United States & Gun Control discussion.

[pardus]

That Bateman asshole is active army serving in the UK presently. I just looked him up on AKO.

 

[x SF med]

That Bateman asshole is active army serving in the UK presently. I just looked him up on AKO.

apparently there are two LTC Bateman's... make sure you got the right one.

 

[Dame]

I'm betting he's the NY state guard asshat. Volunteer force that does not mobilize for feds. I wonder if he even took an oath to "protect and defend."

 

[pardus]

apparently there are two LTC Bateman's... make sure you got the right one.

There is only one.

 

[pardus]

I'm betting he's the NY state guard asshat. Volunteer force that does not mobilize for feds. I wonder if he even took an oath to "protect and defend."

Read post #1347

 

[AWP]

I just finished an excellent book, Shadow Warrior by Randall B. Woods. It is a biography of William Colby. OSS Jedburgh turned CIA paramilitary type, ran South Vietnam and the Asian desk, Phoenix Program, etc. before eventually becoming the head of the CIA. Colby was a bit of a liberal and his thoughts on the 2A aren't known (or presented in he book), but one recurring theme relevant to this thread is:

A key failure in the counterinsurgency programs in Vietnam was resistance, by the Vietnamese gov't and army, to arming villagers. They did not want an armed populace because of the fear of a revolt against their corrupt gov't.

Look at the history of despotic regimes and you'll find ample evidence of gun control. Our gov't is not despotic, but one day it could be, and do we really want to willingly give it the tools needed to control us? This isn't crazy right-wing thinking, this is history teaching us a lesson over and over and over....

 

[Dame]

Read post #1347

You are correct.
http://bearingarms.com/attacking-the-wrong-robert-bateman/

 

[JBS]

And just in case anyone else's mind works even remotely the same way mine does, you'll want to know there has in fact been at least one documented instance of a robbery at muzzleloader-point. Fitty cal, no less.

Not making this up:

www.cbsnews.com/news/ny-amish-man-robbed-at-gunpoint/

Police say two men armed with a .50 caliber muzzleloading rifle held up an Amish buggy driver and made off with a pipe, tobacco and flashlight.

Whether these guys made a big score or not depends on whether that flashlight was a SureFire.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I have two cap & ball revolvers and three muzzle loading rifles, b/c they are not regulated or considered a firearm. Even if Texas magically went full retard and tried to take my guns (whichever ones they know about), I will still have something to carry/protect whats mine.

Besides black powder is just cool...

 

[x SF med]

There is only one.

One's retired, one's AD....

 

[Chopstick]

Interesting that the college intends to ignore this ruling.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12...da-court-in-major-2nd-amendment-victory-88805

UNF regulations prohibit weapons on campus. According to the student handbook printed in 2011 when the case was filed, expressly threatened that violators could be arrested.

“No college or university has the authority” to make such a regulation, Friday said.

Lainez, a member of Florida Carry, sued UNF to change the regulation, but lost at trial to UNF’s argument that it could ban weapons because state law allowed school districts to do so. UNF argued that since it’s a school, it should be considered like a public school district.

In Tuesday’s decision, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled otherwise.

“From the beginning, the argument was an absurdity in my mind,” Friday said.

But the broader issue, Friday said, involved the powers of local governments – such as counties and cities – to violate gun rights through control ordinances that in effect in one part of the state but not another, putting gun owners at risk of arrest depending on the jurisdiction.

In an emailed statement Wednesday, UNF Associate Director for Public Relations Joanna Norris wrote that the university is still reviewing its options on whether to appeal the case. Until it makes that decision, she wrote, the university’s policy prohibiting weapons on campus will remain in effect.

Friday said that means the university intends to continue breaking the law.

“In other words, despite the express, well-reasoned opinion of this court, they intend to continue violating students’ rights until they have to comply,” he said.

 

[pardus]

One's retired, one's AD....

:wall: This magical retired person can't be the guy in the article. Dumbass Troll.

 

[policemedic]

Interesting that the college intends to ignore this ruling.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12...da-court-in-major-2nd-amendment-victory-88805

This is why state preemption laws like the one we have in PA are so important.

 

[policemedic]

IMO Yes, all of the amendments should be equally protected.

The problem is, your rights are subject to reasonable regulation. You have the right to free speech, by way of example, but that right is not unfettered. You can't say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you choose, in the manner that most pleases you.

 

[Worldweaver]

The problem is, your rights are subject to reasonable regulation. You have the right to free speech, by way of example, but that right is not unfettered. You can't say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you choose, in the manner that most pleases you.

Regulation? Prior restraint is not Constitutional and the argument about the First Amendment is moot. Obviously you can say whatever you want, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, however you may be punished for it later. That's not regulation, that's law enforcement. "Preemptive" laws punish citizens before a crime is committed, and that is Bullshit.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

The problem is, your rights are subject to reasonable regulation. You have the right to free speech, by way of example, but that right is not unfettered. You can't say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you choose, in the manner that most pleases you.

I disagree somewhat, the only time you cannot say what you want when you want, is when you are no longer being peaceful in your use (I.e. threating someones life, calling for violence, etc). Even so, generally (excluding a verbal threat of death) a conviction of using speach to cause harm or disturb the peace would require some follow on effect, or consequence to sustain that the persons speach was in fact not peaceful and provoked further disorderly conduct and or disruption of the peace/order.

Keep in mind, that I am not talking about the person who getaway a city ticket for disorderly conduct for cursing, etc. As I personally believe that those type offense are in fact a violation of an individuals 1A rights, but understand most are willing to pay a fine rather than spend the money to sue in federal court.

My$.02

 

[0699]

The problem is, your rights are subject to reasonable regulation. You have the right to free speech, by way of example, but that right is not unfettered. You can't say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you choose, in the manner that most pleases you.

IMO, the only restirction my my rights should be in making sure they don't effect others rights. The way I phrase it, "My rights end where yours begin".

 

[nobodythank you]

Wow. UNF is right down the road from me and this is the main reason I stayed away from there. They have always been a major pain in the ass when it came to firearms. When I worked for AOL back in the day, they purposely moved their call center onto UNF property to keep employees from having weapons in their vehicles. Very happy the state came to its senses and fixed this. The UNFPD and administration is a joke. Glad I avoided that shit storm.

 

[Brill]

... This isn't crazy right-wing thinking, this is history teaching us a lesson over and over and over....

Actually it is crazy thinking because the MSM says so! Control the message and the people will follow because that's what is "tending"... Right?

Live high speed chases were once the norm on TV. Now not so much so the number of people running from the po-po MUST be drastically reduced whereas shooting and gun violence is at epidemic levels (except in the inner cities of DC, Baltimore, and Detroit) especially in the gun totting red states. If those whacko parents didn't have guns, the kids and/or criminals would not have access to guns and the public would be safer (except in the inner cities of DC, Baltimore, and Detroit).

Violence is so bad that elementary kids are acting out with dangerous toys such as pop tarts and fingers.

:whatever:

 

[Chopstick]

Good to see that the resource officer on site was a big part of ending this quickly. Prayers out for Ms. Davis.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.

Once he learned of the threat, he ran -- accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators -- from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. "It's a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly."

The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. "We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life."

He praised the deputy's response as "a critical element to the shooter's decision" to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. "He went to the thunder," he said. "He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe."