Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
1
Can't speak for the Blade, but I own one of the SIG braces and have it mounted on my AR pistol.  The letter that came with it (the second one cited in the article) is carried in the case with the pistol.  I've had no issues with it and once at the range I happened to be shooting next to a retired FBI agent.  He was interested and seemed to agree with the SIG stance when he read the letter.

That's hardly an across-the-board endorsement.......but I was glad to hear his opinion.
2
See full article at http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/second-amendment-2/ct-supreme-court-non-firearms-protected-under-the-2nd-amendment

a CT man moving to Massachusetts (moving from bad to worse, this guy already has issues) and was transporting 2 non-firearm items (a dirk and a police baton), he was arrested when these items were discovered (poor guy apparently didn’t even make it to Massachusetts where the same exact thing would have happened if he were stopped). The CT Supreme Court ruled that under the 2nd Amendment, citizens indeed had to the right to own these items as they are protected rights.
3
In the Progressive world, the only thing that matters is that the Politically-Correct outcome be achieved.
The method of the achievement is not at issue.
If laws have to be broken, in order that the "correct" outcome be achieved, than by all means, break those laws. If safety rules are flouted, in order that the "correct" outcome be achieved, than by all means, flout those safety rules.
All that matters—all—is that the Politically-Correct outcome be achieved.

If the kid were to actually communicate with his parents, then he would be convinced by those evil gun owners that it was OK to have a gun in the home.
That's why the kid steals the gun, rather than telling his parents about his discomfort.

And the kid takes the gun to his teacher, the all-benevolent representative of the Nanny State, the only person in the kid's world who will understand him and his fears.
His parents certainly don't understand him. They certainly won't ever try to cope with his irrational fears. After all, they own a gun.

But now, in the real world, think about his mother's reaction when, as someone is breaking into their home, she goes to retrieve the gun and finds it gone!
Think also about the kid's thoughts, while he watches his mother being raped and murdered after her futile search for her only self-defense.
As the killer turns toward the kid and raises his knife, does the kid think, "Well, at least we weren't in danger from that nasty gun..."
4
 two comments below the video
 
Peter Gunn

Lets see, if this was the REAL world, the teacher would have panicked, called 911, the school would be placed on lock down, SWAT would have raided the building, the Kid would have been arrested, perp-walked in handcuffs in front of his classmates to a squad car,questioned for hours by the police without his parents knowledge or attorney present,  He would later be expelled and branded a terrorist, and prosecuted.  The school would have called in counselors because the other students would have been "Traumatized" and they would be coddled as "victims" even though none of them saw the gun.  The Talking heads on MSNBC would call for stricter laws and registrations (which prevent zero crimes).   Politicians would bellow about repealing the Second Amendment.   It is the mentality of people like the ones behind this "PSA" that create a society whereby a 7 year old can get suspended and treated like a criminal for the shape he bit out of a pop tart.  This PSA claims to be about reducing violence in schools and yet where was the "Violence" that was being prevented?  The gun would not have been in school had the "hero" of story not brought it in, and had he left the gun in the dresser (who stores their gun in a dresser?) drawer, in 100 years that gun would have hurt no one,  I presume (although it is not clear) it is his parents gun and it was legally purchased which presumes a NICS check. Once the gun got outside the house that kid could have dropped it or left it somewhere where a REAL criminal could have gotten a hold of it and committed ACTUAL violence. The message this PSA is teaching children is to go through your parents belongings, if you find a gun STEAL it, put it in your back pack, take to school, pull it out in class without warning and give it to your teacher, several of these acts are blatantly illegal.  If the parents own a gun that makes the kid unsafe, God FORBID we encourage him to TELL his parents how he feels.  The horrible terrible NRA teaches kids that if they find a gun, Stop, don't touch, leave the area and tell an adult.  This "PSA" is negligent in its messaging to the point of criminality and if any kids actually do what you espouse here and get in trouble, YOU should be held criminally and financially responsible.  You wonder why the Pro-rights people wont engage you in "dialogue" about reducing violence, it is because trying to have a logical conversation with anyone this devoid of logic and reasoning skills is fruitless.   You are so utterly incapable of a conscious thought on this subject that is not drowned out by the constant thrum of "Guns-Are-Bad, Guns-Are-Bad" to hear anything else.  In short, you are dangerously stupid, and this video should be taken down before some poor kid gets shot by a police sniper for following your monumentally moronic advice.
Reply

