"Im going to start killing people!"

[Soul_Patch]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html

I think this guy realized he may have fucked up...Tried to remove his video, but its too late. Doesn't really paint the gun crowd in a very good light.

[CosmicCowboy]

I saw that yesterday. I assume swat/Secret Service has already paid him a visit. Pretty damn stupid.

[Soul_Patch]

I think between this dude, and Alex Jones, the anti gun crowd has enough ammo to last a while. Basically any argument here on out will be pointed back to these two fools.

[Soul_Patch]

WWVGjH0_6K8

For those too lazy to read the story.

[CosmicCowboy]

I hang out in a huge hunting forum and you guys would be shocked at how many otherwise law abiding citizens are saying that no fucking way do they surrender or register their guns or high capacity magazines.

[DisAsTerBot]

i know law enforcement members who have said the same thing

[Soul_Patch]

It doesn't lend a good argument to "guns kill people, lets ban them!" to say, "you better not try to take my guns or I will kill people!"

Just totally blows up your argument.

BTW, I am a gun owner and am not in favor of stricter gun laws. I just think Alex Jones and now this guy do not help the cause one bit.

[boutons_deux]

Pretty damn stupid.

A characterization rampant among gun fetishists

[boutons_deux]

If were a Black Panther, the bubbas would be all over his ass. But a bald, wanna-be-badass white guy, no problem.

[TeyshaBlue]

It doesn't lend a good argument to "guns kill people, lets ban them!" to say, "you better not try to take my guns or I will kill people!"

Just totally blows up your argument.

BTW, I am a gun owner and am not in favor of stricter gun laws. I just think Alex Jones and now this guy do not help the cause one bit.

Shup, gun fetishist!

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI

[TeyshaBlue]

fetishist. That can't be right.

Kinda like worcestershire sauce.

[Soul_Patch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI

lol...this guy is pretty entertaining. If he thought that may smooth the last video over, it did just the opposite. Now he is advocating to start coordinating your community? lol...

[Soul_Patch]

fetishist. That can't be right.

Kinda like worcestershire sauce.


I own 1 gun, semi auto pistol with 1 box of 20 rounds. Hardly a fetishist, but I try :toast

[DisAsTerBot]

semi auto?!?!? the horror! /blue font

[DarrinS]

BTW, I am a gun owner and am not in favor of stricter gun laws. I just think Alex Jones and now this guy do not help the cause one bit.


True, which is why people like Piers Morgan want them in the spotlight.

[Soul_Patch]

True, which is why people like Piers Morgan want them in the spotlight.

Exactly. Piers knew exactly what he was doing by inviting Alex Jones on his show. Alex Jones is the biggest blow hard douche he could find, and he knew he would make a complete fool of the argument, and he was right.

[ElNono]

I hang out in a huge hunting forum and you guys would be shocked at how many otherwise law abiding citizens are saying that no fucking way do they surrender or register their guns or high capacity magazines.

I doubt they'll be asked to surrender anything... but if they're asked to register them, there goes the 'law abiding' part...

[boutons_deux]

"no fucking way do they surrender or register their guns or high capacity magazines."

Internet badasses. They otta do a group youtube.

[DisAsTerBot]

again, I know law enforcement members who have said they will not surrender any personal weapons (AR's mainly)

This conversation wasn't on the internet....

[Th'Pusher]

again, I know law enforcement members who have said they will not surrender any personal weapons (AR's mainly)

This conversation wasn't on the internet....
Why are they even discussing it? Has there been any serious policy suggestion that people would be asked to surrender their weapons? Or are you referring to the rabble that is roused via Fox News and right wing radio?

[TSA]

again, I know law enforcement members who have said they will not surrender any personal weapons (AR's mainly)

This conversation wasn't on the internet....i frequently read the forums on ar15.com and I've read hundreds of LEO and military say they will refuse the order to confiscate, if it ever came to that point. Sounds like many of the departments have already discussed this scenario. It will never come to confiscation but its nice to hear people wont put up with unconstitutional bullshit.

[DisAsTerBot]

Why are they even discussing it? Has there been any serious policy suggestion that people would be asked to surrender their weapons? Or are you referring to the rabble that is roused via Fox News and right wing radio?

I don't know, could be rabble... But i thought it was interesting given their profession.

