| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Doesn't seem like purchasing a gun to give to another who is lawfully permitted to own or purchase the firearm would be a crime. | ||
| Thumper1203 |
A short video with a message to share.. Looks like the old "bait and switch" is most likely at play lately, with the supreme court GM hoopla' overshadowing S649.. did I, or did I not, mention the current admin. was.. CRAFTY | ||
| Kenm123t |
Anti gun Organizations typically have one or more felons in their ranks. You would have to see who would have control of the gun and or make sure they hold title in the corp His story is BS if the anti gun corp would take the Ar it should be done by corp resolution and comply with ATF rules on corp owned weapons Any other method is acting like Eric Holders bunch Why would I let any org have unlimited access to a gun I was sold. Gun Grabbers are looking to do a Fast and Furious set up one on ease of transfers they WILL break laws and say SEE WHAT WE DID now get the bad guys! Which is any one with a legal AR15 etc | ||
| Sifo |
Doesn't seem like purchasing a gun to give to another who is lawfully permitted to own or purchase the firearm would be a crime. It isn't a crime. However, when filling out the paperwork, IIRC, one of the first questions is if this purchase for yourself. When you say it's for yourself on the paperwork, then very publicly claim you plan to give the gun away, what is the law abiding FFL to do? I think they did EXACTLY what they should have. Ken, Mark Kelly said he was going to turn the gun into the police to get it "off the streets". No anti-gun groups involved. It's pretty much a half-baked plan though. AZ law would require the police to treat it as an asset that by law will wind up being sold at auction putting it right back on the street. | ||
| Nukeblue |
let us know how the meeting goes with yer rep | ||
| Sifo |
Well I went to her office this morning. Her secretary told me that she was very busy for the next two weeks and was not available. She took my name, address and phone. The good news is that her office is only a block from our local Triumph/Ducati dealer, which is a great dealer BTW. I've been meaning to stop in to see some of the new bikes. I have to say that I'm a bit blown away with the styling of the new Street Triple and the Daytona 675. The pictures I've seen didn't do the rework justice. The headlights and instrument cluster on the Street Trip still don't look finished though. Adding the fly screen helps a bunch. The new Trophy failed to ignite my fuse. It leans far more toward touring and too far from sport for what I would look for. The Sprint series, that hit my sweet spot is now gone. At least the trip was worthwhile. | ||
| Macbuell |
I love the Speed Triple. Back the second amendment .... it's very sad that a representative does not have time for her constituents. If she is in the office, she should take the meeting. End of story. | ||
| Sifo |
The current Speed Triple is incredible IMO. It's just a stupid amount of power for my needs. At least it's on the sane end of stupidity though. When I rode one on their demo day, I REALLY had a bad case of lust. | ||
| Oldog |
Her secretary told me that she was very busy for the next two weeks and was not available. I bet if you were promising a BIG cash donation for her up-comming reelection she would have seen you wanna bet? } | ||
| Sifo |
Now we're off topic and discussing motorcycles.  The thing that really gets me with people like this is that they clearly have no clue about guns at all. That's OK, but to then have them become the self proclaimed authority on their use and design really ticks me off. It would be like someone who is anti-motorcycle telling you that you are now required to not only wear a helmet, but that the helmet you wear will conform to the specifications that they as a anti-motorcyclist will expertly design. Illinois is soon to join the rest of the states with concealed carry legislation thanks to the court finally overturning our tyrannic laws. When simply asked her position on "shall issue" vs. "may issue", frankly she looked stumped. I'm not sure if it was a total lack of understanding of the difference, or simply not wanting to piss of a room full of her voters, but she eventually stammered out that "rest assured, Illinois will soon have concealed carry legislation". When asked about the Constitutionality of limiting magazine size, her answer was that "as a parent of 2 children, she favored a limit of ten rounds". I had no idea that "as a parent" you can simply ignore the Constitution! I'm more than happy to confront their ideas on a well reasoned, factual basis, but it's really frustrating dealing with stubborn,ignorant ideology. To be fair, she did have some good things to say on here fiscal leanings. Keep in mind that my most measures Illinois is in worse shape than Kalifornia, so looking at dealing with some fiscal problems is simply common sense. She also said that she had a proposal to cut their own salaries by 10%. The problem is that if I have a proposal to cut salaries by 10% and you oppose it so that it never sees a vote, but you have your own proposal to cut salaries by 10% that I oppose so that it never sees a vote, we both get to tell the voters how we support cutting our salaries while never having any fear of actually getting a cut in pay. It's pretty easy to game the system when you get to set the rules. | ||
