AR-15 prices...Outragous

[Drache]

Unless its contrary to the will of the people.

I don't remember that part, just "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice"

Now every person in the military has the duty to disobey an unlawful order...

BUT if an Amendment to the 2nd Amendment was made, then it's not against the law for the President to ban firearms depending on how that Amendment was written. And the 2nd Amendment is just that, it was added to the Constitution 4 years after the fact.

And the 2nd Amendment doesn't even really need to change for the President to use Executive Powers to issue a ban on all Fully automatic and all Semi Automatic firearms. The 2nd Amendment gives a person the right to bear arms, doesn't say what type of arms. Technically all firearms except single shot long arms and handguns could be banned and it's still within the laws of the 2nd Amendment.

[twodko]

The sad truth is the Fed can and will do as it wants. The idea of the 2A was to give the people the same firepower as the government to prevent tyranny by the same.

200 years has seen the balance of power monopolized by........wait for it.....THE MAN. In short we're screwed. 

[Drache]

The sad truth is the Fed can and will do as it wants. The idea of the 2A was to give the people the same firepower as the government to prevent tyranny by the same.

200 years has seen the balance of power monopolized by........wait for it.....THE MAN. In short we're screwed. 

I hate the idea of being disarmed by the Government as much as anyone. But I don't think I could kill "innocent" soldiers or police of my country who were just following the orders that they swore to uphold. Seems like a pretty stupid thing. Help the Government force a law your might not believe in, or face court martial and the brig.

[Tilar]

BUT if an Amendment to the 2nd Amendment was made, then it's not against the law for the President to ban firearms depending on how that Amendment was written.

I understand what you're trying to say, but the amendment itself was worded so it can not be changed.  "Shall not be infringed" is the part that makes any change illegal.

"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"

[Drache]

I understand what you're trying to say, but the amendment itself was worded so it can not be changed.  "Shall not be infringed" is the part that makes any change illegal.

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means they cannot change the basis of the Amendment. They can still change it enough. Like I said, it gives people the right to bear arms but doesn't say what kind of arms. Hell it could be amended to simply give people the right to bear muzzle loaders, the same type of arms as when it was written.

[Sgtwallace]

From my point of view, I too swore an oath to defend the constitution.  But I also swore to protect and defend the people of my community.  And I believe most of my co-workers are in agreement.  They can make laws till they are blue in the face - but nothing happens until we decide to enforce those laws.  It's happened before (On a smaller scale with the smoking ban.  The law was so poorly written, that it is pretty much ignored).

Historically, it is not unusual to see the local police/public officials take a stand against an oppressive government.

[AKcharger]

"The oath I took when I joined the AF in 1984 is still just as valid for me today "To Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..." 

Thank you for that brother! Same same Navy 1970. Same same all branches.

Doesn't that same oath also include "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" though?

It did...while I was a member of the armed forces and was subject to a chain of commmand. Now that I'm retired my obligation is only to the Consitiution...and I take that obligation freely 

[Tilar]

I understand what you're trying to say, but the amendment itself was worded so it can not be changed.  "Shall not be infringed" is the part that makes any change illegal.

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means they cannot change the basis of the Amendment. They can still change it enough. Like I said, it gives people the right to bear arms but doesn't say what kind of arms. Hell it could be amended to simply give people the right to bear muzzle loaders, the same type of arms as when it was written.

Trying to create restrictions to the existing law is infringement, and I'm far from being the only one that feels like that.

From my point of view, I too swore an oath to defend the constitution.  But I also swore to protect and defend the people of my community.  And I believe most of my co-workers are in agreement.  They can make laws till they are blue in the face - but nothing happens until we decide to enforce those laws.  It's happened before (On a smaller scale with the smoking ban.  The law was so poorly written, that it is pretty much ignored).

Historically, it is not unusual to see the local police/public officials take a stand against an oppressive government.

I was talking to a neighbor of mine that is a sheriffs deputy and he told me the same thing. I told him as a friend to not be one that comes to my house with the intention of taking any guns if they try to pass something along those lines, he said that wasn't the plan and that if they came to anyones house it would be to deputize them. They feel something is coming down the pike.

