Connecticut will fall this week.

[Ignition Override]

A younger guy- a former Marine infantry soldier- with whom I recently worked is from a town south of Chicago.

His older brother is a retired Deputy Chief, or such, and is a member of Police Chiefs Against Gun Violence, if that's the name of the group.

This young ex-soldier believes that whatever those guys want is reasonable, because, as he told me, "It's just common sense".
I knew that before asking him whether those Chiefs and deputy Chiefs consider law-abiding citizens dangerous, it was hopeless. It seemed impolite to consider reminding him that political appointees and their teams are obligated to be Yes Men, for career enhancement.

This young Marine told me that over many, many years, after people have much less access to them, the smaller supply of guns will gradually reduce the availability to criminals.
This is the hidden, long-term agenda among many of the moderate Anti-Gunners, it seems.
Chicago must be quite successful with its city-wide brain-washing.

After two of his comments I dropped the gun subject altogether.
His mind was closed, as are many of our fellow gun owners who only want to see the world between their 'horse blinders'.

Hearing exactly That from a Marine makes me see how easy it is for so many regular people with no independent thinking skills outside of their narrow track, or exposure to shooting sports to be brain-washed into believing that any extra control is better than what we have now.

Once CT and states like CO have 'fallen' these are just solid chunks that probably can't be replaced.
This irrational strategy is a Hundred Year plan (like a Moderator stated), if not longer. Just one more chunk at a time is all that they will need, with many fellow gun owners and even hunters drinking the same Kool-Aid, provided that their bolt-action rifle or shotgun is not endangered ("S***w them- it's all about me"). Anybody out there need a refill of grape, or cherry...?

 

[Lost Sheep]

I did not vote the stupid expression removed inso. How canI vote him out?

Volunteer (especially at the local level, where volunteers can make a bigger difference) and work for pro-rights candidates.

Get involved in your local school board and keep watch over what is being taught in schools.

For state-wide or national candidates, volunteer to hand door signs, install & maintain lawn signs.

Write one mild, pro-rights letter every 90 days to your local newspaper.

Run for office yourself

There are lots of ways.

Lost Sheep

 

[ngnrd]

I think you should read that article. It does not support your claim. Even if 100% of the populace agrees a single court ruling could throw it out.

Of course, if 100% wanted an unconstitutional law, it wouldn't take too long to amend the Constitution. And that's how it should work. The Constitution can be changed. It's just not very easy.

 

[Lost Sheep]

How many Adama Lanzas did America know, or here of, prior to 1960? You reap as you sow...

One of the claims of the anti-gun people is that the Adam Lanzas of the time were not capable of firing so many, many rounds so quickly. The argument goes that they were stopped early because they had to stop to reload sooner.

The argument does hold some water. Jared Loughner (Tuscon Arizona shooter who shot U.S. Representative Giffords and many others) was tackled and brought down when he stopped to reload. The reasoning goes, that he would have been stopped after 10 instead of 30 if he were unable to obtain a 30-round magazine.

I recall, though, the story of a fellow who used to go hunting with his friends all the time and was regarded as a trustworthy fellow, level-headed, a good shot and a blessing to have with you in the woods. After he came back from the war, though, he (obviously suffering from what today is called PSTD) no one wanted to be around him if he had a gun. This was in 1865. Crazy scary gun owners are not new, just better equipped.

If we do not recognize and acknowledge where to opposition's positions have points, how can we expect to be taken seriously when we argue against the positions that don't?

If you ignore the terrain of your battlefield, you are setting yourself at a disadvantage. Our battlefield right now is the media (like it or not), the voting booth, the judicial system, the marketplace. Adjust your tactics according to the venue. Rest assured the opposition is, and if they do it more effectively, they will win.

Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it...."

Unfortunately, the big truth does not seem to have those kinds of legs. So, we have to work harder, and smarter.

Keep up the good fight. And make it the best fight you can.

Good luck.

Lost Sheep

Lost Sheep

 

[joeschmoe]

Not very thorough, are you?

