The state of Va seems to be addicted to the powers of the gun and tobacco lobbies. The most recent example is the killing of the bill to close the gun show show loop hole. Dont even try to tell me this is about anything but money. Our rights..as thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment to raise up against an oppressive governemnt were given up years ago. This is just pure shameless greed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011801881.html

"Cho, of Fairfax County, passed two background checks when he bought the two handguns used in the massacre." It is my understanding that Cho purchased all his guns legally. How is/was closing the gun show loophole going to do anything?
Please let me know. Thanks.

I'm still horrified that Virginia allows the unlicensed sale of kitchen knives. Do you know how many people are stabbed to death in Virginia every year?
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/middlepeninsula/dp-news_glohomi_0120jan20,0,3110431.story It's crazy. And you don't even need a permit to buy gasoline in Virginia. How many arsons does this lead to?

/sarcasm

Vince the law would have made a sale on gun show premises require a background check. To get around the law all a person had to do was step outside and make the sale. Right now all sales inside the show between a licensed dealer and buyer do require the check. A person to person sale does not.

The other problem was access to the background check. Dealers were not going to make themselves available to conduct a background check sale that takes away from their business. If they did they were going to charge a huge fee to access the state police for the check.

VInce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Our rights..as
> thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment to raise up against an oppressive >governemnt were given up years ago.

The irony of your statement is that the foundation this country's entire government is built on the idea that it can only obtain its power from the people. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence, makes a case for the De facto 'inalienable right' to revolution by stating that 'the people' have the right to "alter or abolish it (the government), and to institute a new Government" should it interfere with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Which the founders of the United States promptly did by revolution against King George III.

Your belief in a government, which is based on the idea that the people have an inalienable right to rebel somehow also having the ability to nullify that right by consent of the people, is troubling to say the least. For if this right can be given up by the people, one must assume that King George III was of the opinion it already had, and thus the entire US system of government you reference was precipitated by a flaw in law and logic and is therefore null and void.

I look forward to reading your sworn allegiance to the Crown and the renunciation of your citizenship in the so-called 'United States'.

VInce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The state of Va seems to be addicted to the powers
> of the gun and tobacco lobbies. The most recent
> example is the killing of the bill to close the
> gun show show loop hole. Dont even try to tell me
> this is about anything but money. Our rights..as
> thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment to
> raise up against an oppressive governemnt were
> given up years ago. This is just pure shameless
> greed.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
> le/2008/01/18/AR2008011801881.html


You're stupid.

pmn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Cho, of Fairfax County, passed two background
> checks when he bought the two handguns used in the
> massacre." It is my understanding that Cho
> purchased all his guns legally. How is/was
> closing the gun show loophole going to do
> anything?
> Please let me know. Thanks.


Cho was able to pass a background check and buy two guns despite having been deemed mentally defective by a Virginia court. In response, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine signed an executive order requiring that anyone ordered by a court to get mental health treatment be added to a state police database of people barred from buying guns. However, people can still buy guns through other means that require no background check in Virginia, such as gun shows where scores of people sell or swap firearms.

LogicBot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VInce Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >Our rights..as
> > thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment to
> raise up against an oppressive >governemnt were
> given up years ago.
>
> The irony of your statement is that the foundation
> this country's entire government is built on the
> idea that it can only obtain its power from the
> people. Furthermore, the Declaration of
> Independence, makes a case for the De facto
> 'inalienable right' to revolution by stating that
> 'the people' have the right to "alter or abolish
> it (the government), and to institute a new
> Government" should it interfere with "life,
> liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Which the
> founders of the United States promptly did by
> revolution against King George III.
>
> Your belief in a government, which is based on the
> idea that the people have an inalienable right to
> rebel somehow also having the ability to nullify
> that right by consent of the people, is troubling
> to say the least. For if this right can be given
> up by the people, one must assume that King George
> III was of the opinion it already had, and thus
> the entire US system of government you reference
> was precipitated by a flaw in law and logic and is
> therefore null and void.
>
> I look forward to reading your sworn allegiance to
> the Crown and the renunciation of your citizenship
> in the so-called 'United States'.


I know all you "strict" Constitutionalists believe the Constitution guarantees the right of every crack pot to own a gun...the Supreme Court will bedeciding on that issue as it pertains to te DC gun contol laws. My strict interpretation is that the 2nd Admentment applies strictly to states and their ability to raise and arm a militia...as in state National Guards. The Civil War decided the issue of a state or a peoples to rebel against the federal governement..the fact is we "the people" do not have the right to bare arms against the federal government no matter how oppressive. So, I am confident that the Supreme Court will decide that the 2nd Amemdment is a rather weak and useless protection of an individuals right to bare arms. We have one and only one weapon...the power to vote...which most young people fail to even use. So, all you gun lovers...I'll let you have your guns...registering and fingerprintin is all you need to kill all the squirrrels you want.

bender Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince the law would have made a sale on gun show
> premises require a background check. To get around
> the law all a person had to do was step outside
> and make the sale. Right now all sales inside the
> show between a licensed dealer and buyer do
> require the check. A person to person sale does
> not.
>
> The other problem was access to the background
> check. Dealers were not going to make themselves
> available to conduct a background check sale that
> takes away from their business. If they did they
> were going to charge a huge fee to access the
> state police for the check.


Thats fine...we should close that loop hole also...and a huge fee/tax on guns and tobacco is fine with me also.

Fruppy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VInce Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The state of Va seems to be addicted to the
> powers
> > of the gun and tobacco lobbies. The most
> recent
> > example is the killing of the bill to close the
> > gun show show loop hole. Dont even try to tell
> me
> > this is about anything but money. Our
> rights..as
> > thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment to
> > raise up against an oppressive governemnt were
> > given up years ago. This is just pure
> shameless
> > greed.
> >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
>
> > le/2008/01/18/AR2008011801881.html
>
>
> You're stupid.


No Frupp...once again..I am right!

Geezzzz Vince.....Take a pill and calm down. I wonder if YOU could successfully pass a mental health exam

Vince, once again, you fail to hit the mark. The term "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. You probably know that, but enjoy racheting up the rhetoric too much to allow some facts to get in the way of your inane way of thinking. If you purchase a firearm from a vendor, you undergo a background check. If you purchase from a private citizen you don't. I can purchase from a private citizen at his home, a parking lot, my home, anywhere it is legal to possess a firearm. Further, a Department of Justice survey of prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show. The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show. You seem to worry an aweful lot about that 2%. Funny how you want to fingerprint and register responsible citizens who happen to own firearms, yet will allow any person in the world to come to this country unchecked and unaccounted for!

Instead, maybe you should focus your energy on all of the murders and other violent crimes committed at the hands of illegal aliens. Take a look here, Vince, http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html It's the tip of the iceburg. To those that advocate for open borders and amnesty for illegals, I say to you, it is you who have the blood stained hands and need to answer to the victims' families of these crimes. Shame on you!

umm, can't someone buy a car and run over a bunch of kids on school playground, or through a bus stop, or through a festival in DC, or talk on the cell phoe behind the wheel of a 3,000 lb death machine and run into a tree killing all in the vehicle? How many vehicle deaths are there compared to gun deaths in this area? and how many of these gun deaths are caused by guns purchased from private citizens at a gun show?

is that where all the black/mexican gangbangers buy their guns? at gun shows? i go to gun shows, i don't see alot of black/mexican gangbangers.

