Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brady Bunch Hates Texas Republican Party Platform...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Ironbarr, Jun 22, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ironbarr

    Ironbarr Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Virginia
    TOUGH


    ... and some other crybaby overstatement of goals:

    http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=68011

    Then follow the TX RP platform links starting at http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer (for page 21)

    .
     
  2. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    They actually DO explicitly oppose the Endangered Species Act.

    So do I. And I have a bachelor's degree in Ecology.

    The law is immoral, and it creates overwhelming incentives to eradicate any endangered species you find on your property, because it forces a property owner to provide a free animal sanctuary, without compensation.

    While we could debate the costs of such a program, a system that fairly eminent-domained a piece of property with full compensation to the owner, in order to preserve a species found there, would not be immoral. The current system is just plain wrong.
     
  3. Hoppy590

    Hoppy590 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,277
    Location:
    MA :(
    i donno. some its kinda extreme. no background checks :what: . i dont mind ensuring that only the good guys get gun legaly through, moderate means such as background checks and some licensesing. but no background checks scares me.
     
  4. the pistolero

    the pistolero Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas
    This Marsha McCartney is a real piece of work. I recall reading a quote from her not long after Mark Allen Wilson was shot in front of the Tyler courthouse:

    "Concealed Handgun carriers sometimes commit crimes and sometimes are heroes. Unfortunately, the hero part doesn't happen very often and what if he had hit a bystander while he was firing?"

    These people are despicable. Utterly despicable. I am starting to think they don't really want to see violence perpetrated with guns go away, because if it did, they wouldn't get their names in the papers anymore. They are nothing but a disgusting gaggle of media <insert word that starts with wh- and rhymes with more>s. :barf:
     
  5. 44Brent

    44Brent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    Illinois
    ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE:

    GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA


    http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm

    A. The First Step

    In 1903, Parliament enacted a gun control law that appeared eminently reasonable. The Pistols Act of 1903 forbade pistol sales to minors and felons and dictated that sales be made only to buyers with a gun license. The license itself could be obtained at the post office, the only requirement being payment of a fee. People who intended to keep the pistol solely in their house did not even need to get the postal license.[41]

    The Pistols Act attracted only slight opposition, and passed easily. The law had no discernible statistical effect on crime or accidents. Firearms suicides did fall, but the decline was more than matched by an increase in suicide by poisons and knives.[42] The homicide rate rose after the Pistols Act became law, but it is impossible to attribute this rise to the new law with any certainty. The bill defined pistols as guns having a barrel of nine inches or less, and thus pistols with nine-and-a-half inch barrels were soon popular.

    While the Act was, in the short run, harmless to gun owners, the Act was of considerable long-term importance. By allowing the Act to pass, British gun owners had accepted the proposition that the government could set the terms and conditions for gun ownership by law-abiding subjects.[43] As Frederick Schauer points out, for a government body to decide "X and not Y" means that the government body has implicitly asserted a jurisdiction to decide between X and Y. Hence, to decide "X not Y" is to assert, indirectly, an authority in the future to choose "Y not X."[44] Thus, for Parliament to choose very mild gun controls versus strict controls was to assert Parliament's authority to decide the nature of gun control.[45] As this Essay shall discuss in regards to the granting of police authority over gun licensing, establishing the proposition that a government entity has any authority over a subject is an essential, but not sufficient, element for a trip down the slippery slope.
     
  6. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Before 1968, you could order a gun from the Sears Catalog like ordering a lawnmower or a pair of suspenders.

    The Gun Control Act was implemented because pissed-off (but political, not violent) black people were carrying guns around, and the white establishment allied with soccer moms (back then they were baseball moms) to put a stop to it.

    We don't need background checks, because all they do is burden the law-abiding. They have had no impact on levels of violent crime.
     
  7. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,556
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    Is that even *remotely* true?
     
  8. Hoppy590

    Hoppy590 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,277
    Location:
    MA :(
    sorry, im just a younging ( and a MA resident) so it kinda shocks me to think about being able to walk into a place and just buy a gun with out some form of licences and government run around.. those must have been the good old days the elderly are always reminising about

    also. we have a Stevens that was bought from sears. back when my father was younger
     
  9. Daniel T

    Daniel T Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    That may have been part of the reason, but the main impetuses for the law were the Kennedy assassinations, especially JFK's. After all, it occured because Oswald bought a Carcano through the mail, right?
     
  10. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    It is possible that guns found in the hands of criminals were more likely to have been stolen from law-abiding owners (with the concomitant danger to, or injury and even death of said innocent citizens) than they were in the past. Note that they said "purchasing firearms", not "obtaining firearms". So it could be partially true.

