Best
228 Comments
Post
  • #16
    !
    Yes we are, but we must avoid of choking ourselves with our own ropes. We must remain vigilant and intolerant of the wreckless, ignorant, and stupid on our own side if we expect this to last.
  • #30
    !
    "Guns are a lot like parachutes ~ If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again"

    The best presentation on gun control yet. Even if you don't like guns, Should be required viewing by both sides of the issue of gun control/legislation
    Here is a man who knows the constitution.

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/_T-F_zfoDqI...
  • #94
    !
    Here's another victory--
    when everyone stands around...reloading.
    Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known !! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 legis..traitors vote against them.

    In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented aninternational gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.

    Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

    Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.

    Baldwin (D-WI)

    Baucus (D-MT)

    Bennett (D-CO)

    Blumenthal (D-CT)

    Boxer (D-CA)

    Brown (D-OH)

    Cantwell (D-WA)

    Cardin (D-MD)

    Carper (D-DE)

    Casey (D-PA)

    Coons (D-DE)

    Cowan (D-MA)

    Durbin (D-IL)j

    Feinstein (D-CA)

    Franken (D-MN)

    Gillibrand (D-NY)

    Harkin (D-IA)

    Hirono (D-HI)

    Johnson (D-SD)

    Kaine (D-VA)

    King (I-ME)

    Klobuchar (D-MN)

    Landrieu (D-LA)

    Leahy (D-VT)

    Levin (D-MI)

    McCaskill (D-MO)

    Menendez (D-NJ)

    Merkley (D-OR)

    Mikulski (D-MD)

    Murphy (D-CT)

    Murray (D-WA)

    Nelson (D-FL)

    Reed (D-RI)

    Reid (D-NV)

    Rockefeller (D-WV)

    Sanders (I-VT)

    Schatz (D-HI)

    Schumer (D-NY)

    Shaheen (D-NH)

    Stabenow (D-MI)

    Udall (D-CO)

    Udall (D-NM)

    Warner (D-VA)

    Warren (D-MA)

    Whitehouse (D-RI)

    Wyden (D-OR)

    Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.

    46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
    ALL democrats, except for two independents. Think about it!

  • #96
    !
    @S-N-A-F-U My looks like those with a D after their name really dont like freedom or the constitutional Second amendment?
  • #98
    !
    @S-N-A-F-U I wish I could vote against Nelson but I'm not in that district. I hate that MF!
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    !
    Someone was debating me on another thread about where criminals get their guns. Not only have I worked in law enforcement, but I've kept my ear to the ground and my eyes wide open as to what is happening in the Albuquerque P.D. and in other Police Departments around the USA. There is corruption EVERYWHERE, and much of it due to the lure of easy, and big-time drug money.

    One of the BIG source of guns for criminals is those STUPID 'gun buybacks'(sic-no such thing since the government never sold them to people in the first place). Many of those guns are not being destroyed. They will keep the WHOLE GUN and then either sell it to other cops as a 'throw-down', or sell it to middle men who are usually criminals for civilian unlawful use.

    "Cops Admit Gun Buy", Albuquerque Journal, January 6, 1995, Page A1. A sergeant and a patrolman were caught KEEPING the guns turned in during a 'Guns for Tickets' program run jointly with Ticketron, rather than turning them over for destruction.

    Then there was the case of Manuel Ramirez. Albuquerque PD obtained a search warrant to search this guy's home even though at the time they did NOT know 1) His name 2) His date of birth 3) His social security 4) His physical description, like color eyes, color hair, weight, height, marks, scars, tattoos, etc. SGT Gloria,(that was the guy's last name) testified before one of our crooked judges and swore the man had a KNOWN drug-trafficking history (how could they KNOW, not knowing anything about the guy?) To make a very long story short, in November 1990, APD obtained a "No Knock Search Warrant". They enlisted the assistance of AT LEAST 5 NAVY SEALS, and a tow-truck driver. The tow truck pulled the guy's wrought iron doors and windows of his home. Police stormed in and shot the man dead on sight because they said he was holding a Raven Arms .25 caliber semi-auto pistol. The pistol was NOT LOADED. NO DRUGS OF ANY KIND WERE FOUND IN THE MAN'S HOME after 48 hours of searching even with drug-sniffing dogs. In January 1997, in a study commissioned by the City of Albuquerque, by an organization called MCCARTHY AND ASSOCIATES, from California and made up of RETIRED LAPD HIGH-RANKING OFFICERS, and RETIRED LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICERS , the McCarthy & Associates people wrote: In re Incident No. 90-104658, Manuel H. Ramirez Shooting, 12 October 1990, 0600 hours, Page 207: "The issue of where the gun came from is a NON ISSUE as far as the Albuquerque Police Department is concerned. It is a CLOVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT question. The Clovis Police Department arrested a buspect with the Raven Semi-Automatic Pistol. The pistol was booked into evidence". " The question THAT SHOULD BE ASKED IS: how did the drug dealer (MY NOTE: This was NEVER ESTABLISHED, NO DRUGS WERE EVER FOUND IN THE DECEDENT'S HOME!) Ramirez come into possession of the gun? And why did the Clovis P.D. have NO RECORD of the gun's release, or, in lieu of a normal release, why did the Clovis P.D. have no record of its absence from the evidence facility?" (I use capitals for emphasis).