| Sifo |
wanna bet? I wouldn't even take that bet using your money. | ||
| Oldog |
Some more interesting Fodder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison addressed the concern that a standing federal army might conduct a coup to take over the nation. He argued that this was implausible because, based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army couldn't field more than 25,000-30,000 men. He then wrote: >>>>> To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.[170] <<<< | ||
| Bob_thompson |
quote: Is It Time To Organize The Revolution? I've been thinking a lot about this lately and I DO think it is time to consider it a possibility but I think more, we (2nd Amendment) strict constitutionalists believers, need to "take a deep breath" and remember just what it could lead to. I'm a tremendous planner for almost all things in my life and the first step, once again, before totally committing to a drastic act by, using the constitutional process, is to vote the bastards out of office "if we can" both in Congress in 2014 and get a "good" president in, in 2016. Try by all means to avoid a devastating shooting revolution that NEVER benefits any involved unless a total takeover by a corrupt government is inevitable as in 1776. A good read: Massad Ayoob's (sp) "In the gravest extreme" A great self defense book for personal defense. (Message edited by Bob_thompson on March 27, 2013) | ||
| Aesquire |
"as a parent of 2 children, she favored a limit of ten rounds". As a taxpayer I favor a limit of 2 terms. How would you like me to impose that on you? I've been watching Cyprus. It's not "bait and switch", but I don't recall the term for this tactic. The IMF asked, "would you like to be taxed 7% or 10%?" When told, none, the response was "Ok, we'll take 40%". Universal permanent registration of guns is, and always has been, the step toward confiscation. Always, the people are told that there will be no confiscation, always, there is. Almost always, the first wave is polite. They ask you to bring them to the police station. ( some places they skip the intermediate steps and go right to the end game ) After that, and perhaps an intermediate step, ( Canada is in the intermediate step ) where they pick off the scofflaws one at a time, then, of course, it's armed troops kicking doors, and if you live you may be in prison. Don't forget, the current President of the United States asked for and got the power to put you in prison with no trial, lawyer, or notification of family. True, only for "those suspected to be terrorists". That definition fits anyone who wants a weapon, don't you think? http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-would-fire-sheri ffs-for-defying-gun-control-measures/article/25255 18 Who was it here saying it's all about control? | ||
| Sifo |
Bob, My understanding of the Time to Organize piece is pretty much in agreement with what you say. Not that it's time to take action that is a one way street. But rather, by organizing, we hold off on any small group doing something stupid that will be bad for all. When the time comes, we are better prepared for what's ahead. Those who are in will have to make that decision to be in. Back when we were colonies the began to organize and sent letters to King George. His answer was to continue the tyranny. I'm not sure that progressives will give any better answer, but they do need to be given the chance. I'm beginning to think that this is in fact the time to organize. As a taxpayer I favor a limit of 2 terms. How would you like me to impose that on you? I'm not sure what "2 term limit" means in your state, but here in Illinois it means one term in office and one term in prison. | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Agreed Tom and on the two term limit; that has just been a travesty for us true American patriots with the current chief executive. How Obama was ever elected for a second term is really not a mystery but just 52% of the "what can Obama do for me scenario" SAD. But we must: Improvise, adjust and overcome. Which to any boy scout means "be prepared". I will Sir! | ||
| Blake |
>>> I'm beginning to think that this is in fact the time to organize. Been happening for 5 years or so. See the Tea Party. Anyone who invokes themselves more than fifty times in a blog commentary is a LOT closer to Obama than Jefferson. We must be very careful who we promote or even just support. Alan West anyone? | ||