[Th'Pusher]

The cold dead hands gang seems to get quite titilated by the unfounded prospect of Obama confiscatin their guns. It makes them horny. Generally speaking these are the types Chuck Hagel referred to as aggressively gay.

[boutons_deux]

hypothetical Macho Men enraged (and suckered by NRA/gun industry propagandists) and ready to Water The Tree over hypothetical fantasy of gun confiscation.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why are they even discussing it? Has there been any serious policy suggestion that people would be asked to surrender their weapons? Or are you referring to the rabble that is roused via Fox News and right wing radio?

Yes there has. Try to keep up.

Did you not read Feinstein's bill?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why are they even discussing it? Has there been any serious policy suggestion that people would be asked to surrender their weapons? Or are you referring to the rabble that is roused via Fox News and right wing radio?

:lmao at Boutons, Pusher, and the rest of the thinkprogress bots disparaging people that watch Fox News. Pot, meet kettle.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We need to get m<s to make a video too then.

[Warlord23]

Yes there has. Try to keep up.

Did you not read Feinstein's bill?

Feinstein's bills (and position) reflect the Democratic party to the same extent that Todd Akin's positions reflect the Republican party. Yet you have no qualms in mustering faux outrage and preparing your response to an imaginary event.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao at Boutons, Pusher, and the rest of the thinkprogress bots disparaging people that watch Fox News. Pot, meet kettle.

So you agree that using either source as a go to speaks to poor credibility? I happen to think so myself.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you agree that using either source as a go to speaks to poor credibility? I happen to think so myself.

I don't get any news from fox. I get mine from reading real time news on the internet and mentally adjusting my credibility meter from the source.

[CosmicCowboy]

Feinstein's bills (and position) reflect the Democratic party to the same extent that Todd Akin's positions reflect the Republican party. Yet you have no qualms in mustering faux outrage and preparing your response to an imaginary event.

And you know that how? When Biden says they will do by executive order what they can't get done in congress one has to wonder what they are planning.

BTW you suck at this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't get any news from fox. I get mine from reading real time news on the internet and mentally adjusting my credibility meter from the source.

So you stopped watching the Fox News Hour or was your old refrain of that telecast actually being 'fair and balanced' based on second hand information?

[DMC]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html

I think this guy realized he may have fucked up...Tried to remove his video, but its too late. Doesn't really paint the gun crowd in a very good light.

So this guy is the gun crowd? I wondered who they were.

[DMC]

lol...this guy is pretty entertaining. If he thought that may smooth the last video over, it did just the opposite. Now he is advocating to start coordinating your community? lol...

You should pay him a visit and set him straight.

[DMC]

I own 1 gun, semi auto pistol with 1 box of 20 rounds. Hardly a fetishist, but I try :toast

When is the last time you actually fired it?

[DMC]

If you want to know what they will do, just read my past statements.

1. They will ban the manufacture of high cap mags, but allow the sale of existing mags.
2. They will leave the assault weapon ban to the states and local governments, but they will impose a restriction on manufacturing.

Everything they do will concern "from here forward". There are millions of high cap mags in existence in the hands of private owners (thanks to the previous high cap mag ban). Those will increase and price and the market will be flooded with them. People who never owned one will now own an AR-15 style rifle and several extended magazines.

There will be no uprising, why? Because even the guy in the video (idiot) has decent means, and fat sheep don't break down fences to find greener pastures. It takes a lot to get people to risk their lives to prove a point, and right now that's all it is. It's still a partisan thing, very cyclical, it will subside.

[Warlord23]

And you know that how? When Biden says they will do by executive order what they can't get done in congress one has to wonder what they are planning.

So Biden makes a statement that contains no specifics, and you immediately conjure up laughably unlikely scenarios?


BTW you suck at this.

I confess I'm not very good at faux outrage.

[DMC]

Biden stated "they better not take my Beretta" meaning his over and under shotgun. Many people think he's referring to a semi-auto handgun. His type gets round the clock protection from ex SF dudes with H&K goods. He only has the pretty stuff, like the Holland and Holland

http://www.sitemason.com/files/fDXKA8/Holland%20.600%20DR%2035698%20a.JPG

[ElNono]

When Biden says they will do by executive order what they can't get done in congress

When did Biden say that?