Background checks for all drivers before selling them a vehicle privately!!!!! what if they hop in the car you just sold them and they drive to a local school and run down all the kids? that's blood on YOUR hands buster.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LogicBot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > VInce Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >Our rights..as
> > > thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment
> to
> > raise up against an oppressive >governemnt were
> > given up years ago.
> >
> > The irony of your statement is that the
> foundation
> > this country's entire government is built on
> the
> > idea that it can only obtain its power from the
> > people. Furthermore, the Declaration of
> > Independence, makes a case for the De facto
> > 'inalienable right' to revolution by stating
> that
> > 'the people' have the right to "alter or
> abolish
> > it (the government), and to institute a new
> > Government" should it interfere with "life,
> > liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Which the
> > founders of the United States promptly did by
> > revolution against King George III.
> >
> > Your belief in a government, which is based on
> the
> > idea that the people have an inalienable right
> to
> > rebel somehow also having the ability to
> nullify
> > that right by consent of the people, is
> troubling
> > to say the least. For if this right can be
> given
> > up by the people, one must assume that King
> George
> > III was of the opinion it already had, and thus
> > the entire US system of government you
> reference
> > was precipitated by a flaw in law and logic and
> is
> > therefore null and void.
> >
> > I look forward to reading your sworn allegiance
> to
> > the Crown and the renunciation of your
> citizenship
> > in the so-called 'United States'.
>
>
> I know all you "strict" Constitutionalists believe
> the Constitution guarantees the right of every
> crack pot to own a gun...the Supreme Court will
> bedeciding on that issue as it pertains to te DC
> gun contol laws. My strict interpretation is that
> the 2nd Admentment applies strictly to states and
> their ability to raise and arm a militia...as in
> state National Guards. The Civil War decided the
> issue of a state or a peoples to rebel against the
> federal governement..the fact is we "the people"
> do not have the right to bare arms against the
> federal government no matter how oppressive. So,
> I am confident that the Supreme Court will decide
> that the 2nd Amemdment is a rather weak and
> useless protection of an individuals right to bare
> arms. We have one and only one weapon...the power
> to vote...which most young people fail to even
> use. So, all you gun lovers...I'll let you have
> your guns...registering and fingerprintin is all
> you need to kill all the squirrrels you want.


OMG, you cant really be making this argument. Every single facet of 2d amendment review demonstrates that the right was reserved to the citizen - not to the state.

First, the plain meaning of the amendment refers to the "People." The term People is universally reserved throughout the Constitution as referring to the citizenry - not the states.

Second, the Bill of Rights itself including EACH of the ten amendments dictate the rights of individuals with respect to the state. Individuals have the right to be free of search and seizure. Individuals have the right to be tried by jury. Individuals have the rights to be free from being forced to quarter troops. The same is true of the Second Amendment which guarantees the right to bear arms. Any provision reserved to states is provided for in the 10th amendment which applies to states (note the plural) and the people.

Third, the contextual basis for the individual right to bear arms is reinforced time and again in the Federalist Papers, in the writings of Madison, Mason, and the Framers. Time and again, they wrote of the INDIVIDUAL's right to own and possess weaponry.

Fourth, in the real world, its absolutely clear that the right was meant for individuals. If it wasn't then why were there not manifold arrests of private individuals who happened to own muskets, pistols, swords, knives and axes? Everybody in the 18th and 19th century owned a gun, yet there were few if any gun restriction laws. Certainly none that required you to deposit them at a local armory. And, please remember the 2d amendment states the right to bear "arms." If you were to truly believe that arms were to be reserved for an official state militia, then you'd have to take away not only guns, but also knives and swords as they are clearly arms and weapons - and were certainly arms used actively by the military of the 19th century.

There is simply not a single credible constitution argument in opposition to the 2d amendment. The sole argument is a policy argument that basically says "we know better how to handle guns than you do - so turn them in since you all are too dangerous to handle them." If you accept a policy argument, then you have to accept the notion that the government can shut down your local newspaper because it might print inciteful articles or could shut down a mosque because the members happen to be Muslim - and therefore potentially dangerous.

Vince,
Is it safe to assume you didn't grow up here in Va?
If you did, you'd know that we love guns and gun shows and don't really seem to have any problems with either.

I purchased a gun at a gun show a few years back and was subjected to a bg check. It was all done on a computer and only took a short time. If you really believe most of the bad guys get their guns at gun shows you are misinformed.

Go live in a city where they ban guns and see how safe it is.

Hey Vince,

Why not put a huge tax on food as well. Obesity kills more people than guns, tobacco and booze put together.

If you want to live in a "gun free" area move just over the river into DC. Might I suggest a midnight stroll down Benning Rd SE any night of the week. Plus they already have huge taxes.

Or if you feel the need to get away all together move to Russia or China. Neither one permits private ownership of firearms and we all know what bastions of democracy they are.

BTW had Cho had his name entered as required by law he would have been denied the purchase of a gun. Blame the lax attitude of the government for that failure.

If people really believe the whole idea that people should own guns in order to have an out against an oppressive gov't, they would be pressing for ownership of heavy military arms, because seriously, no handgun is going to overthrow an oppressive govt.

The only thing a handgun can used for is concealed carry. Short barreled shotguns are all thats needed against intruders. More accuracy/control, less propensity for accident.

Handguns should be banned. Handguns have no place in the 'overthrowing oppressive gov't argument"

How about a musket or a .308 rifle with a scope?

How about a sword? After all, swords are arms and they're used as weapons of war, no?

The only thing a handgun can used for is concealed carry. Short barreled shotguns are all thats needed against intruders. More accuracy/control, less propensity for accident.

How the hell does owning a shotgun as opposed to a handgun equal less accidents?

BTW I hope by saying you prefer a shorter barrel you do not mean less than 18" which is a felony to possess. Also shortening the barrel makes it less accurate. The firepower remains the same regardless.

Nice short: barrelled shotguns = gangs favorite "crowd control" weapon.

Be real Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> How the hell does owning a shotgun as opposed to a
> handgun equal less accidents?


Read my post, bitch. I fucking said shotguns have "MORE CONTROL/MORE ACCURACY" than handguns. If that doesn't fucking answer your question, you need more 3rd grade reading comprehension.

And by short barreled, I mean short barreled (legal) -- NOT SHORTENED barreled (illegal).

99% of robberies, muggings, gang violence, domestic violence, club/bar violence etc., etc., where firearms are used, involves concealable handguns. For all the above, it is advantageous to use small firearms, which you can use to sneak up on your victim, hide in your coat pocket, etc.

You can't walk around in public carrying a large rifle/shotgun/ak/RPG launcher/etc.

Thus, if the only weapons that are owned by the public, are weapons that are large and difficult to carry around in public, then it would make things much more difficult for criminals.

I'm not saying there'll never be another Cho if we banned handguns. Any gun can be used by a crazy loon to go postal with. But common everyday gun violence will be much less common if we took away concealable handguns.

You still make no sense little man. If there is an accident it is because you were stupid and didnt hit what you aimed at. Considering you are talking about home defense I would estimate no greater a distance than 10'. If you cannot hit something at that distance then you have no reason owning any firearm.

Your quote "You can't walk around in public carrying a large rifle/shotgun/ak/RPG launcher/etc" In Virginia you sure can. No law prohibits carrying a gun openly in public. Would I recommend it, no. Is it illegal again no.

Please at least know the law before you start quoting it. Now go check in with your mommy before posting again. Such strong language from a little man.

BTW you are using old tired disproven logic that less guns equal less crime. Ever hear of DC where guns are banned? If more guns equaled more crime Virginia would be leaving DC behind in the dust as far as violent crime. Now go put your Hillary in 08 bumper sticker on your moped.

Vince Wrote:
> We have one and only one weapon...the power
> to vote..

And when that is taken away?

Be real Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your quote "You can't walk around in public
> carrying a large rifle/shotgun/ak/RPG
> launcher/etc" In Virginia you sure can. No law
> prohibits carrying a gun openly in public. Would I
> recommend it, no. Is it illegal again no.
>
> Please at least know the law before you start
> quoting it. Now go check in with your mommy before
> posting again. Such strong language from a little
> man.