 
 
Terry Kremin
and then the gun returned to parents, but not the kid. So basically this is a way to add more kids to CPS and foster homes, if not juvenile hall and special school.
Obviously living in some fantasy world.
Reply
 • 
 
 

5

 :o :o :o so are they asking kids to commit multiple felonies??  :o :o :o :o


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFOhBAH3zPA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFOhBAH3zPA</a>

 :( can you believe they want kids to do this?
 crime of theft
 crime of concealed possession of gun
 crime of transporting said gun on school property
 crime of giving said stolen gun to some one else.
 etc
6
FYI - on their site, this is a very large document.
I just copied the introduction and about the author.
7
Um, wait a minute...
I thought that the Progressives have proven that our Constitution is a living, breathing, constantly changing document, always mutable to suit the times and new trains of thought.
If that's truly the case, then, due to the social changes we see all around us, our Constitution must now protect not only the right to be openly armed, but also to be covertly armed.
After all, openly-displayed armament has been proven to upset and annoy Progressives, so, to save their feelings, our protected right to carry a concealed weapon must be confirmed.
[/snarky sarcasm]
 ::)
8
Good Reading Material / warning shot misconceptions - Massad Ayoob
« Last post by Robert Harvey on Yesterday at 12:42:58 PM »
http://www.tactical-life.com/combat-handguns/warning-shot-misconceptions/

 Serious students of armed defense know that the “warning shot” is a bad idea, an act expressly forbidden by most police departments insofar as their own officers’ “rules of engagement.” Unfortunately, much of the public and apparently even some members of the bar have not gotten the word.
 
9
Everything Else / Why More Americans Are Supporting Gun Rights
« Last post by Taurian on Yesterday at 12:18:40 PM »
Quote
Gun control groups, on the other hand, have failed to garner that kind of support. Politico notes that former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ anti-gun violence super PAC spent $10.6 million during the midterms, but “barely won half of its contests.” Meanwhile, gun rights activist have been able to get more and more relaxed laws for gun owners or purchasers: Missouri lowered the minimum age for openly carrying a weapon to 19 from 21 and relaxed open-carry restrictions; Georgia approved a measure that allows guns inside bars, restaurants, and churches; and a proposed bill in Florida ease firearm restrictions on college campuses.

Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/why-more-americans-are-supporting-gun-rights.html/?a=viewall#ixzz3MZ7cXp6M
10
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/open-carry-for-all-heller-and-our-nineteenth-century-second-amendment

Jonathan Meltzer abstract. In the aftermath of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the most important frontier for defining the scope of the Second Amendment is the right to carry weapons outside the home. Lower courts have disagreed on the proper approach for resolving this issue, how to read the Supreme Court precedent, and the extent of the right protected by the Second Amendment. Not surprisingly, they have reached significantly different results. This Note argues that Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts should engage in a historical analysis when examining the right to carry. Such a historical examination—guided by the sources, methodology, and logic of Heller—yields two important conclusions: (1) the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry outside the home, and (2) it guarantees only a right to carry openly. While much of the history examined by the Supreme Court gives little indication of early understandings of the right to carry, the one set of sources consulted by the Court that speaks unequivocally on the right to carry—antebellum state supreme court cases—suggests that only the open carry of weapons is protected. This conclusion, not yet advanced in the scholarship, differs from arguments by many advocates of gun control, which suggest that there should be no right to carry outside the home, and those suggested by many advocates of gun rights, which would allow states to choose between open and concealed carry, as long as one is guaranteed. Either of those results, while perhaps more practical for twenty-first century Americans, would be inconsistent with Heller’s approach and with the sources on which it relies. Instead, a faithful reading of Heller requires constitutionally protected open carry, and, strangely enough, a nineteenth-century conception of the right to carry weapons.
author. Yale Law School, J.D. 2013; Law Clerk, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I am particularly indebted to Kate Stith for her thoughtful and patient stewardship of this project for many months. I would also like to thank Aneil Kovvali, Daniel Meltzer, Josh Meltzer, Tracy Nowski, Ellen Semonoff, and Connor Sullivan for helpful insights and suggestions. The editors of the Yale Law Journal offered many important comments and recommendations that improved this Note immensely, and for which I am very grateful. James Dawson in particular was an indispensable partner and Lead Editor throughout. All errors are my own.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10