[Th'Pusher]

Yes there has. Try to keep up.

Did you not read Feinstein's bill?
Cumpolsury buy back/confiscation is in the bill that has not been introduced?

[DMC]

Depending on the amount, I have some I would like to sell.

[ElNono]

What the crazies also forget is that there's a legal system that already upheld the 2nd amendment validity when it comes to gun ownership and declared aggressive gun control laws unconstitutional...

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao at Boutons, Pusher, and the rest of the thinkprogress bots disparaging people that watch Fox News. Pot, meet kettle.
Please show me one single post where I have cited thinkprogress or any other questionable news source in an effort to support a point.

[ElNono]

CC is a good fella, but he's certainly extra-sensitive about this topic... whatever it is they're running in red team's media these days to create a frenzy is apparently working...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What the crazies also forget is that there's a legal system that already upheld the 2nd amendment validity when it comes to gun ownership and declared aggressive gun control laws unconstitutional...

Scalia said that the 2nd amendment was not supreme and that gun control measures was not prima facia unconstitutional. When you allow people to not have howitzers it opens the door. The 1994 ban for example was upheld.

[ElNono]

Scalia said that the 2nd amendment was not supreme and that gun control measures was not prima facia unconstitutional. When you allow people to not have howitzers it opens the door. The 1994 ban for example was upheld.

It doesn't get any more clear and recent than District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on that decision, any confiscation of firearms for self-defense is unconstitutional.

[Th'Pusher]

It doesn't get any more clear and recent than District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on that decision, any confiscation of firearms for self-defense is unconstitutional.
Which is exactly why this confiscation talk is nothing but rabble rousing nonsense from the likes of Fox News and right wing radio like Mark Levin, Limbaugh and Alex Jones to name a few.

[scott]

It doesn't get any more clear and recent than District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on that decision, any confiscation of firearms for self-defense is unconstitutional.

Majority opinion in DC v. Heller, written by none other than Justice Scalia, pp 54056


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[ElNono]

I don't think gun owners are claiming it's an unlimited right (besides perhaps the NRA). There's simply a major distance from regulating commercial sale to outright confiscation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Majority opinion in DC v. Heller, written by none other than Justice Scalia, pp 54056

Beat me to it. Thanks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think gun owners are claiming it's an unlimited right (besides perhaps the NRA). There's simply a major distance from regulating commercial sale to outright confiscation.

The legalese of the case was centered around the intended use of the guns ie self defense is justifiable use. It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem.

[ElNono]

The legalese of the case was centered around the intended use of the guns ie self defense is justifiable use. It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem.

By justifiable I think you mean lawful. Nothing's changed when it comes to that.

[ElNono]

Note that I don't think there's anything wrong with a registration requirement. I think that would certainly be constitutional, and I don't see what the big deal is with that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Note that I don't think there's anything wrong with a registration requirement. I think that would certainly be constitutional, and I don't see what the big deal is with that.

As for the case, I see what you are saying. As for this, I believe some of it is because it makes it difficult to study the effects of guns on a community. I know that a lot of the rank and file worry about big brother but I doubt that the executives type within the gun lobby have that concern. Registering firearms means that you can track them which is great for policy analysts. By preventing registrations you prevent such policy discussion from being as meaningful.

[ElNono]

Registration also has tangible benefits, as you see for example with vehicles. For example directly contacting owners about important recall information.

[DMC]

Note that I don't think there's anything wrong with a registration requirement. I think that would certainly be constitutional, and I don't see what the big deal is with that.

Because registration is the 1st step, historically, to confiscation. It's hard to confiscate guns otherwise since you cannot trace a gun to a person. Registration would enable the po po to go door to door with a list and collect every registered gun. I don't think it would happen, but the Healthcare bill just signed into law had a provision against it.

[DMC]

Majority opinion in DC v. Heller, written by none other than Justice Scalia, pp 54056

Let's not truncate it:

The Supreme Court held:[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-43)
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois), 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller), 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64. The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts,_Jr.) and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_M._Kennedy), Clarence Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) and Samuel A. Alito Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito_Jr.)[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-44)




The bolded part is important, as semi-auto handguns fit into that description, if Americans overwhelmingly choose them.

[DMC]

What the crazies also forget is that there's a legal system that already upheld the 2nd amendment validity when it comes to gun ownership and declared aggressive gun control laws unconstitutional...