[A34]

Ruger Makes it easy to write your Elected
________________________________________
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html


Just go to rugers site. Fill in your address. It looks up your elected officials and you proof the email. Sign your first name and hit Send. Poof your done. Please pass this along. We need to show how many of us there is.

[stripedelete]

Did it.  Thanks 

[Tilar]

Did it.  Thanks  

Same here.

I had already sent letters to 5 of those but more help. In my letters I included a suggestion that while it's not a fix all it would be at least a step that might help. Here is one paragraph from my letter:

What I am suggesting is a database of people like Mr. Lanza that have a history of behavioral or mental issues that may make them irrational or short tempered. Then flag these people just like you do a released felon in that they can not be in a house where guns are kept without them being under lock that they can't get to. You could even go further and make it so that anyone that lives under the same roof as the people in this database, and wanting to own or buy guns have to go through a gun safety course before they can move in. Same with the parents, if they have children like this, they have to go through a gun safety course and keep their guns locked in a safe that only they can get to.  I would suggest that a psychiatrist or mental health type doctor being the ONLY ones that can flag a person for this database, not congress or the president or the head of homeland security or anyone else that works in the government, only a doctor.  You will also have to have a means setup to remove the people from the database in the event the mental patient passes away, that way the family members are not bound to an issue that no longer exists.

[Ricomondo]

I just picked up a Rock River Entry Tactical and paid retail? anad I'm right outside Chi-town. I have not priced them since I bought right before Christmas.

[472 R/T SE]

It seems every year around Christmas, crazy shit occurs like clock work.


Tilar, your additional suggestion seems to be a step in the right direction.  I'm of the opinion in order to make more folks happy that NO firearms should be allowed in those homes but that would give "them" a foot in the door to take it further.

I realize police officers', at least around here, are already in high schools but I really don't want my daughter caught in a shooting gallery.  More teachers with conceal/carry would help but I don't think there's a very high percentage of teachers' who would want any part of it.

Anybody know, has there ever been any shootings at a school where there's an officer present?

[HPP]

Columbine and Virginia Tech both had armed police on campus when the shooting started. Columbine had a Deputy Sherriff, VT had a armed campus police force.

In the case of Coumbine, shots were exchanged between the Deputy and one of the shooters. Additionally, a close by traffic officer responded to the call within seconds of the gun fire starting and he too exchanged fire with the shooters outside the school. However, after these two incidenices, the shooters remained inside the school where they were not easily confronted because of the large student body and the chaos of the situation. By that time, law enforcement had no idea who the bad guys were.

[70/I6 charger]

I know I'm new here but .... I did buy 10, 80% receivers @$199 each. If you know some one who has a drill press you could finish them in less than a hour. Best thing about the 80% over the completed one, is there are no numbers or FFL records. (For you tin foil hat people) If any one would be interested in buying one from me Id sell them at my cost plus shipping. I bought 8 more than I was planing on keeping just in-case any one I knew wanted to do one. I still have not received them from the manufacture as they are still on back order but I can ship as soon as they get here. I have done 2 other ones from the same people and they were top notch. PM me if interested.

[lisiecki1]

I know I'm new here but .... I did buy 10, 80% receivers @$199 each . If you know some one who has a drill press you could finish them in less than a hour. Best thing about the 80% over the completed one, is there are no numbers or FFL records. (For you tin foil hat people) If any one would be interested in buying one from me Id sell them at my cost plus shipping. I bought 8 more than I was planing on keeping just in-case any one I knew wanted to do one.

Just bought a bunch of castings myself for $25 each.

[70/I6 charger]

Where did you get them and how finished are they?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! PM plz!!!

[A34]

Locally, a man broke into a woman's home, she hid with her children in a closet while talking to her husband on the phone. He called 911, it took them 11 minutes to get there. The man searched the house for her and her children, whom he found hiding the closet. She unloaded a .38 in his face. Unfortunately, he lived. In ICU currently. You should hear the 911 tape. Intense. You can read some about it below.



http://www.wsbradio.com/ap/ap/georgia/ga-woman-hiding-with-children-shoots-intruder/nTm9M/

[hemi68charger]

I understand what you're trying to say, but the amendment itself was worded so it can not be changed.  "Shall not be infringed" is the part that makes any change illegal.

