Actractorguy Forum Posts (2,089)

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

That should hit the Supreme Court In the morning.

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

Dude don't care. Like all those share the wealth clowns. It's not his so what does it matter.

And you want guns banned.

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

Borrowing more money (ie robbing peter to pay paul) is not fiscal responsibility. I truly feel sorry for my great great great grandkids.

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

And you want guns banned.

I do believe if you pass the background check for the state they have no other option than to allow you to keep what is rightly yours. They cannot be selective in who they want to allow or not. Federal law trumps the state as per the Supreme court.

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

Boy you really are clueless aren't you dude?

When government mandates something it automatically increases the cost.

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

Wow 14 years down the road.

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

Thought this would be pertinent for dude to read.

from the thread
America is divided on the debt ceiling issue; so which side you are in?

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

Yes dude her he is. Obama gets 'corpsman' wrong. Pronounces it corpse man. Darn TOTUS.

RE: GOP knows that Obama will win a gain in 2012! GOP have gone chicken and knows that the battle is al

Dude it's almost impossible to blow your nose without being some kind of criminal. Thanks to the Dems and their pc world.

RE: ALL THAT POSTS, POLLS AND POETRY ABOUT RELIGION ARE RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL QUESTIONS?

And you want guns banned.

Good night. I do try to keep it civil. Thanks for your participation and thanks to everyone so far for participating.

RE: America is divided on the debt ceiling issue; so which side you are in?

Think you should move that to dude's thread also. Give him a dose of humility.

And you want guns banned.

You forgot Texas.

Now the border protection is a joke in this country. But as has been said earlier that's for another thread.

And you want guns banned.

Interesting Found this just a short snippet but informative.

State Permit to Purchase? No Yes
Firearm registration? No Yes Long guns, only in NYC.
"Assault weapon" law? Yes Yes More restrictive NYC version of the expired Federal law.
Owner license required? Varies Yes Licensing is required for long guns in NYC.
Carry permits issued? Yes Yes In some localities a carry permit is de facto "No-issue" (see below)
State Preemption of local restrictions? Yes[citation needed] Yes[citation needed]
Peaceable Journey laws? Yes Yes

Federal Protections

New York State is of particular concern to interstate motorists who travel with firearms, because New York separates all of New England from the bulk of the United States. This means that under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, all people traveling through New York City and New York state with firearms are protected by federal law, however they must have their firearms unloaded and locked in a hard case where they are not readily accessible (e.g. in the trunk of a vehicle).





very interesting
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights. However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.
Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."

And you want guns banned.

Does that go for those that move there and bring their legally acquired firearms in with them?

And you want guns banned.

Depending on your location and agreement's between states yes legally you can go to another state and purchase a gun. Keep in mind you should have a clean and spotless criminal record. If there are any blemishes it will be harder.




Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

*Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
*Is a fugitive from justice;
*Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
*Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
*Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
*Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
*Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
*Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
*Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
*Has a record of being a felon

Section 922(n) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receive any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

And you want guns banned.

I think the only ones that do are the ones willing to screw anything or anyone.

And you want guns banned.

Well you know got to have a little debate every now and then.

And you want guns banned.

JV cam in here barfed up his intestines and fled. I highly doubt he has.

And you want guns banned.

And you want guns banned.

Yes Congrats Conrad

And you want guns banned.

Well I started with a hypothetical question. So far only one person made a comment to address that question.

The comparison is Your military take an oath to a single Person and their heirs. The us takes an oath to the founding Document's and the country which it stands for.

And you want guns banned.

I like that Idea.

People do and can have and own Tanks.

And you want guns banned.

No but you do have a bill of right's which has been heavily modified and lot's of right's have been taken away.

I'm sure if you didn't have it to start with you can't miss it can you?

And you want guns banned.

Actually a darn good chance. For a President to order the Military to attack the citizens would go against their oath and would in fact be an unlawful order that they are not bound to obey.

Looks like the Brits Only swear their allegiance to the Queen/King or their heirs and their heirs. SO if one of them were to hypothetically order them to attack their citizenry they would have to follow orders and do as told.

Let's look at the different oath of enlistment between the US and Britain.
US
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

British
I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.

And you want guns banned.

Well it was a hypothetical question. Just remember there are folk that have done it in the past in various countries. Don't ever discount what may happen. That's when you get bitten.

Oh you didn't answer the question so I assume you would be just fine if it happened.

And you want guns banned.

I'm all for an honest scuffle.

However the reality of the fact is. Your opponent in a street fight is more likely to have some form of weapon and an unfair advantage. I'd like to be just a step ahead of them if possible.

I don't carry when I go out but I should have the option if I feel the need.

And you want guns banned.

What would happen if Your Royalty decided to use the Military to disband the Parliament and start ruling with an Iron fist? Hypothetically.