How does Executive Order, a power granted by the same constitution, change that?

[ElNono]

Because registration is the 1st step, historically, to confiscation. It's hard to confiscate guns otherwise since you cannot trace a gun to a person. Registration would enable the po po to go door to door with a list and collect every registered gun. I don't think it would happen, but the Healthcare bill just signed into law had a provision against it.

But confiscation doesn't happen out of thin air. There has to be a legal reason behind it (just like it happens with any property confiscations).

I have zero problem if somebody is diagnosed with some depression/mental illness and has his weapons confiscated pending further psychological review. It's no different than getting your vehicle registration revoked if you were convicted of a felony DUI.

[ElNono]

How does Executive Order, a power granted by the same constitution, change that?

Executive Orders can be challenged too, and struck down by the SCOTUS. Since Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court has established that Executive Orders cannot make laws, they can only clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Executive Orders have been found invalid before (including in that case).

[ElNono]

The bolded part is important, as semi-auto handguns fit into that description, if Americans overwhelmingly choose them.

Exactly. The whole 2nd amendment is going down the drain angle has no real basis other than hysteria.

[boutons_deux]

When did Biden say that?

need a quote.

they will do all they legally can by executive order (not much), and all they can politically in Congress (nothing)

but you guys defecate non-stop in your paranoid fantasies, as dictated by the stinking gun industry shills from NRA.

If Obama Took 'Executive Action' On Guns, What Might He Do?

After Vice President Biden said Wednesday that the Obama administration might take some executive actions on the issues of guns and gun-related violence, questions naturally arose:

What kinds of things was he talking about? What might the administration do that doesn't require Congressional action?

Our colleague Ari Shapiro is looking to answer those questions on All Things Considered later today (click here to find an NPR station that broadcasts or streams the show). Meanwhile, here's some reporting from elsewhere:

-- Obama might "strengthen the database that the FBI uses to perform background checks on gun buyers. Many federal agencies that don't currently contribute to the database, such as the Social Security Administration, have access to mental competence information about prospective buyers, or details about failed drug tests and other issues that might prevent a sale to the wrong person. ... The president could also demand that the states share more information from their crime and mental-health databases." (The New York Times)

-- "It is unclear what specific executive orders Obama is contemplating, though one Democratic aide with insight into the talks said Obama could sidestep Congress and bolster federally funded mental-health programs." (The Hill)

-- "The coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has called for Obama to consider several measures that they said could be implemented without congressional approval: Step up prosecution by the Justice Department of felons and others prohibited from buying weapons when they attempt to buy them. ... Require federal agencies to report records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems. ... Appoint an ATF director. The federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws has gone without a confirmed director for six years." (USA Today)

The Times adds, by the way, that "most changes to the current system, which allows easy access to weapons with hugely destructive power, has to come through legislation."

After the Dec. 14 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Biden was charged with reporting back this month with "concrete proposals" on reducing gun violence. Among the groups he's due to meet with today is the National Rifle Association.

Update at 12:35 p.m. ET. Biden Sees Recommendations Coming On Universal Background Checks And High-Capacity Magazines:

At the White House a short time ago, Biden said there's been broad agreement among the groups he's met with so far that some sort of sytem of "universal background checks" for gun purchasers needs to be created. Also, he said, there's been broad agreement for controls on high-capacity ammunition magazines. Based on past statements from NRA leaders, it's unlikely they are among those Biden is speaking about when he talks of agreement on those issues.

http://m.npr.org/news/front/169030246?start=20

[Nbadan]

Oh yeah, this will end well...


James Yeager, the CEO who recently threatened to "start killing people" if President Barack Obama pursued an expansion on gun control, has had his gun permit suspended.

Authorities with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security told Newschannel 5 the suspension was based on "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public."

In a statement to the station, Commissioner Bill Gibbons said:

The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety. Mr. Yeager's comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/james-yeager-ceo-start-killing-people-gun-permit_n_2459456.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

[Nbadan]

Now, I don't condone anybody doing anything rash. I do not condone anybody committing any kind of felonies up to and including aggrivated assaults or murders. Unless its necessary.
Right now, it is not necessary. I understand that my video was very volatile. You have no idea how many people that sent me emails and texts and call me like 'Right on! My shit's clean. My bag is packed. You tell me when and where.' You have no idea how quickly I accidentally assembled an army. I assure you, a quite formidable army. But now is not the time. It's not time yet.
But, it is time to get ready!"

Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/10/1177993/-Now-nutcase-killing-people-guy-says-he-s-assembled-an-army


Apparently Yeager worked as a security contractor in Iraq, drove into an ambush, immediately forgot how to drive the manual transmission car, bailed out, spent the firefight wetting himself in a ditch whilst the rest of his team fought back, and then afterwards killed two civilians for good measure:

[TeyshaBlue]

Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/10/1177993/-Now-nutcase-killing-people-guy-says-he-s-assembled-an-army


Apparently Yeager worked as a security contractor in Iraq, drove into an ambush, immediately forgot how to drive the manual transmission car, bailed out, spent the firefight wetting himself in a ditch whilst the rest of his team fought back, and then afterwards killed two civilians for good measure:

Typical Friday night around my place....

[DMC]

But confiscation doesn't happen out of thin air. There has to be a legal reason behind it (just like it happens with any property confiscations).

"Legal" just means a law was passed. It doesn't have to be constitutional, despite the claims otherwise. There are laws on the books now that are unconstitutional and won't be overturned for years. This is the same congress that voted several times on making flag burning illegal. They routinely ignore the BoR because of the direction the school of fish decides to erratically adjust to.


I have zero problem if somebody is diagnosed with some depression/mental illness and has his weapons confiscated pending further psychological review. It's no different than getting your vehicle registration revoked if you were convicted of a felony DUI.
No. No weapons confiscations outside of already legal means like TROs and probation. I think the federal government should have to pass psychological reviews.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, and unconstitutional law can be passed and enforced until struck down in court.

[spursncowboys]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/65857_557558114273108_80263407_n.jpg

[ElNono]

"Legal" just means a law was passed. It doesn't have to be constitutional, despite the claims otherwise. There are laws on the books now that are unconstitutional and won't be overturned for years. This is the same congress that voted several times on making flag burning illegal. They routinely ignore the BoR because of the direction the school of fish decides to erratically adjust to.

There's legal avenues to challenge a law, including requesting an injunction suspending it's enactment while it makes it ways through the courts. But specifically, *this* Congress isn't passing any confiscatory laws, which is exactly why the mass hysteria is just that, FUD spread around since it sells well.


No. No weapons confiscations outside of already legal means like TROs and probation. I think the federal government should have to pass psychological reviews.

Well, I disagree with the first part. I don't think mentally unstable people should carry weapons, any kind. And people aren't necessarily born with a mental problem. Situations can bring about depression, PTSD, and a horde of other temporary (or not) and treatable (or not) mental problems. If they can prove they got their shit together, then they can get their license (and weapons) back. It's obviously not a fool-proof system (as seen in Newton), but IMO it's just common sense.

As far as the last part, sure. Why not?


Yes, and unconstitutional law can be passed and enforced until struck down in court.

Or not. Remember when States didn't comply with the Barrycare until the SCOTUS made it's decision? There's injunctions, etc.

The dangerous part would be Congress passing a secret law (like a lot of the natsec/terror stuff), but when it comes to gun control and this Congress, it's not happening.

[Wild Cobra]

Still, if a law enforcement officer enforces a law before it is challenged, what would you do? Resist the law, then resist arrest?

[ElNono]

Still, if a law enforcement officer enforces a law before it is challenged, what would you do? Resist the law, then resist arrest?

If a law like that passes, the lawsuits and injunctions will simply be there the next day. Again, not concerned one bit, simply because there's no room for such law to pass with this Congress.

[Wild Cobra]

If a law like that passes, the lawsuits and injunctions will simply be there the next day. Again, not concerned one bit, simply because there's no room for such law to pass with this Congress.
I'm starting to wonder about that.

[ElNono]

I'm starting to wonder about that.

I'm not.

[ElNono]

But even in the case they do, the damage would be only temporary. I have no reason to think the SCOTUS would reverse their stated views when it comes to the 2nd amendment. So, all in all, whoever is going crazy buying shit at 4x the price right now is pretty dumb, IMO.

[Soul_Patch]

#$@#$

[Soul_Patch]

When is the last time you actually fired it?