    This question is answered later on in 2005, and 2006, when the Albuquerque Journal repeatedly reported stories of Evidence Room LOOTINGS by Law Enforcement Officers (Albuquerque Journal, March 2, 2006, Page A1). The 2 main suspects, or at least the only two (2) that were suspected were never disciplined. One refused to take a polygraph. It was estimated that during a period encompassing years the following were stolen from the Albuquerque PD department by Albuquerque Police Officers: Between $75,000 to $200,000 in cash; plus gold coins; plus jewelry; plus GUNS; plus DRUGS; plus even Evidence being held against Albuquerque P.D. officers, and other NM Police Officers who were pending criminal cases.
  • #44
    !
    How many of those guns in Buy backs were legally purchased? If your theory is correct and the essence of the program works.(Illegal guns being turned in without repercussion) this would be just a redistribution of guns to criminals not adding more guns as those guns were already previously in the hands of criminals. That doesn't answer the origin of how those guns got in the hands of criminals in the first place. Growing up in a neighborhood super saturated with illegally owned guns this is my experience of origin: Burglary, exchange for drugs, straw buyers and private sales. Legally purchased and owned guns. More guns for everyone means exactly that, more guns for everyone, criminals not excluded.
  • #81
    !
    @galt45 You got that right. His widow was paid $275,000. plus attorney's fees. I've got the entire US District Court complaint in my home, as I do many others. It's frightening!
  • #83
    !
    @Food4thoughts Those guns were in the hands of DESPERATE PEOPLE, DESPERATELY POOR, who saw a chance for an evening of entertainment in exchange for turning in a gun for tickets. Do you REALLY think ANY criminal turned in his gun to get tickets? LMAO. They would 1) be afraid it would be a 'ROPE A DOPE' operation or 2) knew the gun they were turning in was much more than a measly ticket or two at Ticketron. In fact, check what Greg Ridgeway, Phd, Director of the National Institute of Justice (USDoJ) says about 'buy-backs':

    Source: "Summary of Select Firearm Prevention Violence Prevention Strategies", January 4, 2013, Page 1 Heading 'Gun buybacks' "Gun buybacks are INEFFECTIVE as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. THE GUNS TURNED IN ARE AT A LOW RISK OF EVER BEING USED IN A CRIME. "The Australia buyback appears to have had NO EFFECT ON CRIME otherwise." "...using Australian data from 1979 to 2003 shows that THE FIREARM HOMICIDE RATE WAS ALREADY DECLINING PRIOR TO THE FIREARM REFORMS AND THAT
    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE NEW LEGISLATION ACCELERATED THE DECLINES. This remains true when data through 2007 are added to the analysis (conducted by G. Ridgeway on 01/03/2013, at NIJ)" Capitals used for emphasis.

    1) There is no way of knowing how many guns from so-called 'buybacks' wind up in criminals hands because it's 'no questions asked', REMEMBER? That helps crooked cops, crooked technicians in charge of alleged destruction of guns. 2) Burglaries, yes, but MOST guns come from ILLEGAL STREET DEALERS who don't provide details of how they got them.