| Thumper1203 |
This just in.. Gun Owners of America Sen. Reid Beefs up “Base Bill” to Destroy Gun Ownership "Unholy alliances" could become a concern We now know a lot more about what's going to happen with gun control legislation than we did a few days ago. First, the number of the bill we are fighting is S. 649. Harry Reid introduced it on Thursday and brought it directly onto the Senate calendar. This means the bill can now come up at any time — probably soon after the Easter recess is over. Second, the bill is a lot worse than even we anticipated. We expected it to contain the Veterans Gun Ban, which would mean that you would sell, gift, or raffle a gun in America at the risk of a 15-year prison sentence because of something you didn't know about the veteran/buyer. But, surprisingly to us, the Far Left has convinced Reid to include the original Schumer version of the Universal Registry Bill. This would ban private sales of firearms, unless purchasers first get the permission from the government. If Senators can pass this de facto registration bill, they will be well on the way to confiscation (see, for example, Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York, who has a gun owner registry and has called for gun confiscation). If this bill is passed, Senators will claim that they "broke the back" of gun owners in America. Third, there is still every evidence that Reid will move to proceed to the bill under "regular order," which means he will need 60 votes to advance to the "gun control buffet." GOA has been talking and making our case with a host of Senate Republicans, and we would hope that everyone in the Senate understands the importance of stopping the "motion to proceed" to Reid's gun control legislation. Fourth, as we predicted, anti-gun zealots have begun to use the "ObamaCare Paradigm" to threaten, bribe, and coerce senators into submission on the most far-reaching aspects of gun control, including Feinstein's proposal to ban shotguns, rifles and handguns that millions of Americans legally own. So if the "motion to proceed" to S. 649 is adopted with 60 votes, then Feinstein's ban could be passed in the Senate with only 50 votes (plus Biden). Click here for a more technical explanation as to how this would occur. Already, articles are being published to intimidate any Democratic Senator who votes against any gun control and threatening them with the prospect of facing an anti-gun primary challenger — just like we saw on ObamaCare. Fifth, there may be unholy alliances at work which could succeed in achieving a dangerous gun control compromise. One Capitol Hill newspaper is now reporting that "Sen. Joe Manchin and the National Rifle Association are quietly engaged in private talks on a proposal to broaden background checks on purchasers of firearms." We hope this is not true, however you should be aware of this report and use whatever contacts you have to prevent this from happening. Be assured, you can rely on Gun Owners of America to never engage in any compromises! ACTION: The strategy remains: We need to defeat this bill by filibustering and voting down the "motion to proceed" to S. 649. Please contact your senators and distribute this alert far and wide. Click here to send your Senators a prewritten email. Show up at their offices with a delegation during the congressional recess. Rally and conduct demonstrations and call-a-thons and writing campaigns. Know that the anti-gun Left will be doing the same. Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable. Please forward this e-mail to friends and family Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 703-321-8585 www.gunowners.org Contact Form I absolutely knew the gun grabbers would make an "end run" on our 2nd amendment constitutional rights.. and now, of course with the media fully re-directed and engaged in gay rights.. how crafty.. what is happening to our great nation? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
F#ck them. every last one of them. Nothin left to loose - nothin left to care about; bring it. | ||
| Nukeblue |
ok who's in patriot zone 4 ?? http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/is-it-time-to-or ganize-the-revolution-an-action-plan/ | ||
| Oldog |
Be very careful of on line "organizers" you could be dealing with "Department of Home Land Stupidity" Agents. I agree with the earlier posted piece that All legal means should be used to resolve our concerns, We have had the discussion before, troops who are dealing with terrorists, are obeying lawful orders ...... | ||
| Nukeblue |
i'm thinkin of just moving out here for starters  http://www.survivalblog.com/redoubt.html | ||
| Sifo |
