[brass hammer]

it is a well known fact that we as lawful firearms owners were under attack
by CLINTON[and 'crew'] well ,the whole nation was under attack,from that out-fit[i m not s h o]

the other night i was talking about man-portable mechanical energy[explosives] as i 'think' they are pretty 'neat' and useful[i'm sure GARAND will agree]

now if a person could operate under the mind-set of an over-educated liberal
elite in POWER, and with the 'war on terror' 'patriot act' 'homeland security' ect. they could in fact profile all firearms owners as terrorists[in posession of bomb-making matieral] or ANY AMERICAN for that matter........confused,with what i'm thinking?
well then friends, grab the mule by the tail, and come on up to the TOP of the mountain, for a much better VIEW!
if the left ever gets to 'fly the plane' again, it WILL BE WITH A VENGANCE!
the 2000 elections flat-out de-railed them![IF YOU ONLY KNEW THE CREW, algore HAD IN STORE FOR YOU]
and the 2004 elections pretty much 'kicked their teeth in'
but if they again get in control[why ,do you think, it is such a cat-fight on getting MR.BUSH's federal appointees SEATED?]

here is what i see from the mountain top!

on a targeted group, do you own a 'cell-phone'? [most do]
do you own ammuition for you firearms? [most do, in quanity/bulk]
how about a late model vehicle with air-bags[your in posession of an initiator device,blasting cap]
and just the regular crap/handy-man stuff everybody has in their garage/work-shop!
it all could be construed under the right[..ur...WRONG] leadership for a federal conviction[the way it was going, i feel that CLINTON,was just a trial-balloon]

there is ALOT more i'd like to 'spew' on about while i've got the SOAP-BOX!

but will just say, that while we have the EVIL-LEFT off-track and tooth-less
we should keep the boot of liberty squarely on the back of THEIR NECK!
it's been said that the two essential elements of EVIL are a total conviction of one's righteousness, and a total lack of a sense of humor![that might help you in figuring out just who is who in life,you can thank me later!]

and in conclusion, i'd like to share the fact that i bought a WALTHER P-22
this morning, total time of paperwork/plastic cash transaction was [5] minutes[or less]
smiles and waves were had by one and all, as i walked on out the door, with my NEW-SHOOTER.

 

[RIKA]

I pretty much agree with you Brass. If the left ever gets into power again (and they will), it will be with a vengeance. Guess we have to take advantage of the good times while we can. Congrats on your new P22. Does it have the short barrel, long barrel or both. Looking forward to a range report.

RIKA

 

[brass hammer]

hey,rika! it's the 'shorty'
i got home and stripped it down, it's a precsion made little pistol,the interchangable barrels are cool, with the barrel shroud and all, but am going to keep it 'compact', thinking about shooting it today or tomorrow!

but[and this is the beauty of maturity,as i can wait.] maybe in a month or [2]??? :dgrin:

 

[Rich Z]

Yeah man. I think the powers that would LIKE to be had better get a reality check with how SERIOUS we Americans are with retaining our liberties and recovering those that have been taken away without constitutional authority. Time to roll back some of the bs laws that have been foisted on us. Why is a rifle with a barrel that is 16 inches long legal but one 15.75 inches will land you in federal prison? Just WHY is a silencer illegal? How did it come to pass that fully automatic weapons can ONLY be imported or newly manufactured for government agencies and not THE PEOPLE of the USA? Who says that any gun has to pass a "sporting use" test to be imported from overseas?

Hey politicians? Get with the program or find another line of work!

I kind of like the motto on this flag I found....

 

[brass hammer]

i agree richZ!

alot of the 'LAW'. makes no sense.

although[ha,ha! as YOU well know] with out certain rules/regulations
it is utter chaos/anarchy[the flip side of the coin of rationalization] :dgrin:

 

[lucille]

Yeah man. I think the powers that would LIKE to be had better get a reality check with how SERIOUS we Americans are with retaining our liberties and recovering those that have been taken away without constitutional authority. Time to roll back some of the bs laws that have been foisted on us. Why is a rifle with a barrel that is 16 inches long legal but one 15.75 inches will land you in federal prison? Just WHY is a silencer illegal? How did it come to pass that fully automatic weapons can ONLY be imported or newly manufactured for government agencies and not THE PEOPLE of the USA? Who says that any gun has to pass a "sporting use" test to be imported from overseas?