From wikipedia(which you seem to think is authoratative),

You asked how many Adam Lanza's before 1960? I gave you the worst one from 1927. Your claim that it is the modern liberalism/leftists that has created them doesn't explain the 1927 massacre of 45 people and wounding of 58 other. The point clearly is these things are not unique or new.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

It may not be easy to change the Constitution but it appears to be very easy to simply ignore it and enact laws that will be in effect for the several years it may take before it comes before the supreme court.

 

[joeschmoe]

Of course, if 100% wanted an unconstitutional law, it wouldn't take too long to amend the Constitution. And that's how it should work. The Constitution can be changed. It's just not very easy.

Actually no. Fundamental rights cannot be changed by legislation. Even by the Amendment process. Changing fundamental rights that our system is based on would change the whole system, fundamentally altering the entire Constitution, not just that one part. You can add or repeal Prohibition, but you can't establish a religion or deny property rights to left handed people without fundamentally changing the entire Constitution. The enforcement of all rights and how the Constitution is used in law would have to change. You would basically be starting over with a new Constitution. Throwing out 200 years of case law and the common law on which they are based.

Remember the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights, but a list of specific restrictions on Government power. Removing one of the pillars on which our frame work is based would bring down the whole thing.

 

[alsaqr]

I gave you the worst one from 1927.

The Bath school bombing could have been much worse. One of the bombs, containing 400 hundred pounds of dynamite, failed to detonate.

http://daggy.name/tbsd/tbsd-205.jpg

 

[Lost Sheep]

It IS being put to a public vote. The next time there's an election in CT, voters will render their decision in this matter. If enough voters are anti gun ban and they demand the ban be repealed, it will be. If it turns out that more CT voters are happy with the ban, then it'll stay. Remember Clinton's ban? It expired in 2004 because American voters didn't want it anymore. If they did, you can bet that it would have been renewed.

In the end, democracy will be served. Our laws will reflect what the majority wants, and that's as it should be.

Not necessarily.

Many people will vote against their own self-interest on one issue if a compromise on another issue is perceived to be worth the trade-off.

Do you understand the meaning of "Politics makes for strange bedfellows."?

And sometimes the chickens even INVITE the Fox to guard the henhouse.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." does not just refer to vigilance against our declared enemies, but also our declared friends and even our own complacence.

Lost Sheep

 

[bill3424]

How do you register a magazine?

 

[MagnunJoe]

Every month we lose a whole state and some people here actually think that we R winning.

 

[mrvco]

How do you register a magazine?

The same way you enforce a ban on magazines with no date code or serial number... arbitrarily and prejudiciously.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

How do you register a magazine?

They are saying that you will have to declare how many mags you own that hold over 10 rounds. If you lie and say too few and get caught you will face a Class D felony for each mag over the amount you declared.

If you lie and say too many they will nail you if there is a mandatory confiscation. They will charge you for transferring all the unaccounted for mags that you never had in the first place.

If this law sticks there are going to be a lot of people in jail because they found a mag they forgot they had and therefore didnt register. Also when a person dies all their 10+ mags and "assault weapons" must either be sold out of the state or surrendered to police. Cant even leave a gun to your kids in your will anymore.

 

[Ignition Override]

Lost Sheep:
You reminded pro-gun people to be very familiar with all details of the terrain.
Wellington studied at a military academy in Brussels and somehow knew/remembered that part of the terrain in Waterloo was not Quite flat.
You might know that Wellington positioned a few thousand or so of his British troops out of view, on their bellies for hours, in reserve. Maybe this was a first?

Napoleon assumed that the terrain was too flat to hide anything important, but Napoleon knew that he was brilliant.
The reverse slope must have been very subtle.
He also did not think that troops of his very determined bitter enemy von Blucher (British allies) could make it through the mud in the battle's hinterland.

The NRA's lobby organization along with other groups must know exactly the shape of the terrain and what can be hidden, used, exploited.
We can't underestimate any subtleties either, or the determination/abilities of enemies of traditional US freedoms to attack from the blind spots.