I do agree that you should be very careful about who you tie yourself to online and in the real world. I know nothing about, and never intended to imply that the writer of the piece I posted was the right person to hook up with. I simply agree that getting organized is a necessary step to move forward, even to the point of simply making our desires known to our leaders. I guess the NRA is one example of this sort of organization. I'm not sure that they would ever lead us past lobbying our government. Another group that is trying to organize would be the Oath Keepers. Every group will have their strong and weak points. We have had the discussion before, troops who are dealing with terrorists, are obeying lawful orders ...... Just like back in 1776, you will be a terrorist until there is victory. It's not to be taken lightly. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/si kh-man-cites-religion-lawsuit-against-gun-contro/ While I'm not a Sikh, my faith also calls me to defend the helpless. I hadn't thought to define this struggle against tyranny in First Amendment terms, but perhaps I should. | ||
| Geedee |
"I agree with the earlier posted piece that All lawful means should be used to resolve our concerns, We have had the discussion before, troops who are dealing with terrorists, are obeying legal orders ......" Fixed it for you Oldog. Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as: Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241." http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Leg alEthics/LegalVLawful.htm | ||
| Cityxslicker |
From 160 years ago. Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse.... If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn. Thoreau - Civil Disobedience. I suspect that if more of the liberal tripe actually read him - they would ban him | ||
| Oldog |
Thanks GD, I said what I meant in my own mind any way, to clarify We should use any and all means that are not against the law, legal protests, petitions, and the voting booth. When all legal means fail it may come to ARMED confrontation with the authorities until the problems are corrected and the offending individuals are removed from power When we take that step, we become in the eyes of those in authority "Terrorists" Any action they take will ( subject to their interpretation of the law be lawful , including rounding up and killing citizens ) The troops will see the orders as lawful, this happened in the revolution that freed this country from England, Our founding fathers had good reason for wording the first and second amendments the way they are ..... THOSE WHO FAIL TO LEARN HISTORIES LESSONS ARE DAMN TO REPEAT THEM ....  (Message edited by oldog on March 31, 2013) | ||
| Thumper1203 |
WARNING! GAME ON.. our rights are literally under attack! congress re-conveins April 8th, (a lulling absence long enough to put Americans to sleep on the matters of gun control after the so-called AWB false victory) a full inclusive gun control package is going to be introduced in it's entirety, it's said they've even changed the filibuster and voting rules recently and now it only takes 14 votes, 7 from each side of the isle to annul a filibuster and re-introduce.. our worst fears could be coming to fruition. Here's a short video that explains a bit more in depth.. Due diligence people.. pieces of the disarmament plan are coming together (Message edited by thumper1203 on April 02, 2013) | ||
| Aesquire |
A suggestion from Jerry Pournelle's website. Some problems solve themselves. There has been a mild spate of stories about armed police being asked to leave coffee shops and restaurants – at least one a Denny’s – because the establishment has a no-gun policy. I suggest that the simplest solution is to require that any such gun-free establishment be required to warn everyone, including the police, that this establishment doesn’t want them. A large sign saying “THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE. POLICE NOT WELCOME INSIDE” would solve the problem. Potential armed robbers would of course obey the sign, so there would be no need of police, who could improve their own health and safety by ignoring any calls for succor from inside the shop. The problem, if it is a problem, would soon go away without expenditure of public resources. I suggest you boycott "gun free zone" establishments, where possible. Both because that company has decided to deny you your rights, ( although they may have a right themselves to not serve any customer for any reason, like, for example, his race ) and because those "gun fee zones" are a magnet for crime and crazy people. Both nanny state cretins and thrill-kill-suicides. | ||
| Oldog |
I hope that you are wrong thump ...... Some food for thought folks http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/01/philadelphia-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder-during-home-invasion/?test=latestnews (Message edited by oldog on April 01, 2013) |