> Ever hear of DC where guns are banned? If more
> guns equaled more crime Virginia would be leaving
> DC behind in the dust as far as violent crime.
> Now go put your Hillary in 08 bumper sticker on your moped.


1. I'm saying there is no downside to banning handguns if you're thinking about home defense. If handguns are banned, and you are only allowed to buy rifles/shotguns/etc, to defend your home, you don't lose accuracy/control. However vice versa, the opposite is true.

2. You have the worst reading comprehension. I'm not saying it's illegal to carry around a large rifle/shotgun/ak....
I'm saying its impossible to do so without drawing immediate attention from everyone around you. Also, before entering a private establishment, you can be disarmed because a private establishment (such as a bar/club/bank/convenience store) does have the right to ban guns from being carried through the doors.

3. I'm not saying all guns should be banned. I'm saying only handguns. In fact, I'm saying that fully automatic weapons should be completely legalized, because you can't hide a large rifle/shotgun/etc in your belt buckle, and enter a crowded lecture hall/bank/convenience store/club/bar/etc unnoticed.

YOU SERIOUSLY NEED READING HELP. STOP EATING POSSUM!

"You can't walk around in public carrying a large rifle/shotgun/ak/RPG launcher/etc."

The above is taken right out of your post. Reading isn't your strong point is it? No they cannot "disarm" anyone coming into the business. They can ask you to leave, thats it.

If you feel so bad about people having handguns move to DC they already ban them. Not quite sure what is causing all the murders over there though.

Don't you have school tomorrow or do you want to repeat ninth grade again?

LogicBot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince Wrote:
> > We have one and only one weapon...the power
> > to vote..
>
> And when that is taken away?

You tell me? The fact is it wont be taken away...it will be given away as fewer and fewer people vote...

Cornerstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince, once again, you fail to hit the mark. The
> term "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. You
> probably know that, but enjoy racheting up the
> rhetoric too much to allow some facts to get in
> the way of your inane way of thinking. If you
> purchase a firearm from a vendor, you undergo a
> background check. If you purchase from a private
> citizen you don't. I can purchase from a private
> citizen at his home, a parking lot, my home,
> anywhere it is legal to possess a firearm.
> Further, a Department of Justice survey of prison
> inmates found that only 2% stated that they had
> bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show. The
> remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in
> which the criminal had no direct connection with a
> gun show. You seem to worry an aweful lot about
> that 2%. Funny how you want to fingerprint and
> register responsible citizens who happen to own
> firearms, yet will allow any person in the world
> to come to this country unchecked and unaccounted
> for!
>
> Instead, maybe you should focus your energy on all
> of the murders and other violent crimes committed
> at the hands of illegal aliens. Take a look here,
> Vince,
> http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevic
> tims.html It's the tip of the iceburg. To those
> that advocate for open borders and amnesty for
> illegals, I say to you, it is you who have the
> blood stained hands and need to answer to the
> victims' families of these crimes. Shame on you!



I counted 77 people documented on your web site...while any murder is a tagedy....77 is not quite a flood!

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LogicBot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > VInce Wrote:
> > >


here it is...read it for yourselves...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It is clear to me that the only reason people have the right to bear arms is to ensure there is a well regulated (please take note of that word "regulated") militia..to secure a free state (not country..a state). So...there is no basis for an individual right outside the context of a militia. Afterall..they could have written the Amendment without mentioning a militia at all. It could have easily read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."...but it doesnt...does it? It is only in the context of a state militia that this right exist. I thinkall you gun lovers will be shocked when the Supreme Court deecides on the DC case....this decison will be as shocking as the Warren Courts Roe vs Wade decision. I cant wait!


> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >Our rights..as
> > > > thought to be protected by the 2nd
> Amendment
> > to
> > > raise up against an oppressive >governemnt
> were
> > > given up years ago.
> > >
> > > The irony of your statement is that the
> > foundation
> > > this country's entire government is built on
> > the
> > > idea that it can only obtain its power from
> the
> > > people. Furthermore, the Declaration of
> > > Independence, makes a case for the De facto
> > > 'inalienable right' to revolution by stating
> > that
> > > 'the people' have the right to "alter or
> > abolish
> > > it (the government), and to institute a new
> > > Government" should it interfere with "life,
> > > liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Which
> the
> > > founders of the United States promptly did by
> > > revolution against King George III.
> > >
> > > Your belief in a government, which is based
> on
> > the
> > > idea that the people have an inalienable
> right
> > to
> > > rebel somehow also having the ability to
> > nullify
> > > that right by consent of the people, is
> > troubling
> > > to say the least. For if this right can be
> > given
> > > up by the people, one must assume that King
> > George
> > > III was of the opinion it already had, and
> thus
> > > the entire US system of government you
> > reference
> > > was precipitated by a flaw in law and logic
> and
> > is
> > > therefore null and void.
> > >
> > > I look forward to reading your sworn
> allegiance
> > to
> > > the Crown and the renunciation of your
> > citizenship
> > > in the so-called 'United States'.
> >
> >
> > I know all you "strict" Constitutionalists
> believe
> > the Constitution guarantees the right of every
> > crack pot to own a gun...the Supreme Court will
> > bedeciding on that issue as it pertains to te
> DC
> > gun contol laws. My strict interpretation is
> that
> > the 2nd Admentment applies strictly to states
> and
> > their ability to raise and arm a militia...as
> in
> > state National Guards. The Civil War decided
> the
> > issue of a state or a peoples to rebel against
> the
> > federal governement..the fact is we "the
> people"
> > do not have the right to bare arms against the
> > federal government no matter how oppressive.
> So,
> > I am confident that the Supreme Court will
> decide
> > that the 2nd Amemdment is a rather weak and
> > useless protection of an individuals right to
> bare
> > arms. We have one and only one weapon...the
> power
> > to vote...which most young people fail to even
> > use. So, all you gun lovers...I'll let you
> have
> > your guns...registering and fingerprintin is
> all
> > you need to kill all the squirrrels you want.
>
>
> OMG, you cant really be making this argument.
> Every single facet of 2d amendment review
> demonstrates that the right was reserved to the
> citizen - not to the state.
>
> First, the plain meaning of the amendment refers
> to the "People." The term People is universally
> reserved throughout the Constitution as referring
> to the citizenry - not the states.
>
> Second, the Bill of Rights itself including EACH
> of the ten amendments dictate the rights of
> individuals with respect to the state.
> Individuals have the right to be free of search
> and seizure. Individuals have the right to be
> tried by jury. Individuals have the rights to be
> free from being forced to quarter troops. The
> same is true of the Second Amendment which
> guarantees the right to bear arms. Any provision
> reserved to states is provided for in the 10th
> amendment which applies to states (note the
> plural) and the people.
>
> Third, the contextual basis for the individual
> right to bear arms is reinforced time and again in
> the Federalist Papers, in the writings of Madison,
> Mason, and the Framers. Time and again, they
> wrote of the INDIVIDUAL's right to own and possess
> weaponry.
>
> Fourth, in the real world, its absolutely clear
> that the right was meant for individuals. If it
> wasn't then why were there not manifold arrests of
> private individuals who happened to own muskets,
> pistols, swords, knives and axes? Everybody in
> the 18th and 19th century owned a gun, yet there
> were few if any gun restriction laws. Certainly
> none that required you to deposit them at a local
> armory. And, please remember the 2d amendment
> states the right to bear "arms." If you were to
> truly believe that arms were to be reserved for an
> official state militia, then you'd have to take
> away not only guns, but also knives and swords as
> they are clearly arms and weapons - and were
> certainly arms used actively by the military of
> the 19th century.
>
> There is simply not a single credible constitution
> argument in opposition to the 2d amendment. The
> sole argument is a policy argument that basically
> says "we know better how to handle guns than you
> do - so turn them in since you all are too
> dangerous to handle them." If you accept a policy
> argument, then you have to accept the notion that
> the government can shut down your local newspaper
> because it might print inciteful articles or could
> shut down a mosque because the members happen to
> be Muslim - and therefore potentially dangerous.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I counted 77 people documented on your web
> site...while any murder is a tagedy....77 is not
> quite a flood!

