Letter From My Senator About US Default

[Allalaskan]

Anti gun, the restriction or possession of fire arms of citizens.

You and I both have the right to bear arms. That means I have the right to own a gun or guns if I want. I do think that felons and violent offenders should NOT be allowed to own guns how ever I do not think the government has the right to tell me what guns I can or cannot have. For example the US just restricted the import of shotguns that are not considered "sporting" such as the Saga12. The Constitution says NOTHING about "the right to bear arms for sporting purposes" it says I have the right to bear arms. I have the right to own a gun for self defence of me and my family. If I choose to own a shotgun that holds more then 8 rounds is MY choice! The government has no right to tell me I cant own a gun that holds more then so many rounds. Funny little fact, most guns that are used in crimes are actually small CHEEP handguns that hold less then 8 rounds!

As for politicians who are anti gun, politicians who want to even farther restrict what I can and cannot own....

For one was Bill Clinton, he him self pushed the ban for "Assault weapons", yet it did not call for a ban on hunting rifles. This is complete ignorance! Most hunting rifles are FAR more powerfull then guns such as the SKS or AK-47 or AR-15. Here is an example http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Harold Koh is another one who is a legal adviser to the state department is another, he has strait up said that guns cause violence (a gun is a TOOL NOT A KILLER!!! The person who pulls the trigger IS the killer! A gun is a tool) and even has gone as far as to say that a sole sociaty cannot exist with gun ownership that it kills civil sociaty.

Obama himself nominated a very anti gun person to run for the head of the ATF, Andrew F. Travor has publicly called for a full semi automatic rifle ban and for those who did not turn them in right away were stormed by swat teams.


Michael Bloomberg, New York Mayor is going after private sales of fire arms of legal citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft4zprVTaYs

Thats just a few.


As has been seen in countries such as the UK, Gun control has not effected crime but let it rise in many places since now criminals know that LEGAL (once owners) gun owners no longer have fire arms to defend them selves with. Up here in Alaska we have a law that allows any one who is of legal age and statas to own and conceal carry a fire arm. We do not have shoot outs like many places in the country and is well known through the state "Be nice, you never know who is packing" but many will say that you must have more gun control. The fact is all it controls are legal citizens. Criminals will still have access to guns, there will always be a black market so why limit what legal citizens who can legally own a gun, again it does not effect those who FALLOW the law!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfTzPfdzFBY


Here is a lady who is against hunting and is all FOR the right to bear arms, watch it had she had a gun her family would still be alive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsB1qRBVAlI

The fact is there are politicians who are against you and me and our rights especially the right to bear arms.

I hope this didnt come off "pissy" because I didnt mean for it to, as I said before this is a touchy subject I feel strongly about.

 

[Allalaskan]

p.s. I think it's time for me to pony up to the contributing member status - so I can edit my stupid spelling mistakes and grammatical errors... :headbang:

I know what you mean, I often times get typing fast and not fully pay attention to how im wording things or spelling and forget to use the spelling check. Not a good excuse, but I know the feeling of posting, then rereading then going "O man, I sure messed that up".

 

[medusacoils]

Find me one (verifiable) source where Schumer says he is against the 2nd Amendment, and I will give you a point for this one. However, even if you found 1 senator who does not believe in the 2nd Amendment, thinking that the 2nd Amendment is in jeopardy is preposterous.

Find me anything in his voting record that would contradict one thinking that he is in favor of the 2nd Amendment. We are all judged by our actions. Words are just words and cheaply bought.

And how many gun shows across the country are simply ignoring these laws.

What laws are they ignoring? Firearm dealers are required by law to perform the NICS check prior to selling any firearm. Just because a minority of dealers choose not follow the law doesn't mean that ALL of them are. Again, you have fallen into that media trap.

Actually, I do not describe and assault rifle by its looks, so no, I would not describe that as an assault rifle.

I would say a Glock 9mm with an extended magazine would fall into the category of "assault rifle" - and feel we should have a healthy debate about the usefulness and purposes of things like extended magazines, but honestly, I am don't feel strongly one way or another. If the arizona shoot has a regular magazine instead of the 33 round extended magazine, then, yes, I do believe more people would have lived in that horrible tragedy.

I don't anyone who describes a firearm with an extended mag as an "assault rifle". I have a .22 cal with a banana clip that holds ^&$ rounds of ammo. Why does the number of rounds a firearm holds even matter?

I am not anti gun. I personally don't own any guns, but have shot them many times and do see the attraction to the sport of "guns".

Its just I feel strongly that the "fear" that the 2nd Amendment is under attack and that one day our government is going to take away our right to bear arms is just silly.

