Now is the time when many people will be forced to admit the folly of blindly goose-stepping to the trumpets of gun control's parade of foolishness.

King George IV has just layed the groundwork for a dictatorship.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721

See for yourself....comrade.

and those residents are allowed ONE AUTOMATIC WEAPON PER HOUSEHOLD!

As the NRA expression goes;

"Over My Dead Body"!

jp irving msha

college station

texas

down street from

'Pops' Bush and Dr. Robert 'Defense Secretery' Gates' abodes.

The Oath goes something like this:"Will Never Lie, Cheat, Steal or Tolerate anyone who does".

Is Bob Gates an AGGIE or merely an Appointee like GWB?

This isn't the first time a punitive tax against gun-owners was proposed, but previous court rulings found it unconstitutional because the court found it to be-

"a discriminatory tax levvied against those who exercised their right to own firearms and not against those who did not excercise their right even though they enjoy the very same right under the constitution and thus it is unfairly aimed at gun-owners as a punitive measure and clearly designed to infringe upon the fee-exercise of that right".

If they did their homework they would have known about that.

Rep.(D) Angel Cruz A.K.A. "Mr. Potato Head" is considering legal action against someone who displayed a sign with a patriotic slogan that opposed Cruz's efforts to financially rape Pennsylvania's gun-owners by a discriminatory annual tax.

It was apparent that the sign was not the issue but the angle that Cruz could use to attempt to exploit the situation since his ideas were soundly rejected by so very-many Pennsylvanians.

This is something that we see all too often in this country,an individual who isn't from here, trying to re-define what "here" is until it looks more like the toilet that they came here FROM.

The long and the short of it is that Rep. (D) Angel Cruz ADMITS (on ABC t.v. news) that he is afraid of the "tree of liberty".

But I bet he wouldn't mind burning a book or two.

But only those printed in English in order to be consistently descriminatory.

Yeah, tha will make us safe like it is in Washington D. C. where guns have been banned for decades. What is its murder/ gun crime rate? Oh yeah the highest in the nation. Do you people ever think before you speak?

if we repealed the second amendment then the only ones who would be allowed to own fire arms would be the government. now that's REALLY scary.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kates.premises.html

i haven't had time to check out all the references in the above article but it appears to be one of the few that relies on hard data to evaluate the role and impact of guns on crime.

The Bushistas have dismantled half of the bill of rights without a shot being fired or a peep from the reich wing. The right to bear arms (arms, not guns, dimwit) was in lieu of an army. Now, we have the military industrial comples that Ike so prophetically warned us about, and they're got us by the short hair. Polish your Glock if it gets you off, but don't delude yourself it saves any of the rights that your republikan friends have ripped into tiny shreds. My personal preference is for impeachment rather than revolution. The odds are better, but not as odd as gunnutz.

I completely agree with you. We need more than one way to do this. Impeach? yes. Preserve gun rights? yes.

Well, we have handicapped drivers,drunken airline pilots, pedophiles for doctors, rapists and murderers for police....why not mentally ill carry permits?

Dont the mentally ill have a right to self-defense?

They clearly have a right to a computer judging from the arguements against the second amendment.

hehehe.

I like the old Soviet hardware because dollar for dollar it is tough to beat.

We got m-16s here that jam when dust gets in em' but the old Kalashnikov keeps right on rippin' away even after dunking em' in a deep mud-puddle.

I prefer the .223 caliber of the m-16, but the 7.62x39 ammo is alot cheaper so ya can buy alot more.

Awhile back I was checking to see if it was still possible to buy Soviet track-vehicles and in Afghanistan they abandoned a bunch of them. Problem was that getting them into this country was pretty much impossible. Those old heaps could go anywhere.

When they break-down though that is where they sit til you can find parts.

You can still buy mig-17s thru mig-20s if you know where to shop. (Everybody upgrades and older inventory goes fast) The A.A. and A.S. weaponry is extra but that is understandable.