    Note also that, in the UK, where handguns are banned entirely, authorities estimate that there are far more handguns in circulation than there were before the ban, when law-abiding citizens had to surrender their registered handguns, so clearly a law that stops purchases through ordinary channels does not lead to fewer armed criminals.

    A half-million? How many armed criminals are caught in this country? Are there even that many people in jail, sum total, for crimes committed using firearms? I don't know.
     
  11. Deathrider1579

    Deathrider1579 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    198
    Location:
    South East Texas (wOOt for Texas!)
    Gentlefolk,

    I would like to put forth that while you may or may not agree with the
    "extreme" view that the 2ndA Applies with no exceptions, I think if you value guns you have to vote and pull for those people who do.

    The reason is that while we probably will never attain the level that I would like to see (full access to all military grade weapons and gear for any and every body) we can easily have what The Brady umm bunch (yeah that’s what I was thinking lol) which to achieve (aka severe limitations to our freedoms). Ergo we have to make THEM compromise, and the best way to do that is to put extreme view points on our side and push hard for them. Because if we put a mid line guy up there he is much more inclined to compromise towards the enemy's view point than one of those guys like me.
    Besides what is the worst that could happen? You, me and everyone has access to the same arms across the board and while there would be a small albeit probably violent adjustment period we would come out with a increase in freedom which is worth more any way.

    Just some thoughts for yall to ponder,

    -DR
     
  12. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Agreed with Deathrider, totally.

    If we push hard, really hard, then the "compromise" we end up with will be a lot better. There will be a "compromise", because it's politics. The question is, what will it look like?
     
  13. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    The whole "background" check Brady Act does not date back to 1968. It is a Clinton era thing. Clinton was the last President before our current one. In other words, you have to be bretty young not to remember those "wild west" days of before background checks.

    It is sad that we have accepted infringements so quickly.
     
  14. Ironbarr

    Ironbarr Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Virginia
    Henry - Thank you.

    Hoppy590 - your...
    I must be a "modern" elderly (73+), but my tale of 2nd Amendment freedom goes like this:

    Northern New Jersey, 1947 (try it today... har har):

    At 14 I took a Public Service bus and 18 dollars of hard-earned bowling alley work (5-cents a line) to a gun store about 15 miles away where I bought a NIB single barrel H&R Topper 12 gauge, a box of #8-shot, and a hunting license. I climbed back on the return bus with my boxed H&R (not, mind you, in a plain brown wrapper), my bagged shells, and the license filled out and walleted - Oh! And my change. I got home and into the woods/field area before sundown and got a few rounds off - no birds though.

    Why is it so hard to believe there was more freedom "a while back"? One reason there's less today is that communication is instant now - blink wrong and it's known now. Also more people - people with more opinions and less "need" for "freedom". I guess, since it seems we don't teach such things anymore - less folks with less experience with doing for themselves and more folks in need of - er, um - services. People with opinions and a need for "services" make it less difficult for those who, for their own agenda(s), would control them.

    That H&R sits it the cabinet next to me - still active.

    Maybe I should send it in for re-finish... red, white, and blue, that is.

    Well, not to wear this out - I'm done.

    -AndyB

    .
     
  15. Hoppy590

    Hoppy590 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,277
    Location:
    MA :(
    you got on a bus and spent 18$ and got all that

    i went to an 8 hour class, spent like 70 on the class. another like 100 for the license, waited for all that. then spent 1/2 hour doing paper work and background checks about $200 for the gun and a box of #8. trigger locked, then cased locked then put in a locked trunk, the whole time with one of the owners of the gun shop being his usual smiley self.

    i use the word elderly just in the sense of how everyone always says " back in my day!" not to relate a person of old age.
     
  16. Yeager

    Yeager member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    81
    Meh,

    I recently came into the real firearm world after a 7 year stint in the less than real replica world. I was shocked at the mere notion of not being able to own some of the things I had grown to expect to be able to. (mainly thanks to the leftist media and their "Military machine guns")

    If it were up to me there would be no gun "laws" persay.I would however require people to openly carry their weapons in a visible holster. if you don't carry you pay a tax to the local PD. I would make a class manditory for open carry of smaller Sub guns and FA rifles just to make sure the person in question knows how to atleast control his weapon in FA mode. And lastly I'd enforce a strict he starts shooting you drop him as fast as you can policy. Once the defender has droped said criminal he would raise his hands in the air and be held by his peers untill the proper authorties arrive.

    It sounds bad but really what self respecting criminal would open fire if hes surrounded by people armed to the teeth? I beleive our leaders call it "assured Mutual Destruction". :evil:
     
  17. The_Shootist

    The_Shootist Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Location:
    Richmond Tx, CSA
    Brady Bunch Hates Texas Republicans?

