Louisiana Gun Confiscation

[ibear]

And history shows that once registered, firearms are banned in the not so distant future.


munk

Making sense is so like you! That is a good thing, I think!

The loaded gun is the only weapon that exhibits sufficient potential force to
deter criminals and terrorists. As Dianne Feinstein has stated, the gun is the only
means of self defense available to her today! There is no other alternative.

Unfortunately, after all guns are confiscated, the State of Louisiana has offerred not replacement for individual self defense. This demonstrates a glaringly obvious point, gun control, also, has offerred no other alternative to a gun, for self defense.

This a cold, hard fact that gun grabbers choose to ignore!

Another probable consequence of confiscation is that retired people, living on fixed incomes, may find that they cannot defend themselves at all. At least you and I can run a few yards to get away. When one is old and frail, the need for self protection, in the form of a gun, may be greater than when they were young and carefree.

Anyway, that is my opinion.

iBear

 

[munk]

And we are doing well to discuss this intemperate subject without personalization or political party scape goating; thus Republican, Democratic, and Independent forumites can express opinions.


munk

 

[ibear]

"...and of course the officers kept the knife and the gun...' (from the old lady they tackled and dragged from her home) - The reporter on the news clip.

"...of course..."?!?!?!?

That is very sad. Very sad, indeed!

Gotta go wipe my eyes on that one.

JeeeeeZZZ,

iBear

 

[ibear]

And we are doing well to discuss this intemperate subject without personalization or political party scape goating; thus Republican, Democratic, and Independent forumites can express opinions.


munk

Sure go ahead... you have my permission!

Opinions are wonderful diversions of pursuit, if one is inclined!

Many of us are so inclined!

iBear

 

[SASSAS]

Sure go ahead... you have my permission!

Opinions are wonderful diversions of pursuit, if one is inclined!

Many of us are so inclined!

iBear

I'm a member of the ACLU, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Amnesty International...

But, I have a real issue with the "liberal/progressive" stance on firearms. I can't see how you can believe in only part of the Bill of Rights...

I couldn't post both of those things on any other one forum without endless flaming and personal attacks...

 

[ibear]

I'm a member of the ACLU, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Amnesty International...

But, I have a real issue with the "liberal/progressive" stance on firearms. I can't see how you can believe in only part of the Bill of Rights...

I couldn't post both of those things on any other one forum without endless flaming and personal attacks...

Flaming and personal attacks is hardly my forte'. I admire you and any person that has convictions and will put their money where their mouth is. You have my admiration in that respect.

Yes, we agree that most of the aims of the ACLU are worthy goals and worthwhile legal issues for the most part, however, ignoring the Second Amendment is an inexcusable, unintelligent oversight, in my humble opinion. This is unnecessary legal ignorance…. demonstrating prejudice at its worst.

This legal ignorance is especially inexcusable, in my opinion, when it is considered that the ACLU is composed of lawyers, trained people in the law, yet, they base their 2nd Amendment legal opinion solely on the preamble to the 2nd Amendment; the only case they site is the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller…. also a case that bases their legal opinion on the preamble. The Miller Court grossly erred, the preamble cannot be law, because the preamble is a subordinate clause…. that any English professor will tell you, cannot stand on its own merits, irrespective of the ACLU opinion.

As you may note, the court has based their legal ruling only on the preamble.... (A well regulated militia…. is stated in the courts opinion as if it were not a subordinate clause).

Understand, that exact definitions, legal precedent and word usage, is everything in deciding legal issues. In the Miller case, we can see that definitions, word usage and legal precedent, has been completely ignored!

Of course, a preamble cannot be the basis of law since it has no legal ability to stand on its own! This obvious conclusion has been ignored by the ACLU and they refuse to consider it, contrary to their claims.

Thanks,

iBear

 

[munk]

The lesson of Nazi Germany was not that Germans were bad, but that men could fool themselves into doing bad things. The Second Amendment is a breath of fresh air. I consider it it Divinely inspired. I too back the ACLU on many issues, but on the Second Amendment they are fooling themselves and by inaction are doing harm.

Freedom is about trust. And responsibility. And a whole lot of faith we won't blow ourselves up. But that is what the "Great Experiment" of our Democracy was- the best attempt by free men and women to stay free and self govern.



munk

 

[ibear]

The lesson of Nazi Germany was not that Germans were bad, but that men could fool themselves into doing bad things. The Second Amendment is a breath of fresh air. I consider it it Divinely inspired. I too back the ACLU on many issues, but on the Second Amendment they are fooling themselves and by inaction are doing harm.

Freedom is about trust. And responsibility. And a whole lot of faith we won't blow ourselves up. But that is what the "Great Experiment" of our Democracy was- the best attempt by free men and women to stay free and self govern.



munk

We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end. - Justice Felix Frankfurter
******************************************************
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. - Adolph Hitler
******************************************************
However, little publicized and often ignored by our elected representatives, German firearm laws and media hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi regime.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced an existing Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb Nazi "gang activity," and reduce violent street fights between the Nazi party and Communist party thugs. The adopted solution was “Gun Control”!