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means they cannot change the basis of the Amendment. They can still change it enough. Like I said, it gives people the right to bear arms but doesn't say what kind of arms. Hell it could be amended to simply give people the right to bear muzzle loaders, the same type of arms as when it was written.

This is very true. An Amendment CAN be changed and/or cancelled ( look at the situation of Prohibition - 18th ending with the 21st ). The 2nd Amendment does state a militia has a right to bear arms for the protection of the State ( against the Fed's ). When it was mentioned people's right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed, it was implying what we today call the National Guard, not Joe-Blow. Back then there wasn't a "National Guard", just men of fighting age. This amendment was influenced by the English Bill or Rights of 1689 which was a defense posture against totalitarian Royal control and Catholic control over an ever growing Protestant population. Average Joe doesn't need a AK or M4, with such philosophy, I'm going to go buy a M1A1/2 Abram....

[lisiecki1]

Contemporary 18th century dictionaries define "regulated" as "proficient" or "well-trained," not "controlled," as the 20th century had dictated.

A major concern of the founders was an overwhelming centralized government with a powerful standing army and a disarmed citizenry. The militia is the people (not today's National Guard, which is a branch of the Department of Defense).

If one wants to infer that the Second Amendment applies only to flintlock muskets, then the First Amendment should apply only to the printed press and corner speech -- not radio, Internet, movies, satellite, television.

[lisiecki1]

Long read, well worth the time:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[hemi68charger]

...
A major concern of the founders was an overwhelming centralized government with a powerful standing army and a disarmed citizenry. The militia is the people (not today's National Guard, which is a branch of the Department of Defense).

...

Perfectly said, but the militia of old has turned into the Guard of new ( hence, is a segment of particular branches of the Department of Defense ).

Like the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard is made up of Citizen-Soldiers who train part time, close to home, until needed. Since 1636, each state has had its own militia. These became the foundation of today's Guard units (this was mandated by the Constitution in 1787). The Guard mobilizes to protect U.S. domestic interests in times of conflict or natural disaster and may be deployed internationally alongside full-time troops when the situation demands. Today's National Guard consists of approximately 352,689 troops from all U.S. states and territories. I can see Gov. Perry mobilizing his militia to protect Texas from Washington D.C.... doubt it'll ever happen or have a need....

Times have changed. The same threats aren't there and for the ones that are, there are other ways about addressing it.... The average citizen doesn't need a high powered assault weapon... They have their vote (which in its own right is pretty powerful)

[ACUDANUT]

 IMO, the States do not need their own Military..The Federal Gov can override anything they do anyway..In Emergency's the Feds should have to respond with active duty troops...Almost every state has a active duty base nearby.

[lisiecki1]

...
A major concern of the founders was an overwhelming centralized government with a powerful standing army and a disarmed citizenry. The militia is the people (not today's National Guard, which is a branch of the Department of Defense).

...

Perfectly said, but the militia of old has turned into the Guard of new ( hence, is a segment of particular branches of the Department of Defense ).

Like the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard is made up of Citizen-Soldiers who train part time, close to home, until needed. Since 1636, each state has had its own militia. These became the foundation of today's Guard units (this was mandated by the Constitution in 1787). The Guard mobilizes to protect U.S. domestic interests in times of conflict or natural disaster and may be deployed internationally alongside full-time troops when the situation demands. Today's National Guard consists of approximately 352,689 troops from all U.S. states and territories. I can see Gov. Perry mobilizing his militia to protect Texas from Washington D.C.... doubt it'll ever happen or have a need....

Times have changed. The same threats aren't there and for the ones that are, there are other ways about addressing it.... The average citizen doesn't need a high powered assault weapon... They have their vote (which in its own right is pretty powerful)

[hemi68charger]

  That's why the U.S. of A is a beautiful country and I'm honored to serve to protect the rights of people to express their views, even if it's different, even if it's different than mine..... Of course, everyone thinks they're correct, including me..    ..........