Saturday evening, 100 rounds.

[boutons_deux]

Where does the 2nd Amendment, or anywhere in the Constitution, does it say the govt cannot regulate firearms (or any lethal items)?

[DMC]

Saturday evening, 100 rounds.

So much for your 20 rounds comment.

[TSA]

Where does the 2nd Amendment, or anywhere in the Constitution, does it say the govt cannot regulate firearms (or any lethal items)?

Shall not be infringed.

[Th'Pusher]

Shall not be infringed.
So any person (crazy, ex fellon, etc) can own any gun (fully auto, etc)?

[TSA]

So any person (crazy, ex fellon, etc) can own any gun (fully auto, etc)?

If you've followed along, I've repeatedly been in favor of better background checks, I'm applying shall not be infringed to law abiding citizens.

[Th'Pusher]

If you've followed along, I've repeatedly been in favor of better background checks, I'm applying shall not be infringed to law abiding citizens.
Under what authority are background checks constitutional? The constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems any gun control is infringing on a persons' right to bear arms. Am I wrong? Do we need an amendment to the constitution to enact any gun control?

[TSA]

Under what authority are background checks constitutional? The constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems any gun control is infringing on a persons' right to bear arms. Am I wrong? Do we need an amendment to the constitution to enact any gun control?
If that makes you happy, sure.

[Th'Pusher]

If that makes you happy, sure.
Well that doesn't make me happy at all. BD asked what part of the constitution prevented regulation on arms. You said the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but then went on to say you were ok with some regulation. I'm asking you under what constitutional authority the regulation you approve of is granted if, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[TSA]

Well that doesn't make me happy at all. BD asked what part of the constitution prevented regulation on arms. You said the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but then went on to say you were ok with some regulation. I'm asking you under what constitutional authority the regulation you approve of is granted if, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You tell me, are background checks unconstitutional?

[boutons_deux]

Firearms Training CEO, Who Threatened To ‘Start Killing People’ Over Gun Debate, Loses Gun Permit

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/yeager.jpg

Yeager has had his handgun permit suspended because of “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public.” Tennessee Department of Saftey and Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons said

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/14/1441321/yeager-gun-permit/

tatooed skin-head with little chin beard, your typical paranoid gun-fellating asshole.

[Soul_Patch]

lol..I bet he is pissed.

[Soul_Patch]

So much for your 20 rounds comment.


20 rounds of expensive stuff (Hornady's blabla) for home defense.

They also make these things called stores, where people buy and sell things. At some of these stores, they sell bullets, sometimes in quantities of 100. When I want to go to the range to shoot, I visit a "store" and trade "money" for "bullets". After said transaction, I then shoot bullets at targets until empty, thus leaving me with my original 20 rounds.

[DMC]

20 rounds of expensive stuff (Hornady's blabla) for home defense.

They also make these things called stores, where people buy and sell things. At some of these stores, they sell bullets, sometimes in quantities of 100. When I want to go to the range to shoot, I visit a "store" and trade "money" for "bullets". After said transaction, I then shoot bullets at targets until empty, thus leaving me with my original 20 rounds.
So much for only having 20 rounds.

[clambake]

maybe he has 20 rounds for protection and buys 100 rounds to fire at the range.

[ElNono]

maybe he has 20 rounds for protection and buys 100 rounds to fire at the range.

woha... now it all makes sense!

[TSA]

I wish I could keep more ammo on hand, right now I've probably only got 300 or so mixed types of rounds. My problem is when I go shooting I go through about 500 each time.

[Soul_Patch]

I wish I could keep more ammo on hand, right now I've probably only got 300 or so mixed types of rounds. My problem is when I go shooting I go through about 500 each time.

When I was at the range Saturday, there was a guy there firing what appeared (and sounded) like a fully automatic rifle with a silencer on it. I couldn't help but think how many 100s of dollars of ammo he shot through in the short time I was there.

[boutons_deux]

When I was at the range Saturday, there was a guy there firing what appeared (and sounded) like a fully automatic rifle with a silencer on it. I couldn't help but think how many 100s of dollars of ammo he shot through in the short time I was there.

Fools and their money are soon parted. I say he had a hard-on doing it, but he's dickless.

[ENOCH]

Is James Carolyn Yeagers husband?