    To ANY genius who proposes that there are individuals who dedicate themselves to buying guns outside of (BLUE-Democratic-party controlled) cities where gun ownership is prohibited and then bringing them back to sell to street thugs. Consider 1) That's DISPROVED in Page 5 of this report (Ibid) 2) Do you REALLY think a lone individual would be capable of buying guns in significant numbers and escaping detection by BATFE when even RIGHT NOW in border states even the purchase of just A FEW at one times requires BATFE to be notified by decree of the BATFE? 3) That lone individuals could, even if they did manage to buy guns in significant numbers, go into the Blue inner-cities and peddle guns WITHOUT BEING WHACKED and having their inventory stolen, UNLESS they had significant protection and sponsorship of local crooked elements of their police departments? I've worked with USDoJ statistics for A VERY LONG TIME. Much of their stuff are estimates which have no basis in fact. How can you estimate the number of guns that get into criminals' hands that come from 'straw buyers', from burglaries, from family, friends, from Drug Cartels which are handling importation of guns into the hands of gang members in addition to supplying them with drugs, FROM CROOKED COPS WHO ARE RARELY CAUGHT, and even when they are, like in Albuquerque, are let off with a short suspension, or no discipline at all March 2, 2006, Page A1, Albuquerque Journal, Detective Robbin Burge, and the Albuquerque Police Evidence Room Looting, as well as the Clovis P.D. Evidence Room Case, and the January 5, 1995, Page A1 case, where NO ONE was disciplined AT ALL . courtesy copy @Galt45. You are wrong. No guns for law-abiding citizens means MORE GUNS for criminals. See Cuba gun homicide rate 5.0 per 100,000; North Korea 15.1 per 100,000; Venezuela 45.0 per 100,000; Nelson Mandela's South Africa with its tough gun ownership laws 31.0 per 100,000. In the USA we have 4.4 per 100,000.
  • #84
    !
    @GedankPol @food4thoughts @Galt45 That pesky limit of characters limits more comprehensive info being provided. If you eliminate the homicidal drug-dealing maniacs in the Blue Inner Cities knocking each other off, we'd have a gun homicide rate of 0.68 per 100,000 LOWER THAN JUST ABOUT ANY COUNTRY'S IN THE WORLD EXCEPT NORWAY, ICELAND AND JAPAN and not that much higher, WITHOUT SACRIFICING FIREARMS' OWNERSHIP BY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The problem is YOUR BLUE INNER CITIES, not law-abiding Americans. Eradicate drug-dealing problems, and we're better off than MOST OF THE WORLD (rather than being in 83rd place as we are now in gun homicides) we'd be no. 4 in LOW gun homicides, WITHOUT SACRIFICING our 2nd Amendment. Get the crooked cops. Get the drug dealers. We can start be decriminalizing drugs and taking the profit motive out of drug dealing. If we also START ENFORCING THE DEATH PENALTY FOR ANYONE COMMITTING A CRIME WITH A FIREARM, you'll also see a BIG DROP. Repeat offenders are also A HUGE PROBLEM. Places like California, Illinois and Washington D.C. practice 'catch and release' Capitals used for emphasis. BTW, I don't print B.S. I use USDoJ reports, newspaper articles, named studies, so that people can check up on what I see. I don't B.S. That distinct infamy goes to Senators Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, the late Lautenberg, and people like Soros, Bloomberg, etc. who pull stuff out of their hind-quarters.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    !
    I hope people who own guns wake up & quit voting for Democrats. Democrats have one long term goal just as they had for Gay marriage, taking our money to pay for other's abortions, taking over our healthcare, etc..... They want our guns so their Socialist Government can control the people even more so with no fear of retaliation as they strip our freedoms. How did the Democrat party become such control freaks? Quit electing them if you have any semblance of intelligence. Our children's future is truly bleak if you keep electing them.
  • #17
    !
    @Colgruv I almost voted you up but I forgot that I am boycotting the gay rights movement for now.
  • #19
    !
    Both parties are out of touch with the people. Gay marriage was nothing more than a red herring to keep people from talking about the facts that the government is not for the people any longer.
  • #20
    !
    @CVX I'll agree that both parties are out of touch with the people, but you don't get to call gay marriage (and by extension gay rights in general) a red herring unless it actually affects you.
  • #22
    !
    You're ranting again. You really use every story to rag on liberals, no matter how off subject you wander.
    As far as control freaks go, conservatives are the every bit as bad, if not worse.
  • R Load more replies

  • #50
    !
    The more people are allowed to protect themselves, the better. Odd how the criminals are allowed to have them, the police, etc but not the average Joe. Finally the constitution wins. Criminals will always pray in the weak and the unarmed.
  • #64
    !
    Crimes go down when citizens are free to carry firearms and states allow for citizens to be licensed to carry concealed weapons. Its simple the bad guys have to worry about where and who they commit their crimes against. No criminal wants to end up facing a citizen with a firearm.
  • #51
    !
    Good, Glad to see it.