 

[tarosean]

One of the claims of the anti-gun people is that the Adam Lanzas of the time were not capable of firing so many, many rounds so quickly. The argument goes that they were stopped early because they had to stop to reload sooner.

The facts have already been published that he did in fact reload quite often. Leaving many of the mags he dropped partially full.

Yet here they are trying to limit the amount anyway...

 

[Black Butte]

[J]udges are ... subject to what voters want.

Incorrect. Judges with lifetime appointments are not "subject to what voters want."

 

[Trent]

silly personal attack removed

Keep it high road, name deleted to protect the guilty. There ARE some of us living in IL that are quite active on gun rights.

In fact, our pro gun rally in March was bigger than any rally in ANY other state in the union, by several thousands...

 

[kwguy]

Majority, minority, democracy, republic. I'm not sure how all this figures, but what about this.
How many people do you actually know that are handicapped?
What? 1 in a hundred? 1 in 50? 1 in 10,000...

It doesn't matter. Here are two quotes (sayings, whatever) that I like:

'Tyranny of the majority'

'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. A republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.'

A constitutional republic represents the 'underdog', or minority, as well. It should not allow anyone's rights to be trampled on. Those rights are spelled out in the consititution. No matter what the majority wants, if it violates someones rights, then the majority can pack sand. Nobody ever said that a majority vote or opinion on something was right. Many times, the majority are a bunch of idiots.

In the context of the 2A, even if the majority are for, hmm, an AWB for example, who cares? Our Constitution spells it out pretty plainly. So a majority vote in favor of an AWB is unconstitutional, so should never pass (in a perfect world, but like I said earlier...idiots)

So these things are not (thankfully) solved by some mass poll or vote, but instead has to crawl it's way through our republican form of government. People complain because it's not fast enough for the 'good of the country' (what the heck does THAT mean?).

A pure democracy (mob rule) is pretty fast and efficient. A dictatorship is also fast and efficient. Republics are not. That's good.

 

[Lex Luthier]

Very saddened to read the news this morning about Connecticut. Today there will be a run on safe deposit boxes, airtight containers and shovels. Praying for sanity.

 

[icanthitabarn]

Will be a run on so-called assault rifles since a few are now around. On Thurs. they all will be unsellable or leave the state.

 

[larryh1108]

Even the news telecasts have stated that these new laws will do nothing to stop attacks like at Sandy Hook. My question is what is being accomplished by passing these laws? It will not affect one, single criminal.

And yes, I've already sent off the same questions to my representatives. They all know that voting for this stupid bill should cost them their reelection chances. We have to back this up with results of them being unemployed after their next election or all of this is no more than lip service. Once they are out of office, I will move to a better state.

They brag that they want the toughest and most comprehensive gun laws in the country. This is sic considering the state motto is The Constitution State. Really?

 

[Tom from WNY]

It looks like CT tried to copy what was done in NY. What is truly scary are the mental health provisions in this bill; they outdo what was done in NY by specifying how mental health professionals must evaluate persons.

Registering magazines? That will give the progs in NY some food for thought. 10 rounds in a 10 round magazine, that's generous given what was rammed up our .... We only get 7 for carry. (The sale of 10 round magazines was only allowed in an attempt to defuse lawsuits.) UBC's are unenforceable.

According to news releases, this has yet to come up for a vote. CT gun owners need to make their views known now and encourage all freedom loving persons to assist.

By the way, those who blame us for the state of affairs in our states need to look at their own. It's coming to your state next, and the politicritters will do what THEY think you should do.

 

[JShirley]

Please read this carefully.

This is a time of high emotion, as many of us are in states facing draconian new anti-gun legislation.

1. THR is not a "conservative" board, it's a gun rights board.

2. Don't throw around political terms you don't understand. A statist, socialistic politician is still not a communist.

3. Be nice. THR's rules and code of conduct have not changed. This is a time to work together- the battles should be "out there".

John

 

[Ryanxia]

Good luck guys. Stand strong.

 

[itsa pain]

John I do not understand your definintion of a communist saying a socialist is not one. a socialist is a communist with a pen a communist is a socialist with a tank. I do understand you saying we must not get into political discussions