so dense that you don't see that the above statements are EXACTLY what you're doing?
I think I understand now, your dislike of me is triggered by traits that you dislike in yourself. This is often how it works, it's a common psychological defect. It's called "projection".
You do far more damage to yourself than anything I can ever say. Your best bet is to explain the relevance and importance of Ammunition Accountability, especially since the legislation (the antithesis of "backdoor" gun control), went nowhere, let alone to a floor vote in the respective states.
You made an intellectual argument that was flawed, when you couldn't defend it intellectually, you resorted to the above nonsense.
Keep going though. With each post you become the very thing you claim to hate.
Thanks to the site owner for the "ignore" feature. Works great! :)
Gutshot John
01-17-09, 08:19
Thanks to the site owner for the "ignore" feature. Works great! :)
I'm glad you worked it out. Self-deception is no way to go.
Though I find it curious that you felt compelled to make sure that I knew I was ignored. You must have me confused with someone who gives a rip. :D
Jay Cunningham
01-17-09, 08:27
The Stark Fist of Removal is poised high over this thread, trembling with anticipation...
Winston Smith
01-17-09, 08:53
The Stark Fist of Removal is poised high over this thread, trembling with anticipation...
Please do so. :( Thanks.
The Stark Fist of Removal is poised high over this thread, trembling with anticipation...
originally this thread was about court activities related to an individual's rights regarding owning and carrying firearms; it has degraded into personality issues that do nothing to promote this forum as a site for knowledge, support, or friendly exchange.
release it katar.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.