That would put one hell of a spin on the 2a argument....a mig fully armed with air-to-air and air-to surface weaponry.

Now I want one! lol

If there were no private right to bear arms, there would be a trillion laws against it already. However, the Constitutional protections of that right have remained firmly in place despite assaults on that right by, well, people like you.

If your position holds merit, why can people still buy guns? Any why does the anti-gun lobby always resort to the tried-and-true Fox News method of labeling your opponents rather than addressing the issues? Really, you play Bizarro to Limbaugh's Superman; you make the same arguments but everything is backwards. There really is no difference in my mind between those on the left that assault our freedoms and those on the right who do the same with their PATRIOT acts and police-state tactics.

As for regulation, the Constitution does not forbid it. Even the framers of the Constitution understood rights to be limitable. We limit a felon's Constitution rights, we can limit or restrict others. Restricting access to handguns is common sense. This is a democracy. If you want regulation, convince enough of your fellow Citizens to support it (I will sign the petition!) and enact it into law. You would waste your efforts to repeal the Second Amendment, and if you did succeed, which Amendment would be the next to fall?

The left always claims that the Second Amendment is ambiguous, then with the same forked tongues claim that the Constitution is unambiguous in its support for abortion, a right not mentioned in the Constitution and not related to "privacy" in any way. I personally prefer to assume that a right exists, abortion included, unless specifically proscribed by the Constitution. The left and the right both start with their favorite list of rights and assume all the rest must be granted at their whim. Libertarianism is the stance of most of us in the Center (you know us, the ones who will decide all elections between the left-wing nutters and the right-wing nutters, but are represented by neither). The Center seek the greatest range of rights, while the left (as represented by Mr. Shapiro and the other anti-Constitutionalists here) and the right (Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney) want to do away with whatever rights make them nervous or don't serve their particular special interest groups.

As far as Government regulation of automobiles as a comparison, it is an absurd one especially if you claim it to be successful. There are still more auto deaths than gun deaths in the US, as well as death by fat and death by smoking. All of those industries are "regulated" by the government for the benefit of--whom? If autos were really regulated, then every tailgater would be arrested for assault (read the definition of assault before kneeing yourself in the chin).

Does failure to comply mean that laws should not be passed? It is a ridiculous argument no one seriously believes. Has anyone even attempted to enforce the "gun laws" we have now? Nope. To suggest that we should pass more and more draconian laws because we are unwilling to enforce those on the books now is just plain disingenuous, deceptive and nonsensical. Let's fund the enforcement of current laws before going down the anti-Constitutionalist path. Using this absurdist reasoning, the ban on guns should just be the first ban. We should check with the left to see what's safe for us and then with the right. Together the two should be able to ban just about anything.

Most of the posts (not all) supporting Shapiro's position are laced with elitist, left-wing jargon. Trust me, those of us in the Center do not want to listen to your blathering nonsense any more than we want to listen to Fox News' stupidity. We think the same of your propaganda as we do of theirs. There are some rational arguments made for regulation, but not one rational argument supports repeal. I know Mr. Shapiro claims that he wants the Amendment repealed to "remove it from the debate", but that is merely misdirection. The only point of repeal would be an outright ban, a ban which would surely exempt Corporate interests and "security firms". Since when did a Corporation have any Constitutional rights? Never.

A sensible start to gun regulation would be registration of all handguns. Not just those owned by Citizens, but every government agency, every corporate security firm, every handgun everywhere. Fair and balanced? Hmm. The technology exists to embed RFID devices in every gun that is made going forward, no way to remove the serial if it is embedded without destroying the weapon. Every gun should be traceable from the moment of its manufacture until its final sale, and the registered owner should be held responsible for its whereabouts. This is in line with automotive registration.

That will not address the cats that are out of the bag, of course, but neither would a ban as I doubt your neighborhood crack dealer is going to run downtown and drop his gun off when you say so.

Meanwhile, keep your hands off my Constitution.