The irony there being that Nazi Germany eased the restrictive gun laws of the Republic which had already eased the severe gun laws from after WWI and Germany had an increase in firearm ownership under both changes of law yet still it was a murderous dictatorship.

Don't be silly, every year its "no more civil war politics"...then every election the muppets trot out ther same old tired crap and numbskulls lap it up like they always will.

To put something else on the plate. A new Supreme Court Judge is being looked at.

Which could change how the Court looks at things.

Food for thought.

True, but the troops were sent to confiscate the armory and Concorde. The minutemen refused to let them pass. The shooting started.

The preceding twelve years had resulted in some violence, but this was the first time the army was actually called out to forcefully violate the citizen's rights. My point is that it didn't start with the people going and attacking the troops.

Oh save the drama! The courts have TIME and TIME again ruled against the Anti-Gun crowd. Yet ANY mention of ANY ruling or law has gun nuts coming out of the woodwork.

Rabid Anti-Gun was an 80s thing. Move on. Every nut has guns these days.

A centralist that might rule even MORE activist right wing than the one she replaces. I think there is little to worry about on the gun front.

It not only sounds like that...... :03:

opinions are like A-holes pal.

are you so naive that you think the US Government is an infallible entity perfect in all ways and incapable of turning into a tyrannical organization under the right set of geopolitical circumstances?

:06:

im not saying it WILL happen 100% fact put your money on it.

I'm leaning toward - it will never happen.

however...

I'm saying that even if it were a 1% possibility... its a possibility none the less.

If Kagen is confirmed - it will not drastically changed the makeup of the court. You will basically continue to see 5-4 decisions coming down from the court, the majority remains "on the right".

What facts bring you to that conclusion ?

Just have to say, that civil insurrection talk i find hilarious. I mean seriously, first of all, public opinion is that they are fringe whackjobs running around in fatigues, talking to god on a two way radio. So if they expect to inspire a national uprising, i dare say they'll be disappointed.

Secondly do these people REALLY think they have a chance against the modern US military? Reality is Not "Red Dawn". It doesn't matter what small or long arms your shooting, your going to get pasted pretty damn quick and probably not even see the person shooting at you.

I am a firm believer in strict gun control

1. Modified Weaver Stance
2. Good sight picture
3. Breath control
4. Smooth trigger action

:D

yes... those guys are a tad out there :haha:

that is a fact.

the US Government has all the hardware it needs to control the people... now some nut job president just needs the justification for usurping all of the power for himself.

there will probably come a day that the US Constitution is just an antique document on display in a building... no longer applying to our system of government in any official capacity.

personally i fear that day may be coming sooner rather than later

I doubt anyone here young or old will see that happen in their lifetime.

Well Firewall, simply put she is replacing Justice Stevens, who pretty much was a liberal vote on the court as it was. Replacing one liberal vote with another doesn't alter the balance of the court as it stands.

Now if she were replacing someone else, say Chief Justice Roberts, then the balance would change.

This is one reason why the nomination of Sotomayer and Kagen, while important and historical in their own ways, don't change the makeup of the court and thus have nowhere near the bearing that the talking heads would like to make you think.

In Canada
 

Up in the North country we have mandatory extra years added to the sentence when a crime is committed using a firearm. We also have life for killing a police officer, any way you do it.

Maybe coming down extra hard on the guys and gals who do shoot someone might help. You just have to be very very sure that you shoot the right person and don't miss. A bullet goes a long way.

Stats don't show how many people are killed or maimed by stray shots intended for someone else. That happens a lot, even in Canada.

Very true, but that also holds true for shots fired by police. With several dozen rounds fired for every bad guy police shoot, they have to go somewhere (statistically speaking, of course).

On the other hand, US stats never show how many attempted home robberies are foiled by gun-wielding homeowners. I am personally familiar with three separate cases in which that happened. The police were called, and did file reports, but nobody ever includes those. How many each year? I have no clue.

Do the US stats show how many times weapons are stolen and used for criminal means? Or even to shoot their legal owners?

its impossible to know how many lives have been saved legally, or taken illegally with guns.

In my family we learned about gun safety early on, and by the time i was 7 years old i had a firearm that belonged to me. It was used for hunting.

but i'll just add this for all you fathers out there...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3219383_n.jpg

now i dont have a daughter... but i can guarantee you this; she would not only know where the pistol spends its dormant hours, but she would be well versed in its use by the age of 10

I wonder what looney site that picture comes from?

If that image is not a joke its a stupid political image at best.

Tell me is your daughter going to go outside to ride the bike packing a loaded glock? How about a automatic shotgun? How about a Stinger missile?

The sheer idiocy of the rabid anti-gun law group vastly ruins the image of the average hunter or homeowner wanting to have a gun on hand for self defense. And of course preying on the fears of parents isnt outside their views and justification because a city dares ban bazookas.