Vince, as I mentioned, that is the tip of the iceburg. You want more? Unfortunatley, the numbers are staggering.

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

In the City of San Diego 26 percent of all burglary arrests and 12 percent of all felony arrests involved illegal aliens, who are estimated to comprise less than 4 percent of the total city population.

Some estimates indicate that 12 people a day are killed by an illegal alien, whether by vehicular homicide, drunk vehicular homicide, or violent homicide.

Ask yourself this Vince, do you want to ban the means to commit crime from entering this country (firearms) or would you rather ban those who have the inclination to commit crime from entering the country (illegal laiens)? In the past you have advocated making all illegals legal with the stroke of a pen. Realize this includes criminals!

I find your "facts" non-compelling, suspicious at best and designed to enflame rather then acurately reflect the causes and nature of the problem. Highlighting a city like San Diego at the forfront of this issue...even if true makes me wonder why the Republican Governor of California seems to have a more moderate position then you do.

Since time incarnate immigrants whether legal or illegal are always the butt of these accusations...the Romans blamed the infedels...in this country it went from the Germans, Irish to the Italians..now it's the Mexicans! Of course every wave of immigrants includes a percentage of violent criminals and I would support exporting those individuals. But to use sucjh terms as excluding those persons "inclined" to commit crimes is too wide a brush for me. I would legalize the vast majority of immigrants coming in from Mexico...I would take away the biggest profit center for all illegal operations in Mexcico and South America by legalizing most of what we consider illegal drugs...I would embrace these new immigrants and try to incorporate them into our society as quickly as possible by offewring them training programs in our language and history.

Cornerstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the numbers are staggering.

i hate that cliche.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find your "facts" non-compelling, suspicious at
> best and designed to enflame rather then acurately
> reflect the causes and nature of the problem.
> Highlighting a city like San Diego at the forfront
> of this issue...even if true makes me wonder why
> the Republican Governor of California seems to
> have a more moderate position then you do.
>
> Since time incarnate immigrants whether legal or
> illegal are always the butt of these
> accusations...the Romans blamed the infedels...in
> this country it went from the Germans, Irish to
> the Italians..now it's the Mexicans! Of course
> every wave of immigrants includes a percentage of
> violent criminals and I would support exporting
> those individuals. But to use sucjh terms as
> excluding those persons "inclined" to commit
> crimes is too wide a brush for me. I would
> legalize the vast majority of immigrants coming in
> from Mexico...I would take away the biggest profit
> center for all illegal operations in Mexcico and
> South America by legalizing most of what we
> consider illegal drugs...I would embrace these new
> immigrants and try to incorporate them into our
> society as quickly as possible by offewring them
> training programs in our language and history.


You're stupid.

It's nice to see that the Brady Bunch and Million Mom March loons have found Fairfax Underground. They sure do hate sunshine though; I tried to videotape one of their informational meetings about gun laws and the "gun show loophole" last spring. Instead of holding the meeting they cancelled it because I wouldn't sign a waiver stating my video wouldn't be shown to any other persons but myself! So, not only do these crazies hate freedom and the 2nd Amd, they also hate the 1st Amd.

The First Amd. protects speech, press, and assembly (among other things). The million mad moms tried to stifle my speech with the waiver I refused to sign. when it became clear I wouldn't sign my rights away they tried a different tactic. They actually tried to get the librarian to ask me to leave the meeting! (It was held in a public library in Centreville, and I had every right to be there) What is so damaging about their presentation that they didn't want it filmed? Well, based on other meetings of theirs I can say that they do not tell the truth. They use bogus numbers without sourcing to "prove" there is a problem that they want to fix. When myself and several other gun owners attended one of their meetings and started correcting their statistics and lies they got super pissed off. One told us to shut the hell up! Why wouldn't you want to use the right numbers and facts in your presentation? Because our numbers (the real numbers) are MUCH LOWER than theirs! Just as an example, when they talk about how many Americans are killed by gun crimes every year, included in these inflated numbers are suicides, gang members killing gang members, and criminals who are killed by police officers! If we still executed death row convicts by firing squad I'm sure they would include them in the stats too!

This bunch is shameful, trully shamefull. They will say and do anything to restrict our rights as citizens. All in the name of "safety". Criminals don't pay attention to laws, what makes these idiots think that more gun control legislation will work is beyond me. I'd rather carry a gun (and pray I never have to use it) and BE SAFE instead of passing idiotic gun laws that make these idiots "FEEL safe" while doing nothing to make them "safer".

Video of Million Morons canceling meeting because I wouldn't sign my rights away:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAsyrBTvN2g

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8uXTfpdHM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CnDvnPFzL0



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2008 02:28PM by nakedshoplifter.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would embrace these new
> immigrants and try to incorporate them into our
> society as quickly as possible by offewring them
> training programs in our language and history.

That is very humanitarian of you and very noble. I am certain that there would be less animosity towards newly arrived immigrants if they assimilated in a more expedient and productive manner. Out of curiousity, now that you are retired, how much time do you spend tutoring non-natives in English? I will soon be of retirement age and think this is a very worthwhile activity. Where do you volunteer? What kind of time commitment does it take? Who should I get in touch with to start volunteering?

VInce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The state of Va seems to be addicted to the powers
> of the gun and tobacco lobbies. The most recent
> example is the killing of the bill to close the
> gun show show loop hole. Dont even try to tell me
> this is about anything but money. Our rights..as
> thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment to
> raise up against an oppressive governemnt were
> given up years ago. This is just pure shameless
> greed.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
> le/2008/01/18/AR2008011801881.html


You are mistaken if you think the blood is soley on the state of Virginia's hands. The blood and blame for the 2nd ammendment and the tobacco industry, clearly two mutually exclusive entities, is on the Founding fathers and the ratifiers of the constution! YOU sir are attacking the United states of America! Traitor! send you to GITMO!

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This bunch is shameful, trully shamefull. They
> will say and do anything to restrict our rights as
> citizens. All in the name of "safety". Criminals
> don't pay attention to laws, what makes these
> idiots think that more gun control legislation
> will work is beyond me. I'd rather carry a gun
> (and pray I never have to use it) and BE SAFE
> instead of passing idiotic gun laws that make
> these idiots "FEEL safe" while doing nothing to
> make them "safer".
>
> Video of Million Morons canceling meeting because
> I wouldn't sign my rights away:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAsyrBTvN2g
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8uXTfpdHM
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CnDvnPFzL0

i watched the videos while long and boring with "little miss innocent" grilling you, by far the best line she said was, "I'm more confused than ever." LOL!

it is dumb they refused to have the meeting. please continue to try and record there information, i would like to know what they are saying and how true or false it is.

---

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YOU sir are attacking the United
> states of America! Traitor! send you to GITMO!

it's not a crime to disagree with the government. hell, that's why we bailed on england. i dont support what he said but i support his right to say it, even if he is misguided.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2008 03:22PM by Gravis.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nakedshoplifter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This bunch is shameful, trully shamefull. They
> > will say and do anything to restrict our rights
> as
> > citizens. All in the name of "safety".
> Criminals
> > don't pay attention to laws, what makes these
> > idiots think that more gun control legislation
> > will work is beyond me. I'd rather carry a gun
> > (and pray I never have to use it) and BE SAFE
> > instead of passing idiotic gun laws that make
> > these idiots "FEEL safe" while doing nothing to
> > make them "safer".
> >
> > Video of Million Morons canceling meeting
> because
> > I wouldn't sign my rights away:
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAsyrBTvN2g
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8uXTfpdHM
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CnDvnPFzL0
>
> i watched the videos while long and boring with
> "little miss innocent" grilling you, by far the
> best line she said was, "I'm more confused than
> ever." LOL!
>
> it is dumb they refused to have the meeting.
> please continue to try and record there
> information, i would like to know what they are
> saying and how true or false it is.
>
>
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > YOU sir are attacking the United
> > states of America! Traitor! send you to GITMO!
>
> it's not a crime to disagree with the government.
> hell, that's why we bailed on england. i dont
> support what he said but i support his right to
> say it, even if he is misguided.


im being satirical. making things up. and just plain utilizing my First ammendment rights. Dont bum my trip computer boy!