    Nice to see we are doing something right! :evil:

    I'd like to see NO background checks and repeal of the '30 Class III law.

    You know the old saying, when fully automatic weapons are outlawed, only the bad guys will have machine guns! :neener:
     
  18. Ironbarr

    Ironbarr Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Virginia
    Hoppy590...

    Actually the H&R was $16.00 even.

    Hard to remember many details, but I do remember cigarettes were around 20 cents and two pennies packed in the wrapper. Gas about the same, and a dime bought a whole bag of chocolate covered marshmallow sticks.

    Reckon we won't see those numbers again any time soon.

    For what it's worth, training is important; glad to see you're on top of it.

    Take good care.

    .
     
  19. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    Actually, it is the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), but that's just a minor quibble.

    I would simply like to have restored to me and everyone else the rights that our parents and grandparents had pre-NFA. They could walk into a store, plunk down some cash, point at a gun - any gun, including full autos - and say "I'll buy that." Then the guy behind the counter would give it to you - no background check, no permission slip from the local PD, no $200 tax, no restrictions about how the gun looked, when it was made, how many rounds it could fire without reload, etc. Even mid-way in between then and now, a mere 38 or so years ago, one could buy anything except a full-auto through the mail, even 20mm semi-auto cannons.

    Rights are rights - timeless and immutable. We've given ours away, and its time to take them back.
     
  20. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,502
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    It is a federal crime for a convicted felon to try to buy a gun -- filling out and signing the form is a crime for them.

    So if a million and a half criminals tried to purchase guns, surely a million and a half criminals went to jail for that. Right?

    Wrong! There are virutally no prosecutions of felons for trying to buy guns under the Brady Act.

    During the Clinton Admistration, this issued was raised and a Justice Department spokesman explained why -- virtually all such "stops" are technicalities. He used the example of an elderly black man trying to buy a shotgun. It seems he had been convicted some 50 years before of having a deck of cards with pictures of naked women -- naked white women.

    The Brady Law and Jim Crow, hand-in-hand.:barf:
     
  21. ball3006

    ball3006 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,874
    Location:
    Texas
    Ask me if....

    I really care................oh hum.......chris3
     
  22. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    The Brady Bunch should look in the mirror. They are the very picture of intolerance that they accuse us of being....

    At least we know that if mutant zombie bikers with bad hair took over, the Brady Bunch would be wishing that they hadn't supported nutty gun laws....

    I cannot understand the logic of those folks...
     
  23. mordechaianiliewicz

    mordechaianiliewicz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    Western Missouri
    If the only restictions which applied to firearms/ anti-armour, anti-air weapons (that are individually man protable) were a training requirement for full auto, and military rocketry weapons, I think it would be constitutional.

    The truth is that the 2A was designed to allow for individually man portable weapons. Nukes, bio weapons, heavy explosives, WMDs, and armour aren't man portable, so they aren't covered, and many of these weapons are too dangerous to be used in self-defense. However, machineguns, subguns, rifles, maybe even RPGs with certain restrictions are part of the spirit of the 2A.
     
  24. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,919
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Some more dangerous "criminals" caught by the Brad Act

    o A local man had a background check show he had been
    charged with a felony; as a teenager he was night clerk
    at a hotel that was robbed. He has a videotaped deposition
    from the local chief of police that he was charged because
    at that time hotel clerks were routimely taken under
    suspicion in hotel robberies until cleared. He was cleared,
    but the original charge shows up on background check.

    o Another local man always is denied on initial background
    check because he has a felony arrest record: he had the
    same name as a suspected felon and was arrested, but released
    on grounds of mistaken identity. Everytime he goes to buy,
    sell or trade a gun he takes copies of his appeals form
    and the court records showing it was a mistaken identity
    arrest.

    Just imagine if the funds spendt on the Brady Act had been used
    to go after real felon criminals.

    (Durty pictures on playing cards in the 1950s, where did I see
    that before? Ed Wood's The Sinister Urge?)
     
  25. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,502
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    No. The intention was that private citizens could own "all the terrible implements of the soldier" (in the words of Tench Cox.)

    From Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
    Letters of Marque and Reprisal are given to private citizens, who raise military units or fit out war vessels at their own expense. During most of this nation's history, there were no laws against owning artillery, warships and so on.

    In the Federalist Paper Number 46, Madison (who basically wrote the Constitution) paints a scenario where a tyrannical central government uses the Army to subgate the people -- and shows how the right to keep and bear arms ensures the people can defeat such an Army.

    To do that, they'd need "all the terrible implements of the soldier."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page