I bet the Brits felt that way at one time too; or even the Canadians when a lot of their handgun laws were passed. The "anti-gun" members of our society, who represent us in congress, are going to chip away OUR rights bit by bit until they aren't any rights left. Ignorance of that fact is a dangerous way to think.

Just because you think there aren't any members of Congress out there who want the 2nd Amendment to disappear, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Wayne

 

[Allalaskan]

I don't anyone who describes a firearm with an extended mag as an "assault rifle". I have a .22 cal with a banana clip that holds ^&$ rounds of ammo. Why does the number of rounds a firearm holds even matter?

It only takes one bullet, that said It shouldnt matter if it holds one or 50 because as I said....it only takes one. So then why would it matter? It doesnt but so many people try to make it sound like it does.

 

[medusacoils]

It only takes one bullet, that said It shouldnt matter if it holds one or 50 because as I said....it only takes one. So then why would it matter? It doesnt but so many people try to make it sound like it does.

I agree! Even that one "bullet" doesn't matter. A "bullet" cannot hurt anyone with the help of an individual firing it from a "gun".


Wayne

 

[Allalaskan]

I agree! Even that one "bullet" doesn't matter. A "bullet" cannot hurt anyone with the help of an individual firing it from a "gun".


Wayne

Like I said before, its the person that commits the crime, not the tool. Guns dont kill, people kill plain and simple.

 

[medusacoils]

p.s. I think it's time for me to pony up to the contributing member status - so I can edit my stupid spelling mistakes and grammatical errors... :headbang:

Don't worry about that. LOL! I try to proofread everything I post, but it never comes out right. I get the jist of what your saying and seem very well read and spoken.

It's all good!

Wayne

 

[BlackBear123]

Found this quote the other day and thought I'd share

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.” -Warren Buffet
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/warren-buffett-i-could-end-the-deficit-in-5-minutes/

The purpose and goal of the US military should be to protect our national borders from invasion by hostile forces. That is IT. Not to be fighting for commercial concerns in foreign lands, not to be trying to force influence on foreign governments, not to secure access to resource assets under foreign soil, certainly not to be used as political chess pieces in negotiations with foreign governments, and most DEFINITELY NOT as resources to be used at whim by the United Nations..

The United Nations doesn't accomplish anything anyway.

not to be trying to force influence on foreign governments

I respectfully disagree on this statement a bit. For the most part, I'd agree to let other countries run their government whatever way they'd like to. However, in extreme cases where basic human rights are at risk, I don't see any problem with forcing influence on foreign governments. Again, the UN is SUPOSE to be on top of this, but they did very little too late in the case of Rwanda and Darfur.

Overall, I'd agree that the boys and girls in congress are displaying basic human selfish nature. "What can I do to give myself the most lucrative lifestyle?" I know Mr Buffet's idea is a bit far fetched (congress would never vote to hold themselves accountable!) The problem is our system of voting just isn't working. Congressmen really don't have any accountability. We screw up and get fired. They screw up and spin it the right way to the very small group of people that actually turn up on election day, and keep serving. UGH

 

[medusacoils]

Well, I guess we don't have to worry about the default, for now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...uction-deal-approved-by-senate-house-leaders/

Apparently while we were having our little "gun" debate, they settled on a deal.

Wayne

 

[helifreak]

Anti gun, the restriction or possession of fire arms of citizens.

Michael Bloomberg, New York Mayor is going after private sales of fire arms of legal citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft4zprVTaYs

And as a resident of NYC for 5 years (lived in Brooklyn, worked in Manhattan), I was very happy that Michael Bloomberg favored a policy of reduction of gun violence, as during my entire tenure in NYC, I was never once mugged or threatened with a loaded weapon (though I did find myself "hitting the floor" one night in bar when a perpetrator was chased by police down the street and ran into the bar toting something like a Glock and some type of semi-automatic rifle - amusingly enough he tried to run into the bar's bathroom and flush the Glock down the toilet and hide his rifle in the ceiling... Luckily, most criminals are not all that smart. :nope:

Which is the last point I would like to make on this issue (as obviously, this 2nd amendment tangent is way off the OP topic - and is something that really is not worth debating about over on an internet forum - happy to over a beer and pizza, but over the internet - on a corn snake forum nonetheless - is just kinda silly).

The point being, that in my opinion, gun laws are put in place to "reduce gun violence" - i.e., violence against the general population who is not expecting to be the victim, i.e., crime, gang violence, etc... And it is here that the unfortunate side-effect of gun control, is that it effects those who have no intentions of ever using guns in a violent manner - or at least not until the it is time to try and win a fight against the government.

 

[Allalaskan]

Which is the last point I would like to make on this issue (as obviously, this 2nd amendment tangent is way off the OP topic - and is something that really is not worth debating about over on an internet forum - happy to over a beer and pizza, but over the internet - on a corn snake forum nonetheless - is just kinda silly).