______________________________________________

Gravis poster boy for abortion

When news of the Va Tech shootings hit the media my wife and I were quite shaken
by the events. Our daughter, a freshman, was safe. Later that evening I remember
telling my wife that "Tomorrow morning, Sarah Brady's bunch (Violence Policy
Center) will be out recruiting in Fairfax and Arlington. I was right on the
money with that one. VPC gets most of its funding from billionaire "philanthropers"
such as George Soros and the John D. and Catherine McArthur Foundation. The
Million Mom March is only a front group for the VPC. There is no such thing
as a "gun show loophole". Its only a lie meant to deceive non-shooters and those
who are unfamiliar with firearms laws into supporting their cause. CCRKBA sums
it up far better than I could.

NEWS RELEASE

Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

CCRKBA BLASTS VA GOV. KAINE FOR USING VIRGINIA TECH CRIME TO ATTACK GUN SHOWS

For Immediate Release: January 9, 2008

BELLEVUE, WA – Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has fallen back on one of the oldest, and most shoddy, tactics in the gun grabber playbook by using the Virginia Tech tragedy to launch an attack on gun shows, when the crime had nothing to do with gun shows, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Neither of the guns used by Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was purchased at a gun show,” noted CCRKBA Legislative Liaison Joe Waldron. “Attacking some mythical ‘gun show loophole’ will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns illegally, because it has been shown statistically that criminals rarely get firearms at such shows.”

Waldron was alluding to a study done for the Department of Justice that found less than one percent (0.7 %) of criminals imprisoned for using guns in crimes got their firearms from gun shows. The overwhelming majority get firearms from family, associates or on the street. However, Gov, Kaine wants to require background checks on all firearms transactions at gun shows, including private sales that are exempt under current federal statute.

“Virginia Tech was a tragedy of monstrous proportions,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “but there was absolutely no connection with gun shows. Cho purchased both of the guns he used from a federally licensed retail gun shop, he successfully passed a mandatory background check.

“Gov. Kaine already took action by ordering the State Police in Virginia to deny firearm purchases to people like Cho, who had been ordered by a court to seek outpatient mental health treatment,” Gottlieb recalled. “It is disappointing, to say the very least, that the governor has grabbed a cheap headline by suggesting, even remotely, that adding restrictive regulations to gun show operations will somehow keep people like Cho from obtaining a firearm and committing a crime.

“We agree with Republican State Del. William R. Janis, who said this new proposal by Gov. Kaine is ‘a largely meaningless gesture’,” Gottlieb said. “But that’s the nature of most gun control schemes. They are empty gestures aimed more at demonizing guns and honest gun owners than they are at preventing or solving actual crimes, and extremist gun control advocates know it.

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

VInce Wrote:

here it is...read it for yourselves...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It is clear to me that the only reason people have the right to bear arms is to ensure there is a well regulated (please take note of that word "regulated") militia..to secure a free state (not country..a state). So...there is no basis for an individual right outside the context of a militia. Afterall..they could have written the Amendment without mentioning a militia at all. It could have easily read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."...but it doesnt...does it? It is only in the context of a state militia that this right exist. I thinkall you gun lovers will be shocked when the Supreme Court deecides on the DC case....this decison will be as shocking as the Warren Courts Roe vs Wade decision. I cant wait!

++++++

wow, you're an ignorant bama. "state" doesn't refer to Kansas or Texas you fucking retard. It refers to geography and it's associated governance by some body. You're especially retarded as VA is a Commonwealth and Bosnia is a Balkan state.

And "militia" is exactly the correct term as it refers to a miliatry force of ordinary armed citizens, not sworn soldiers, you fucking simpleton. And given the 11,000+ gun control laws, I'd call that pretty fuckin regulated you simple fag.

And when the Supreme Court does grant individuals the right to not get ass fucked by every cock-lickin' afro-stylin' fucknut in DC, be sure to aplogize on the old message board here for your supreme, colassal, incredible, magnificent fucking ignorance.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Oh...is that why most civilized countries in Europe have a lower violence and fire arm assuats then the US? Id close down every gun manuyfacture and as guns are found...destroy them. However, prior to that Id have every gun registered so as to make it more difficult to establish a black market for them.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh...is that why most civilized countries in
> Europe have a lower violence and fire arm assuats
> then the US? Id close down every gun manuyfacture
> and as guns are found...destroy them. However,
> prior to that Id have every gun registered so as
> to make it more difficult to establish a black
> market for them.


Vince, Vince, Vince, Doing away with Guns is not the answer. The right to bear ARMS means people would just rob and pillage with Swords or knives or something. I myself have suffered a personal loss due to firearm violence BUT i understand that doing away with guns and restricting them will not work in the practicle world.

Patrick Henry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is no basis for an
> individual right outside the context of a militia.

case and point: "army of one"


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Patrick Henry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > there is no basis for an
> > individual right outside the context of a
> militia.
>
> case and point: "army of one"


Isnt army a plural noun? and being a plural shouldnt there be more than one?


___________________________________

Gravis Poster boy for abortion.

AHHHHHH!!! The TRUE sentiments of the anti-gunners come out! Don't you LOVE it when they slip up and tell the truth about what their REAL goals are?

*************************************************
Re: Blood on Virginia's Hands new
Posted by: Vince (IP Logged)
Date: January 22, 2008 05:32PM

Oh...is that why most civilized countries in Europe have a lower violence and fire arm assuats then the US? Id close down every gun manuyfacture and as guns are found...destroy them. However, prior to that Id have every gun registered so as to make it more difficult to establish a black market for them. [Or confiscate them Katrina style, see link below for info -NSL]

http://vaguninfo.com/videos/katrina.htm

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AHHHHHH!!! The TRUE sentiments of the anti-gunners
> come out! Don't you LOVE it when they slip up and
> tell the truth about what their REAL goals are?
>
> *************************************************
> Re: Blood on Virginia's Hands new
> Posted by: Vince (IP Logged)
> Date: January 22, 2008 05:32PM
>
> Oh...is that why most civilized countries in
> Europe have a lower violence and fire arm assuats
> then the US? Id close down every gun manuyfacture
> and as guns are found...destroy them. However,
> prior to that Id have every gun registered so as
> to make it more difficult to establish a black
> market for them.
>
> http://vaguninfo.com/videos/katrina.htm



my dad would cry him a river of tears if he couldna go a'huntin and a fish'n up on yon brokeback mountain should you take'way all his'n FAWR-arms.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh...is that why most civilized countries in
> Europe have a lower violence and fire arm assuats
> then the US? Id close down every gun manuyfacture
> and as guns are found...destroy them. However,
> prior to that Id have every gun registered so as
> to make it more difficult to establish a black
> market for them.


Nice too see that your true colors have come out. Thankfully, the Supremes are likely to see otherwise.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh...is that why most civilized countries in
> Europe have a lower violence and fire arm assuats
> then the US? Id close down every gun manuyfacture
> and as guns are found...destroy them. However,
> prior to that Id have every gun registered so as
> to make it more difficult to establish a black
> market for them.


