Dick Metcalf now supports gun Control

[tombogan03884]

Until the "National Firearms Act" went into effect in 1934 EVERY BODY was allowed to own guns.
When Frank James was released from prison the Warden returned his pistols as he left the prison.
We have ALWAYS had laws against murder and reckless conduct, those are the only legitimate regulation of firearms .
Any body who believes laws preventing felons or crazies from legally buying guns will have the slightest effect on some one bent on murder is a freaking idiot.

[gunman42782]

Amen, and bravo sir!

[jnevis]

So let me get this straight, its perfectly OK for Tom to trounce people's First Amendmend rights as long as they don't "infringe" on your Second Amendment rights, how hypocritical of you.

[PegLeg45]

Then they did it, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED, which brings into question why we needed permits in the first place.

We shouldn't.

Permits (of most all types) were developed as basically another form of taxation....just another way to suck money and foster control.

A hundred and fifty years ago, if you owned your land, you could do most anything. Now you need to get permission and pay a fee for a 'permit' just to build a porch or storage building on your own property.



Folks, it's always been about control...... then it turned into a way to make money as an added benefit.

[santahog]

Until the "National Firearms Act" went into effect in 1934 EVERY BODY was allowed to own guns.
When Frank James was released from prison the Warden returned his pistols as he left the prison.
We have ALWAYS had laws against murder and reckless conduct, those are the only legitimate regulation of firearms .
Any body who believes laws preventing felons or crazies from legally buying guns will have the slightest effect on some one bent on murder is a freaking idiot.

^^^^^THIS!!!!!^^^^^
And what's more, once a person has served their sentence, ALL rights damned well ought to be restored, or don't let em out!!!..
Debt paid! Carry on!.. (just a peeve of mine.)
As for "mandatory training", if the State is given the power to "Permit" an activity, it has the right to regulate it's practice.. Under that construct, I don't think it's unreasonable that the "permitted activity" be contingent upon demonstration of competence to do so in a manner as to not infringe upon the "life, liberty, pursuit of" other citizens.
I will always object to a Psych Test in order to obtain whatever Permit is being begged of the State.. The supposed "professionals" that are looked to to diagnose such a condition aren't even able to come up with an objective definition of what the boundaries are, before the vindictive bureaucrat or Pol even gets a chance to twist it to his own advantage..
Labeling someone as "crazy" is as potentially harmful as going ahead and shooting somebody in the first place..
Rant..

So let me get this straight, its perfectly OK for Tom to trounce people's First Amendmend rights as long as they don't "infringe" on your Second Amendment rights, how hypocritical of you.

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then. Tom more than most..
This was just his day to get a nut..   
(The only likely injury sustained by Toms activities are to my feelings and his credibility, neither of which are guaranteed under the Constitution..
Tom knows he can kiss my ass. If he wants to hear me say it, he'll let me know..  )

We shouldn't.

Permits (of most all types) were developed as basically another form of taxation....just another way to suck money and foster control.

A hundred and fifty years ago, if you owned your land, you could do most anything. Now you need to get permission and pay a fee for a 'permit' just to build a porch or storage building on your own property.


Folks, it's always been about control...... then it turned into a way to make money as an added benefit.

The Firearms Permit thing (in the US) came about as a method to skirt the law laid down during/after Reconstruction, used against Blacks? Is that correct?
Alot of things from post-Reconstruction still need to be "reconstructed".. Our great victory in Alabama last year was the ability to get a 5 Year Permit instead of one year at a time.. Woohoo..
I'm thankful to have won, but it's still a slap at Liberty..

[Sponsor]

[justwannashoot]

How about a Bill of Rights refresher?

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The First Amendment only restricts Congress, not the Executive or Judicial Branches. People voting with their dollars to not support opinions they don't agree with is NOT a First Amendment issue. The government restricting the right by enacting laws is an issue.

The Second Amendment is much stronger language limiting the authority of all three branches of the government.
The way these two amendments are treated is upside down.

[kmitch200]

So let me get this straight, its perfectly OK for Tom to trounce people's First Amendmend rights as long as they don't "infringe" on your Second Amendment rights, how hypocritical of you.

JN, I'm lost on this one....Unless Tom has become a mod with power of deletion, he hasn't trounced on anyones 1A rights.
(even then, that would be a stretch with user agreements)

Disagreements which Tom & I have had hasn't and doesn't step on my rights nor his. They are just disagreements.   

[tombogan03884]

So let me get this straight, its perfectly OK for Tom to trounce people's First Amendmend rights as long as they don't "infringe" on your Second Amendment rights, how hypocritical of you.

You sound like a typical liberal BS artist.
Since when does Metcalf, or anybody else, have a right to infringe on my gun rights , which are protected by the US Constitution ?
If that is not a right then I am trouncing nothing except the stupidity of some one who lacks critical thinking skills.
Shall not be infringed means just that, and any one who can not accept that should move to Chicago since their stupid ideas are working so well there .
The fact that JNevis, a retired federal employee, feels the only method to refute my comment is by attacking me, instead of my statement tends to prove the truth of that statement.
Just to rub some peoples nose in their mess I'll post this link.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341

Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'
Oct. 21, 2013
By JOSH MARGOLIN

Kenya Civilians who had been hiding during a gun battle hold their hands in the air as a precautionary measure before being searched by armed police leading them to safety, inside the Westgate Mall, Sept. 21, 2013.
Jonathan Kalan/AP Photo

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MORE AT LINK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[PegLeg45]

^^^^^THIS!!!!!^^^^^


The Firearms Permit thing (in the US) came about as a method to skirt the law laid down during/after Reconstruction, used against Blacks? Is that correct?
Alot of things from post-Reconstruction still need to be "reconstructed".. Our great victory in Alabama last year was the ability to get a 5 Year Permit instead of one year at a time.. Woohoo..
I'm thankful to have won, but it's still a slap at Liberty..

I don't know about "permits" in and of themselves being because of that, but many/most gun laws (which may have eventually led to permits) were exactly made to prevent former slaves from owning guns.

[tombogan03884]

ALL gun laws prior to the Clinton AWB were aimed at keeping blacks helpless and defenseless.