    To bad somebody wasn't carrying in that school today where the 20 stabbings took place in Pa. As much as some would like to they can't blame guns for that one.
  • #2
    !
    Im for it being legal for otherwise law abiding people However these days the sight of a gun on someone makes some people nervous. it shouldn't be that way but it is. even a cop with a sidearm makes some people nervous.
    I think for now the conceal carry is probably the better way to go. just my opinion.
  • #75
    !
    My rights do not end just because you are made nervous by my practice of that right. It used to be that it was a common occurrence for people to carry and it made no one nervous because it was an everyday experience - until the do-gooders decided that they wanted to start curtailing that practice. It's long past time for the constitutionalists to take back the open carry issue. Get over your irrational fear of the sight of a firearm...
  • #97
    !
    @OnlytheTruth Did I say anything contrary to what you said? I did say im for it being legal I did say people shouldn't be nervous but they are. and I did say 'for now' it would prob be better to move concealed carry forward. ease into it, it makes things more likely to succeed.
  • #116
    !
    @OnlytheTruth ...apparently you are one of the victims of the poor education system and weren't taught history. Open carry was outlawed 150 years ago when people were sick of the UN necessary and accidental shooting that resulted from EVERYONE carrying guns.
  • #158
    !
    @LarryV
    You obviously have a deluded bias on this issue and don't like the facts and are perfectly willing to make up falsehoods to justify your bias.

    Open carry is still perfectly legal in the majority of states and, like I said, was only legislated against when the supposed do-gooders decided they didn't like open carry (in certain jurisdictions, mainly large cities). Other states had open carry made illegal by the North after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, as a term of surrender. Texas is one of those states, so was Oklahoma... Oklahoma is now, once again, an open carry state.

    Open carry has never been ruled out as a right under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by any court. Forty four states' constitutions recognize and secure the right to keep and bear arms in some form, and none of those prohibit the open carrying of firearms. Fouteen states now permit open carry of a handgun without requiring the citizen to apply for any permit or license. Permits are not required for carry, concealed or unconcealed, for resident and non-resident alike in the state of Vermont - that has not changed since its founding. Thirteen states require some form of permit (often the same permit as allows a person to carry concealed), and the remaining states, though not prohibiting the practice in general, do not preempt local laws or law enforcement policies, and/or have significant restrictions on the practice, such as prohibiting it within the boundaries of an incorporated urban area.
  • #159
    !
    @OnlytheTruth ...I didn't make up a false hood, you are twisting facts and omitting facts to suit your ideology. I never said open carry was ruled out under the second amendment, I said gun laws were put in place because people were fed up with all the shootings. You are correct, it was mostly in the towns and cities, that is what I was referring to. I doubt if anyone has a problem with people open carrying in the country or small towns where everybody knows everybody, people you don't know carrying guns in a mall or theater is a problem.
  • R Load more replies

  • #79
    !
    Increase open carry and you will see crime plummet; and a rise in public civility. (ironic to the gun haters I'm sure)
  • #39
    !
    We have all the heard/read the recent reports about violent felons fleeing across state lines. The unwillingness or inability of states to pursue these felons is frightening. Murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, human trafficking, robbery, the list of depravity continues on. Call it what you will, I truly appreciate having a "deterrent." Proper training and proficiency make for effective prevention. How many people would knowingly fuck with you (criminals) you were carrying a .45 caliber handgun on your side..AND you could easily put three rounds center mass in their chest?
  • #25
    !
    It seems real clear to me what is REALLY going on. The gun grabbers do not really believe that outlawing guns will reduce violence. The stupidity of that has been proven all over the world. Clearly, places where gun laws are extreme have effectively given the criminals a target rich environment. They are smart enough to kill and rob in "gun free" zones. If I wanted to kill a bunch of people, I would do it at the places where guns are not allowed. That is what they do every time!!! Most criminals aren't stupid, they are evil.

    How has every single despot or dictator taken over?
    1) Destroy the Public Education system
    2) Destroy the economy to severely increase unemployment
    3) Put as many as possible on welfare.
    4) Disarm the population who are now depending on the government for subsistence.
    5) Take over with the knowledge that no one can stop you.

    Gun Control is just part of their plan for country/world domination by the elite left. That is why the Constitution tells us to have "a well armed and regulated militia"- to defend the states from the Federal government and foreign enemies.(regulated means trained) Our forefathers knew what could happen.
  • #55
    !
    Our forefathers knew what could happen. And the left just doesn't care. They have their own "one world" socialist agenda.
  • R Load more comments...
Post