It was about the Montana/Texas challenge to the interstate commerce laws authority to prohibit them from making NFA guns in state[I think-I missed the first 30 minutes:banghead:] The name was "most civil of wars" Kind of a town hall thing with the actual state legislator's involved in this. If you can find it somewhere watch it.
Anyone see Glen Beck on fox today
- Thread starter jim in Anchorage
- Start date
- Status
Got a week's worth DVR'ed, working my way through them right now.
I think they replay each episode around midnight--check your local listings. They also replay an episode Saturday and Sunday--not sure how they pick which ones, but you might get lucky. I used to use a VCR, but finally got dragged into the 20th Century and now have a DVR
Pricey, but worth it.
I think they replay each episode around midnight--check your local listings. They also replay an episode Saturday and Sunday--not sure how they pick which ones, but you might get lucky. I used to use a VCR, but finally got dragged into the 20th Century and now have a DVR
Pricey, but worth it.I see it's on here again at 10PM. Will get to see it all.[hope I don't accidentally see Greta-she should sue her plastic surgeon]
I think on Saturday beck has a "best of Beck" or something that is combo of his week's shows... Or if it is a really important one, like the 9/12 project, then it is a repeat of that whole show.
he is awsome
he is awsome
From what I heard, this might go all the way to the supreme court an they would have to rule on a 1942 decision that took away some state rights, an our rights...I say lets get them back....an I like Greta so watch it Alaska guy...I bet alot of those gals up there don't look like Sarah!!!! ...just kidding with ya.
No,most are hotter. Seriously I hope it will make it to the high court-that interstate commerce baloney is the most flagrant over reach of Federal authority one could imagine.
Yo Mama
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,230
Yup saw it, but he's been on this topic for a few days. The deal is the same thing when CA tried to legalize Marijuana. The excuse that the feds used was that it would affect interstate commerce!
They learned from CA's pot fight, and have worded the law to state that all guns made in the state are legal for residents to have regardless of what the feds say. They are trying to show that there would be no affect in interstate commerce.
I really think the bill will be shot down, and that it will go to the courts.
They learned from CA's pot fight, and have worded the law to state that all guns made in the state are legal for residents to have regardless of what the feds say. They are trying to show that there would be no affect in interstate commerce.
I really think the bill will be shot down, and that it will go to the courts.
I have an image that is very relevant, unfortunately I can't upload and photobucket is incomprehensible... at least on a screen this small.
http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss306/heviarti/ImageqyYz6wMTiUnCy87uOIxGFg-1.jpg
Broken mobile site.... there's your second amendment supporting military.
http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss306/heviarti/ImageqyYz6wMTiUnCy87uOIxGFg-1.jpg
Broken mobile site.... there's your second amendment supporting military.
Last edited:
Heviarti, the gun registration memo you refer to was withdrawn, and never acted upon. Even when the commander put it out, it only applied to one company out of several thousand in the Army, let alone the entire military. It was issued to 110 Soldiers out of an army of approximately 1.5 million (not including National Guard and Reservists). That means that .000007 percent of Active Duty US Army personnel that were ordered to register their weapons before the order was promptly rescinded.
Just wanted to clarify that since you posted it without any context and with a sinister hint of suggestion that there is a pervasive anti-gun attitude among military personnel and their commanders. If that was your aim, you found one example, which is now defunct, that was hardly representative of the military as a whole to begin with. If that was not your aim, I'd be curious to hear what it is you are getting at.
Just wanted to clarify that since you posted it without any context and with a sinister hint of suggestion that there is a pervasive anti-gun attitude among military personnel and their commanders. If that was your aim, you found one example, which is now defunct, that was hardly representative of the military as a whole to begin with. If that was not your aim, I'd be curious to hear what it is you are getting at.
well, if it is rescinded, no worries. I got that from someone and found it disturbing. just felt like registration to me... and that feels about like chewing tinfoil...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/campbell.asp
The whole story. Long and short of it is, command saw a rise in injuries due to negligent discharges with privately owned weapons. This memo was one commander's way of attempting to lower that number by identifying gun owners and requiring them to go through a safety course - much like the military does for motorcycle riders. I don't agree with it in principle, but when you're ramping up for deployment and losing people due to stupid stuff (car accidents, boating accidents, piss-poor gun handling), I get what he was trying for. Tomorrow I'm running a rifle qualification range for the Army, with a priority to the group I'll be leading overseas in the near future. I want them all to do well, but way beyond that I want the day to end with nobody having been shot in an incident that could have prevented; that's bad for me as a leader, bad for the individual, and bad for unit readiness, which can lead to a whole other slew of problems.
As a military commander I have two priorities; my mission and my people. If they're getting injured due to complacent or negligent behavior, that becomes my problem in a big way, and I can regulate it as I see fit. For myself and those below me, concepts like this are something we agree to when we sign on the dotted line. That said, I'm glad the memo was revoked, and I do hope the staff over at Fort Campbell can find a way to improve the gun handling skills of soldiers in their off time without threatening their 2A rights.
The whole story. Long and short of it is, command saw a rise in injuries due to negligent discharges with privately owned weapons. This memo was one commander's way of attempting to lower that number by identifying gun owners and requiring them to go through a safety course - much like the military does for motorcycle riders. I don't agree with it in principle, but when you're ramping up for deployment and losing people due to stupid stuff (car accidents, boating accidents, piss-poor gun handling), I get what he was trying for. Tomorrow I'm running a rifle qualification range for the Army, with a priority to the group I'll be leading overseas in the near future. I want them all to do well, but way beyond that I want the day to end with nobody having been shot in an incident that could have prevented; that's bad for me as a leader, bad for the individual, and bad for unit readiness, which can lead to a whole other slew of problems.
As a military commander I have two priorities; my mission and my people. If they're getting injured due to complacent or negligent behavior, that becomes my problem in a big way, and I can regulate it as I see fit. For myself and those below me, concepts like this are something we agree to when we sign on the dotted line. That said, I'm glad the memo was revoked, and I do hope the staff over at Fort Campbell can find a way to improve the gun handling skills of soldiers in their off time without threatening their 2A rights.
I have to say I feel the quality.... no, wrong word... and neither is intelligence.... but We are getting a lesser man then we did 50 or even 20 years ago. But I notice that in many places. Don't think for a moment that I don't support the military. I would likely be there now but for my eyesight. I would have liked to have had the training, and as of now a chance to personally make known my displeasure at the actions of insurgents. Oh well. I guess they've managed to leave the really dangerous ones at home incase something really bad happens...
Jim, hadn't seen that particular GB episode, but in case the memo tied in, I felt it had to be addressed as presented. More OT - the weekend addition of USA Today also ran an article on state sovereignty laws that have come up in the last year or so.
For those that may not have caught it, or are unfamiliar with Glenn Beck....
A group on YouTube posted today special in it's entirety.
Link to 4-part video
I'm not aware of any of the agenda's of this group -- they just have the videos
This web site is also referenced during the show. It's a new site, but is a VERY good start.
I hope this does some good, and inspires comment.
-TK
A group on YouTube posted today special in it's entirety.
Link to 4-part video
I'm not aware of any of the agenda's of this group -- they just have the videos
This web site is also referenced during the show. It's a new site, but is a VERY good start.
I hope this does some good, and inspires comment.
-TK
- Status