Good job, Vince. You just spilled the beans on every bullcrap "reasonable gun restriction" ever proposed, and why anyone who believes in liberty should understand that freedom-haters like you don't deserve any consideration at all.

Thanks for the heads-up, Vince. Anything you say from this time forward wil be filtered through this lense.

What a false sence of security/control your guns must give you.

The only gun i need is the one between my legs, Am i RIGHT LADIES?!?!?!?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only gun i need is the one between my legs, Am
> i RIGHT LADIES?!?!?!?


Oh brother and does it need a background check and a license???

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's nice to see that the Brady Bunch and Million
> Mom March loons have found Fairfax Underground.
> They sure do hate sunshine though; I tried to
> videotape one of their informational meetings
> about gun laws and the "gun show loophole" last
> spring. Instead of holding the meeting they
> cancelled it because I wouldn't sign a waiver
> stating my video wouldn't be shown to any other
> persons but myself! So, not only do these crazies
> hate freedom and the 2nd Amd, they also hate the
> 1st Amd.
>
> The First Amd. protects speech, press, and
> assembly (among other things). The million mad
> moms tried to stifle my speech with the waiver I
> refused to sign. when it became clear I wouldn't
> sign my rights away they tried a different tactic.
> They actually tried to get the librarian to ask me
> to leave the meeting! (It was held in a public
> library in Centreville, and I had every right to
> be there) What is so damaging about their
> presentation that they didn't want it filmed?
> Well, based on other meetings of theirs I can say
> that they do not tell the truth. They use bogus
> numbers without sourcing to "prove" there is a
> problem that they want to fix. When myself and
> several other gun owners attended one of their
> meetings and started correcting their statistics
> and lies they got super pissed off. One told us to
> shut the hell up! Why wouldn't you want to use the
> right numbers and facts in your presentation?
> Because our numbers (the real numbers) are MUCH
> LOWER than theirs! Just as an example, when they
> talk about how many Americans are killed by gun
> crimes every year, included in these inflated
> numbers are suicides, gang members killing gang
> members, and criminals who are killed by police
> officers! If we still executed death row convicts
> by firing squad I'm sure they would include them
> in the stats too!
>
> This bunch is shameful, trully shamefull. They
> will say and do anything to restrict our rights as
> citizens. All in the name of "safety". Criminals
> don't pay attention to laws, what makes these
> idiots think that more gun control legislation
> will work is beyond me. I'd rather carry a gun
> (and pray I never have to use it) and BE SAFE
> instead of passing idiotic gun laws that make
> these idiots "FEEL safe" while doing nothing to
> make them "safer".
>
> Video of Million Morons canceling meeting because
> I wouldn't sign my rights away:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAsyrBTvN2g
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8uXTfpdHM
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CnDvnPFzL0



Hey Naked...care to tell us who paid you your 23 schillings of gold to harass these people? Dont try and tell me you are just an "Merican" who cares about his guns.

Naked..and if you weren't paid to go....can you share with me how you are otherwise involved in the gun industry? Are you a gun dealer?

Tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh...is that why most civilized countries in
> > Europe have a lower violence and fire arm
> assuats
> > then the US? Id close down every gun
> manuyfacture
> > and as guns are found...destroy them. However,
> > prior to that Id have every gun registered so
> as
> > to make it more difficult to establish a black
> > market for them.
>
>
> Good job, Vince. You just spilled the beans on
> every bullcrap "reasonable gun restriction" ever
> proposed, and why anyone who believes in liberty
> should understand that freedom-haters like you
> don't deserve any consideration at all.
>
> Thanks for the heads-up, Vince. Anything you say
> from this time forward wil be filtered through
> this lense.


I have been quite willing to express my views...so you are welcome.

It's sad you think people need to be paid or compensated to care deeply about their rights as citizens. If I was a wagering man, I'd say you've never served in the military either. I served, and it wasn't because the pay was sooooo fantastic. I served my country because I love it, I advocate for our rights because I love them too. Not just guns, but all our rights. Including your right to be an idiot and type your authoritarian pipe dream where the government breaks into peoples homes without probable cause or warrants to seize and destroy lawfully owned property. I understand you're a troll but you also have some of the most fascist ideas since Hitler.

fas·cist (fshst)
n.
1. often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.

What makes you think I am anything more than a gun owner and supporter of the Constitution? Have I typed anything that would lead a rational person to think I was connected to the gun industry? I realize that rational thought and gun control don't often (if ever) mix. The answer is no, I have no affiliation with the gun industry. Are you affiliated with the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, Violence Policy Center, Virginians For Public Safety, or other gun control groups? Rational thinking based on your typed responses would lead a person to think yes.

Vince,
Why are you so bothered? If you dont want a gun don't buy one. If your kids visit a house where the owner has a gun tell them to not go there. If Walmart sells guns and you don't approve don't shop there.

Lastly DC bans guns so you should pick up and move there, I am sure you will receive a great feeling of safety when you cross into Southeast.

Naked,
The only issue I have with your videos is you engaged them in conversation. These stay at home bored housewives have nothing better to do with their time. I would have set up my camera and taped away. Obviously there is no library rule against it since they have a camera for their purpose.
Besides I am sure their husbands were enjoying a night at home without their nagging.

Thom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only
> those who are neither inclined nor determined to
> commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the
> assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> serve rather to encourage than to prevent
> homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
> greater confidence than an armed man.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh...is that why most civilized countries in
> Europe have a lower violence and fire arm assuats
> then the US? Id close down every gun manuyfacture
> and as guns are found...destroy them. However,
> prior to that Id have every gun registered so as
> to make it more difficult to establish a black
> market for them.

Sorry Vince, I wrote that in a little known manuscript I penned known as my "Commonplace Book" it was a quote from Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, but I included it in my edition a full 11 years before becoming the principal author of one of my more well known works. You might know it as the Declaration of Independence. Funny you should mention Europe, because in that document, I cast off the chains of tyranny and oppression of European monarchies. Later, I supported the ratification of the Constitution despite the lack of inclusion of a bill of rights. My friends, Mr. Madison and Mr. Mason fought ardently to have the Constitution amended to include a bill of rights. To ignore the right to bear arms, Vince, is to ignore our national history and all liberties guaranteed under our constitution - including the right to free speech, no matter how repulsive it is the sense of law abiding gun owners.

A contemporary of mine, Mr. Washington said:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour

Vince you sound like the type that provides the poor advice of just give the mugger/burglar what he wants and he will leave you alone. To that end I ask once he has taken your life what else is there to give?

While I think Fairfax County has a good police force I also realize there are 1,500 cops and over one million residents. Care to work out the stats and tell me how many cops there are assigned to protect just you?

I'm all for registering guns as long as everyone has to also register a written or spoken opinion. Funny how Vince, who uses a "strict read" of the Bill of Rights, forgets to read "the People" in the Second Amendment which is used in the rest of the Constitution to refer to the rights of citizens. I guess only "militia" members have a right to a jury of peers and to practice a non-state-sponsored religion. What a dummy.

In this county one can live in places that share your opinion on many things such as firearms, gay marriage, whatever. Vince has a sizable selection of states and areas to live that hold his view of gun ownership. People move to different parts of the country because they prefer the weather there, why not move somewhere that shares your political views? If one is anti-Second-Amendment then the last place he should live is Virginia.

I wonder if the Supreme Court rules for the Second Amendment if Vince will post a capitulation here, stating how his opinion is what it is but as far as the law goes he was wrong?

I think it is funny how Vince is all of a sudden plain words strict constructionalist. He is wrong, of course, if he goes down that road, but it is funny nonetheless that he choses that avenue of argument. Tell me Vince, you are for a Woman's RIGHT to choose to have an abortion. Which amendment was that again?

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would
> legalize the vast majority of immigrants coming in
> from Mexico...I would take away the biggest profit
> center for all illegal operations in Mexcico and
> South America by legalizing most of what we
> consider illegal drugs.