All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The very laws that were originally written to deter Nazi activities, were the very same laws inherited by Hitler when he assumed power. The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933.

Of course, that was the beginning of the end of freedom.

iBear

 

[Semper Fi]

I remember hearing or reading somewhere (possibly from the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership site) that the US gun control act of 1968 was based, in part, on the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law. At least it has some striking similarities.

Any truth to that??

 

[Thomas Linton]

Legislation should stand or fall on its merits. After all, Lenin favored malaria control, paved roads, and public schools.

 

[munk]

I don't know if it's true or not, Semper, it is quite possible many of the learned people writing the law were aware of the Nazi precedent. I think it most probable though that the rationalizations men use for such laws are along similar lines; public safety, common sense, blaa blaa blaa.



munk

 

[Kampfjaeger]

NOPD and the city adminstration has been notoriously corrupt for years. I'm not surprised that they are pulling this sort of garbage.

It is unconstitutional and infuriating. I would refuse to give up my firearms. I would hide them if I could. By the same token, I wouldn't be shooting at the cops either. Registration of guns be damned.

 

[gravertom]

If you are able, buy pre 1898 antiques with no record keeping required. No license is required to buy, and no records are kept. Some are available in commercially available calibers. I believe some LA CA residents bought mauser rifles this way during the riots to get around the mandatory waiting period, IIRC.

They can be modified to shoot different ammo, and still qualify as antiques, sonce the receiver is still an antique.

If they come for your guns, hand over the ones they know about, then fetch the pre 1898 ones later...

Lives cannot be restored, liberty is tough to restore...

If you are caught in a corner, give them up, don't shoot the police or NG, and try to find other means to be armed asap after they leave.

Guns are somewhat akin to doritios...

More can be made.

of found.

Tom

P.S.percussion revolvers are not regulated most places, and they can be effective too.

Also, some can be converted to cartridge firing guns by replacing the cylinder with a special conversion cylinder. The cylinder is not considered a fire arm, so it is not registered.

They are pricey, but...


A double percussion shotgun backed up with a pair of remington 1858's would be nothing to sneeze at.

 

[ibear]

I remember hearing or reading somewhere (possibly from the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership site) that the US gun control act of 1968 was based, in part, on the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law. At least it has some striking similarities.

Any truth to that??

In my opinion... yes, it is similar.

Thanks,

iBear

 

[ibear]

I don't know if it's true or not, Semper, it is quite possible many of the learned people writing the law were aware of the Nazi precedent. I think it most probable though that the rationalizations men use for such laws are along similar lines; public safety, common sense, blaa blaa blaa.



munk

Blah, blaaaa, blaaa, baaaaaaaaa said the sheep!

You are funny.

iBear

 

[ibear]

NOPD and the city adminstration has been notoriously corrupt for years. I'm not surprised that they are pulling this sort of garbage.

It is unconstitutional and infuriating. I would refuse to give up my firearms. I would hide them if I could. By the same token, I wouldn't be shooting at the cops either. Registration of guns be damned.

Good post! Good thinking.

iBear

 

[ibear]

All good advice, however, I prefer not to give mine up, in the first place.

That is my druthers! I'druther not give mine up!
Thanks,

iBear

 

[ibear]

And we are doing well to discuss this intemperate subject without personalization or political party scape goating; thus Republican, Democratic, and Independent forumites can express opinions.


munk

What about us "left out" Libertarians... when do we get to call the kettle black?

HeeeeeHe!

iBear

 

[ibear]

NOPD and the city adminstration has been notoriously corrupt for years. I'm not surprised that they are pulling this sort of garbage.

It is unconstitutional and infuriating. I would refuse to give up my firearms. I would hide them if I could. By the same token, I wouldn't be shooting at the cops either. Registration of guns be damned.

It is by no means obvious why it is cool, intelligent or civilized to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. What is cool about that? “Nothing at all”, said Mr. or Mrs. Victim.

So, then, why do people support gun control? Because they are more afraid of law abiding citizens carrying guns, then they are of criminals. Pretty stupid huh?

Such defeatist beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.

iBear

 

[ibear]

I'm a member of the ACLU, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Amnesty International...

But, I have a real issue with the "liberal/progressive" stance on firearms. I can't see how you can believe in only part of the Bill of Rights...

I couldn't post both of those things on any other one forum without endless flaming and personal attacks...

Ignoring law is inexcusable, in my opinion. I would become a donating member of the ACLU if they would defend ALL of the bill of rights.

It's all or nothing, it's not a buffet line... where they can pick and choose.

Near as I can tell, the ACLU believes the word "people" somehow has a different meaning in the 2nd amendment than it does in the rest of the Bill Of Rights. How they arrived at that conclusion, I'll never understand, but they aren't alone - most of the gun grabbers seem to agree with them.
*****************************************
There is no reason for anyone in this country- anyone except a police officer or military person- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. – President Bill Clinton

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us.

Thanks,
iBear