Hey politicians? Get with the program or find another line of work!

I kind of like the motto on this flag I found....

Y'all remember these thoughts when various and sundry people become politicians and you know they support the same things you do......

 

[Rich Z]

i agree richZ!

alot of the 'LAW'. makes no sense.

although[ha,ha! as YOU well know] with out certain rules/regulations
it is utter chaos/anarchy[the flip side of the coin of rationalization] :dgrin:

Well yeah, it is obvious we do need some laws, never said otherwise. But the laws should be based on the U.S. Constitution and adhere to the limitations it has placed on the federal government.

For instance, what right does the federal government have in requiring an individual to fill out a 7743 when buying a gun locally from a dealer? Why can't I buy a gun directly from a dealer in North Carolina if I happen to be up there and attend a gun show in that state?

 

[brass hammer]

you got me there, friend! correct me if i'm wrong, but dosen't that fall under the I.C.C./1968 gun-control act.
i'm thinking thats how it was covered 'constitutional'
by throwing the blanket of the 'interstate commerce commission'
thus in turn, making it "federal "

and i'm not on the other-side of this 'issue' with you rich![iirc,didn't you have employment as a congessional aide, or something?]

 

[RIKA]

you got me there, friend! correct me if i'm wrong, but dosen't that fall under the I.C.C./1968 gun-control act.
i'm thinking thats how it was covered 'constitutional'
by throwing the blanket of the 'interstate commerce commission'
thus in turn, making it "federal "

A usurpation of power not allowed under the constitutition. Of course our govt masters have ruled that the constitution is no longer valid. Yeah, I know all the arguments so this discussion can't go anywhere much.

RIKA

 

[brass hammer]

i agree,rika! it does not fall under the constituiton.

 

[arebindixie]

A usurpation of power not allowed under the constitutition. Of course our govt masters have ruled that the constitution is no longer valid. Yeah, I know all the arguments so this discussion can't go anywhere much.

RIKA

The Constitution was itself an usurpation of power that nullified the Articles of Confederation, the sovereignty of the States, and the authority of the people. This is well demonstrated by the war levied against certain States and their people in 1861, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the denial of the rights of former Confederate officers and politicians to vote or hold office, and the subsequent forceful and patently illegal ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The Constitution is most definitely valid and it has succeeded in fulfilling its chief purpose, the establishment of a leviathan central government that can maintain (and has maintained) control without the consent of those governed.

 

[RIKA]

My apologies Reb. I forgot about the horrible and illegal things done to punish the former Confederate States and its people.

RIKA

 

[KJUN]

you got me there, friend! correct me if i'm wrong, but dosen't that fall under the I.C.C./1968 gun-control act.
i'm thinking thats how it was covered 'constitutional'
by throwing the blanket of the 'interstate commerce commission'
thus in turn, making it "federal "

and i'm not on the other-side of this 'issue' with you rich![iirc,didn't you have employment as a congessional aide, or something?]

Interstate commerce? If that was really the blanket they meant (I know it is what they used), then it would be legal for me to make a 14" shotgun in my home state as lopng as it never crossed state lines (assuming it was legal in my home state according to state law). Same for fully auto rifles, etc.

"Interstate commerce," my butt. "Interstate enslavemerce" is more like it.

KJ

 

[KJUN]

The Constitution is most definitely valid and it has succeeded in fulfilling its chief purpose, the establishment of a leviathan central government that can maintain (and has maintained) control without the consent of those governed.