QUOTE]

lol good point.

 

[kathylove]

I don't know...it IS a general chit chat forum. And we have discussed everything from politics to religion here. So it doesn't seem out of place to me.

 

[Emanon]

"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."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

 

[Dreamsnake]

All government employees should get paid whatever the minimum wage is and buy their own healthcare or get medicare. Then we'll really see this country whipped into shape.

The entitlements of exCongress members should also be withdrawn, making them go back to work instead of living off taxpayers and receiving free medical expenses.

My intention with this comment was that the minimum wage should be raised to an actual living wage. The grand majority of Congress people are born into wealthy families and have no idea what it is like to work minimum wage. I have worked minimum wage and below as a waitress for years. It is tough and it sucks. If more people who can make changes to the system understood that then this would change (unless everyone in politics is in fact a complete wank).

I wrote the comment quickly without completely thinking it through, sorry.

 

[helifreak]

"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."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

This is a great quote... however, modern day gun laws nether forbid the carrying of arms nor disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes"...

Modern day gun laws are there to forbid the ownership of guns to those who are unfit to make rational decisions or who have a history of violence.

They are also there to make it so those who do have a gun and have somehow escaped pt. 1, have a reduced capacity to inflict violence among the innocent.

Wait... I said I wasn't going to comment any more on the gun issue... dangit... :flames:

 

[helifreak]

As an active member of this thread... I hereby nominate Mr Snakey (the pretend Cobra) as a judge of all things "chit-chat"... i.e., a simple picture to keep the thread in perspective - and because I am still in that "corn snake fascination - gotta take lots of pictures" phase...

p.s. This is reaction I got after his first "misting" while he was hanging out on his tree... He did not like it one bit - he went into his tube and was like "I am cobra - do that again and I will spit in your eyes!"

 

[pridecity]

Cute snake!

I'll have to go back a few pages of this thread because I had a busy day and couldn't concentrate on what everyone was saying. I am glad though that so far it doesn't seem like it's gotten too much out of hand. I'd don't understand the saying "don't talk politics and religion in mixed company". I think we're doing very well so far.

On another note, I think politics is very well named. Poly=Many and tic(k)s are blood sucking creatures. Yep... that sounds about right. Lol

 

[Hypancistrus]

The 2nd Amendment guarantees every US citizen the right to keep and bear arms. I have never in my life heard of a single politician who is fighting to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Clearly you have not lived in Maryland, where the laws for obtaining a handgun legally are so strict that it is nigh impossible to do.

And how many gun shows across the country are simply ignoring these laws.

I went to a reptile show at Hamburg, PA, once, and admired a wide-band Copperhead. Copperheads and all venomous species are illegal in Maryland, and when the man tried to entice me to buy it I said "I live in Marlyand" to which he replied "Last I checked there's no one at the border doing car searches." Hmm....

Just because a handful of people are not following or abiding by the law does NOT mean we need a new law, or that the old law is broken and not working. It means we need to better ENFORCE the old law.

When you make new laws to address things like this, you penalize people who are already law abiding citizens. The people who are not law abiding citizens aren't going to follow the new laws anymore than the old laws.

"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."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Amazing how often we can quote Thomas Jefferson as a voice of reason, and yet in our politically charged world today, his voice if often ignored. He and the other founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves right now....

 

[tsst]

Clearly you have not lived in Maryland, where the laws for obtaining a handgun legally are so strict that it is nigh impossible to do.



I went to a reptile show at Hamburg, PA, once, and admired a wide-band Copperhead. Copperheads and all venomous species are illegal in Maryland, and when the man tried to entice me to buy it I said "I live in Marlyand" to which he replied "Last I checked there's no one at the border doing car searches." Hmm....

Just because a handful of people are not following or abiding by the law does NOT mean we need a new law, or that the old law is broken and not working. It means we need to better ENFORCE the old law.

When you make new laws to address things like this, you penalize people who are already law abiding citizens. The people who are not law abiding citizens aren't going to follow the new laws anymore than the old laws.



Amazing how often we can quote Thomas Jefferson as a voice of reason, and yet in our politically charged world today, his voice if often ignored. He and the other founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves right now....

I was building up to a big long post but I need not bother. Bravo Lauren!

 

[pridecity]

I got this in email today. Thought it would be sort of funny to post here:

Picture Worth a Trillion $

House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a new budget. (AP)

The guy sitting in the row in front of these two....he's on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.

These are the folks that couldn't get the budget out by Oct. 1, and are about to control your health care, cap and trade, and the list goes on and on.
Should we buy them larger screen computers - or - a ticket home, permanently?

This is one of their 3-DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for (salary is about $179,000 per year).