Yeah, that whole drug thing worked out well for Heath Ledger and Brad Renfro.

stupid Be real and stupid rednecks ar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't walk around in public carrying a large
> rifle/shotgun/ak/RPG launcher/etc.
>
> Thus, if the only weapons that are owned by the
> public, are weapons that are large and difficult
> to carry around in public, then it would make
> things much more difficult for criminals.


Apparently, you never heard of the 1997 North Hollywood Bank Robbery shootout. Apparently, you have never heard of "Machine Gun" Kelley.

ferfux Wrote:
"The only gun i need is the one between my legs, Am i RIGHT LADIES?!?!?!?"


Sure Ferfux!!! (You don't need a permit for the gun your packing) LOL
Attachments:

Guys, Feel free to ignore me. I realized you were right and I'm a moron.

You're stupid.

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What makes you think I am anything more than a gun
> owner and supporter of the Constitution? Have I
> typed anything that would lead a rational person
> to think I was connected to the gun industry? I
> realize that rational thought and gun control
> don't often (if ever) mix. The answer is no, I
> have no affiliation with the gun industry. Are you
> affiliated with the Brady Campaign, Million Mom
> March, Violence Policy Center, Virginians For
> Public Safety, or other gun control groups?
> Rational thinking based on your typed responses
> would lead a person to think yes.



I am not affiliated with any group. And you still didnt answer my question. How are you affiliated with the gun industry? After all...this really isnt as much an issue about "rights" as it is about money (thus the connection with the VA tobacco industry)! Are you or are you not paid or otherwise financially benifit from the sale of guns and or ammuntion?

Its absolutely about rights. Its an explicitly stated guarantee provided for in the Constitution of the United States. Its on the level of the freedom to assemble, the guarantee to be free of search and seizure, etc.
referring to rights of individual states but the nation as a whole.

The amendment refers to the State - the nation. When the Constitution provides rights to states it does so - in the plural. Look at the 10th amendment which refers to "States" - "...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Even some of the most liberal scholars concede that the Amendment as plainly written - in context or even out of context of the Bill of Rights - provides for the ownership of arms by the People (i.e., individuals).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2008 09:18AM by ITRADE.

I'm stupid.

Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

"What makes you think I am anything more than a gun owner and supporter of the Constitution? Have I typed anything that would lead a rational person to think I was connected to the gun industry? I realize that rational thought and gun control don't often (if ever) mix. The answer is no, I have no affiliation with the gun industry."



*************************************************
Re: Blood on Virginia's Hands new
Posted by: Vince (IP Logged)
Date: January 23, 2008 09:02AM

And you still didnt answer my question. How are you affiliated with the gun industry?

Loophole bill killed!

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/senate-committee-rejects-bill-close-gunshow-loophole

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you have a reading comprehension issue?
> "What makes you think I am anything more than a
> gun owner and supporter of the Constitution? Have
> I typed anything that would lead a rational person
> to think I was connected to the gun industry? I
> realize that rational thought and gun control
> don't often (if ever) mix. The answer is no, I
> have no affiliation with the gun industry."
>
>
>
> *************************************************
> Re: Blood on Virginia's Hands new
> Posted by: Vince (IP Logged)
> Date: January 23, 2008 09:02AM
>
> And you still didnt answer my question. How are
> you affiliated with the gun industry?


Me thinks you do protest too much! You show up at Millions of Mom meeting with a group of others with a video camera....you must belong to some group who love their guns aa little bit too much!

By the way...your first response was not an answer to my question. Asking questions does not answer questions.

Anyone interested in bringing sanity to Va Gun Laws should consider contributing to Virginians Against Handgun Violence...I just did.

http://www.vahv.org/

Vince you never answered my question. Why not move to DC? Using gun banning logic it must be one of the safest places in the world. Not being a frequent visitor to DC I would imagine it as some kind of paradise where you can live risk free.

Conny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it is funny how Vince is all of a sudden
> plain words strict constructionalist. He is
> wrong, of course, if he goes down that road, but
> it is funny nonetheless that he choses that avenue
> of argument. Tell me Vince, you are for a Woman's
> RIGHT to choose to have an abortion. Which
> amendment was that again?

Conny...here's something you can read after you get done ironing my shirts.


Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In other words...it is nobody's business other then a women and her Doctor when/if to have an abortion. While so many men on here defend their right to own a gun I wonder how many will defend a women's right for an abortion...or a family's right to withhold artificial life supports to a dying family member...or even object to the biggest threat to our freedom contained in the so called "Patriot Act". It seems to me most defenders of individual freedoms only object to their freedoms being preserved...when it's somebody else's right to freedom/privacy they quickly roll over. I find that particularly ironic in this particual discussion when so many seem to beleive their gun some how defends their freedoms.

BTW February 8-10, 2008 gun show at Dulles Expo. Vince want me to save you a seat?

I plan on being at the gun show. The line for admission usually goes around the building on both sides. All those guns and yet no crime, how can that be?

Vince let us know how big a crowd you get at the next vahv.org meetings

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think it is funny how Vince is all of a
> sudden
> > plain words strict constructionalist. He is
> > wrong, of course, if he goes down that road,
> but
> > it is funny nonetheless that he choses that
> avenue
> > of argument. Tell me Vince, you are for a
> Woman's
> > RIGHT to choose to have an abortion. Which
> > amendment was that again?
>
> Conny...here's something you can read after you
> get done ironing my shirts.
>
>
> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United
> States Supreme Court case that resulted in a
> landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According
> to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in
> the United States violated a constitutional right
> to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the
> Fourteenth Amendment.
>
> In other words...it is nobody's business other
> then a women and her Doctor when/if to have an
> abortion. While so many men on here defend their
> right to own a gun I wonder how many will defend a
> women's right for an abortion...or a family's
> right to withhold artificial life supports to a
> dying family member...or even object to the
> biggest threat to our freedom contained in the so
> called "Patriot Act". It seems to me most
> defenders of individual freedoms only object to
> their freedoms being preserved...when it's
> somebody else's right to freedom/privacy they
> quickly roll over. I find that particularly
> ironic in this particual discussion when so many
> seem to beleive their gun some how defends their
> freedoms.


You're stupid.

i would only be for this bill if they took away all firearms from the police. they have a tendency to get away with murder.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince Wrote:
-
> It is clear to me that the only reason people have
> the right to bear arms is to ensure there is a
> well regulated (please take note of that word
> "regulated") militia..

You are confused about the meaning of the word "regulated" in this context. It does not mean "restricted", but you think it does, because that's how the word is mostly used in contemporary English.

The other meaning, how it was used in the Constitution, is still in the dictionary today. "Regulated" means adjusted so that it is well-functioning. What they are trying to say here is that unless the INDIVIDUAL citizens do not have guns, the militia will be unable to function. And the question of the MILITIA was already answered by the authors of the Constitution.

The wording of the 2nd Ammendment was taken from Virginia's own Constitution.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

[correcting typo in my unregistered post at 4:00 in the morning...]

Vince Wrote:
-
> It is clear to me that the only reason people have
> the right to bear arms is to ensure there is a
> well regulated (please take note of that word
> "regulated") militia..

You are confused about the meaning of the word "regulated" in this context. It does not mean "restricted", but you naturally think it does because that's how the word is mostly used in contemporary English.

The other meaning, as used in the Constitution, is still in the dictionary today. "Regulated" means adjusted so that it is well-functioning. What they are trying to say here is that if the INDIVIDUAL citizens don't have guns, the militia will be unable to function. And the question of the MILITIA was already answered by the authors of the Constitution. Please take note that the wording of the Second Ammendment was taken from Virginia's very own Constitution:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;

If "the body of the people" don't have the right to (individually) posess their arms, not only will they simply not have guns to shoot, they won't be "trained" to them (practiced, or "well regulated"), and hence won't be able to defend their freedom -- and it is their own individual freedom that establishes and defends the "free state".