Well, our good forefather's meant its main purpose to protect the liberties of people that would otherwise be lost. In other words, it was written as a way to protect the liberties it is now being used to take from us! One thing to note, though, is that when liberties are lost, it is in violation of the document. The document IS a good one - people can ruin anything, though. I wish they would have had a tar-and-feather clause where any politician that voted for a law that was eventually founf unconstitutional by at least 1 member of the supreme court would, by law, be tarred, feathered, and.....

This is well demonstrated by the war levied against certain States and their people in 1861

Don't even get me started on the War of Northern Agression, why West Virginia isn't a legal ststae in my mind, and how Sherman & Sheridan should have been hung for War Crimes!

KJ

 

[lucille]

Interstate commerce? If that was really the blanket they meant (I know it is what they used), then it would be legal for me to make a 14" shotgun in my home state as lopng as it never crossed state lines (assuming it was legal in my home state according to state law). Same for fully auto rifles, etc.

"Interstate commerce," my butt. "Interstate enslavemerce" is more like it.

KJ

The combination of the Supremacy Clause and the Necessesary and Proper Clause allows the Federal government leeway to exercise its interests even when an object of commerce never leaves the state.
There was a famous case brought by a wheat grower who sued the federal government for interfering when he used his grain to feed his cattle within the state in derogation of a law designed to control wheat output of individual farmers in order to control wheat prices.
It was held that because in aggregate this behavior could change market prices and conditions, the Federal government could reach in and regulate what a single farmer did on his own property.

I am of course not supporting this position; I am just describing the legal mechanics......

 

[KJUN]

The combination of the Supremacy Clause and the Necessesary and Proper Clause allows the Federal government leeway to exercise its interests even when an object of commerce never leaves the state.
There was a famous case brought by a wheat grower who sued the federal government for interfering when he used his grain to feed his cattle within the state in derogation of a law designed to control wheat output of individual farmers in order to control wheat prices.
It was held that because in aggregate this behavior could change market prices and conditions, the Federal government could reach in and regulate what a single farmer did on his own property.

Use whatever reason they want, communisn by any other name is communisn. Leading there slowly or quickly is still wrong.

I am of course not supporting this position; I am just describing the legal mechanics......

You should have said "the ILLEGAL mechanics." I don't care what reasons those ***voluntarily censored thought*** make in the courtroom. It is PLAIN that the constitution of the federal government didn't want, imply, or allow the intrusion of a stroing central government into states' business. I think Tom Jefferson was more right in his personal beliefs than history gave him credit for. I wish he would have been our first president, and people like him our president every single term.

KJ

 

[arebindixie]

Well, our good forefather's meant its main purpose to protect the liberties of people that would otherwise be lost. In other words, it was written as a way to protect the liberties it is now being used to take from us!

I respectfully disagree. It's main purpose was to ensure that there was a central government strong enough to ensure that the former colonies repaid their war debts. Consider: 1. The rights of the States is less clear in the Constitution than it was in the Articles of Confederation; 2. The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights was to convince the States that certain liberties would be preserved in order to assure ratification and establishment of the new government; and 3. Without it, ratification, which came slowly, would not have occurred at all. Frankly, the Articles of Confederation better protected the liberties of the people while the Constitution brought about likelihood of infringement (evidenced by the rapid enactment of the Alien and Sedition Act).

I wish they would have had a tar-and-feather clause where any politician that voted for a law that was eventually founf unconstitutional by at least 1 member of the supreme court would, by law, be tarred, feathered, and.....

I agree in regard to tarring and feathering. In regard to the Supreme Court, judicial review is not an authority provided by the Constitution. Rather, it is an innovation of the Marshall Court. Calhoun was correct in his theory of Nullification.

Don't even get me started on the War of Northern Agression, why West Virginia isn't a legal ststae in my mind, and how Sherman & Sheridan should have been hung for War Crimes!

The establishment of West Virginia is completely outside the authority of the Constitution and it is quite indicative of the excesses a strong central government can and will take, regardless of the liberties reserved for the States and the people. In regard to war crimes, let us not forget Benjamin Butler and let us consider the conditions at Elmira Prison and Point Lookout when Andersonville is considered.