If you would like some further assurance that the "militia" is not some government or army, just look up the sentence that comes after that one:

that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty;

(The National Guard, for example, which was created more than 100 years later in 1903, is a standing army and is not "the militia".)

Or, let's just ask one of the Founders, directly, in the context of these words, exactly what the hell they meant by "militia":

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2008 04:53AM by Spacy.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i would only be for this bill if they took away
> all firearms from the police. they have a
> tendency to get away with murder.

I'm surprised at you, you are usually just slightly left of Hillary or BIG ALGORE
It is called JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE Gravis. Cases investigated ,taken before Grand Juries where a peer group of citizens review the facts and make a determination the officer had the ABSOLUTE right to defend him/herself or another from the IMMININENT threat of DEATH or GREAT BODILY INJURY. The BILL OF RIGHTS...a wonderful thing..it applies to cops too, sorry Gravis.

Militia more narrowly defined:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

For those who are unable to distinguish the difference between "Militia"
and the "National Guard", you can Google "National Guard Act".
I hope you will also consider that neither of these laws have been
repealed.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Conny...here's something you can read after you
> get done ironing my shirts.
>
>
> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United
> States Supreme Court case that resulted in a
> landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According
> to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in
> the United States violated a constitutional right
> to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the
> Fourteenth Amendment.
>
> In other words...it is nobody's business other
> then a women and her Doctor when/if to have an
> abortion. While so many men on here defend their
> right to own a gun I wonder how many will defend a
> women's right for an abortion...or a family's
> right to withhold artificial life supports to a
> dying family member...or even object to the
> biggest threat to our freedom contained in the so
> called "Patriot Act". It seems to me most
> defenders of individual freedoms only object to
> their freedoms being preserved...when it's
> somebody else's right to freedom/privacy they
> quickly roll over. I find that particularly
> ironic in this particual discussion when so many
> seem to beleive their gun some how defends their
> freedoms.

You missed the boat and you missed the point. I was demonstrating how easy it is for you to recognize penumbral rights not stated explicitly anywhere in the constitution or amendments while summarily dismissing an explicitly granted right guarenteed by the second amendment. I never expressed any opinion, favorable or unfavorable, about the Court's decision in Roe. I only used it as an example to point out your astounding hypocricy. I'll dismiss your "ironing shirts" comment as the simple grumblings of senile old man. Keep them up though, and I will refrain addressing you in a civil manner. I am a bit surpised though that someone as progressive as you believes that women can't have opinions and are better suited doing housework. Or, maybe they can express opinions, as long as they are yours.

Nice one Conny. It was easy to see what you were doing and Vince fucking took the bait, swallowed it, and let the line run all the way through his GI tract.

Amazing, You can infer rights from dicta and interpretations in the Bill of Rights but you cant grant rights even though its EXPLICITLY provided for in the text of the document, wrote about ad nauseum by the authors of the document, and executed in practice in the time of the document's enactment.

Fucking amazing.

We''l just have to leave this issue be until the Supreme COurt decides what is meant by the 2nd Amendmant. and Conny...I have no respect for a women who would risk the gains fought and gained by women before you. The men on here with their pumped up love for guns at least have lack of first hand knowledge when it comes to a women's reproductive rights...you have none!

Vince,
Apparantly you don't know how to read, completely ignore things that directly refute any of your nonsensical and illogical ramblings, or are a complete sexist pig that gets his jollies off by demeaning women. My inclination is to believe that it is a healthy combination of all three.

In case you missed it, you misogynistic pond scum, I NEVER EXPRESSED ANY OPINION, FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE, ABOUT THE COURT'S DECISION IN ROE. Accordingly, you have no flipping clue what my opinion is of that decision. I used the abortion issue to simply point out that you believe strongly in penumbral rights but not expressly granted rights. I have news for you, you narrow minded chauvinist donkey's rear, people in this country can be pro-choice and pro-second amendment!

In parting, I am not sure if you are a sexist twit because your mommy dressed you up in girly clothes or your daddy was a subservient sissy to your overbearing mother, and that left you with enduring emotional scarring. Maybe your current spouse wears the pants in the family, and the only way you can get off is by anonymously demeaning women on the internet. Whatever the scenario, I can tell you one thing - this woman does not want pea-brained, senile, jerkoff telling me what is and is not best for me. Do you comprehend this?

omg I can't believe how easily Vince the troll gave up on his 2nd Amendment argument when everyone pointed out what an ignorant troll he is.

Talk about a pussy. You just went straight to the "what and see" argument. Quite typical of a gun-control proponent. Once you smack them in the ballz with facts, it is instant retreat to arguing a negative.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a false sence of security/control your guns
> must give you.

Its not a "false sence of security/control". Its very real. Security is having
superior firepower.

Like this one?

Great photo! (nice gun too) I believe its a .50 cal Barrett. YouTube
has some great clips on its (the rifles) performance. Why didnt they
have women like that in my old outfit?

That will be on sale at the Feb 8-10 gun show, the rifle not the girl.

Conny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince,
> Apparantly you don't know how to read, completely
> ignore things that directly refute any of your
> nonsensical and illogical ramblings, or are a
> complete sexist pig that gets his jollies off by
> demeaning women. My inclination is to believe
> that it is a healthy combination of all three.
>
> In case you missed it, you misogynistic pond scum,
> I NEVER EXPRESSED ANY OPINION, FAVORABLE OR
> UNFAVORABLE, ABOUT THE COURT'S DECISION IN ROE.
> Accordingly, you have no flipping clue what my
> opinion is of that decision. I used the abortion
> issue to simply point out that you believe
> strongly in penumbral rights but not expressly
> granted rights. I have news for you, you narrow
> minded chauvinist donkey's rear, people in this
> country can be pro-choice and pro-second
> amendment!
>
> In parting, I am not sure if you are a sexist twit
> because your mommy dressed you up in girly clothes
> or your daddy was a subservient sissy to your
> overbearing mother, and that left you with
> enduring emotional scarring. Maybe your current
> spouse wears the pants in the family, and the only
> way you can get off is by anonymously demeaning
> women on the internet. Whatever the scenario, I
> can tell you one thing - this woman does not want
> pea-brained, senile, jerkoff telling me what is
> and is not best for me. Do you comprehend this?

Bravo, Conny! I suppose Vince's sentiments of women's rights and liberation only extends to their bodies and not their minds. Talk about the objectification of women! I, for one, would have never pegged uber-liberal Vince as a blatent sexist, but if the shoe fits.....

On another note, is "We''l just have to leave this issue be until the Supreme COurt decides what is meant by the 2nd Amendmant, (sic)" truly your final thoughts on this issue, Vince? Sounds to me like you started a conflict here with a piss poor exit strategy. I thought you hated that kind of thing.

.50 caliber sniper rifle. Holy shit. No need for a head shot. Torso shot would cut the body in half. Whats the range on that sucker? 2,500 yards?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2008 10:35AM by ITRADE.

I believe 2500 yds is the "effective" range, so actual range could be 10 miles
maybe. Love those rifles, but at that price I'd have to get a job to
pay for it. Also would need a place to shoot that has plenty of space.
Heard that ammo is $4.50-$5.00 PER ROUND! Here's a peek at the mfgr:
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx

10 miles? C'mon. a .50 cal BNG has a max range of about 4 to 5 miles - ands thats a much heavier weapon.

Well...that was my own "guestimation". It would depend on bullet weight, wind,
other factors. 30'-06 has range of about 7-8 miles so I figgerd probably
more for .50. Havent looked at a ballistics table on that round and its
been a few years since I read the "Guns & Ammo" articles. Will look it up later.