Gun owners' duty

[sgt bluto]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Right off the get go, your firearm's refresher course runs into a technical snag. Is this course trying to say that a so called "illegal alien" who arms themselves with a firearm, is now a citizen? Is that all it will take in this era for an "illegal" to become "legal", the possession of a firearm? Interesting. Regardless, in the United States, a person does not need citizenship in order to legally possess or purchase a firearm.

What?

[Richard_]

sgt bluto wrote:

<quoted text>What?

Many Elmer Fudds are not that well versed on firearms laws, they typically like to banter about jargon and concepts without actually knowing their technical definitions or usage. Is that, your baggage?

[Richard_]

sgt bluto wrote:

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

Just to clarify, this firearms refresher course item #1, doesn't make sense for two reasons and I cannot make it any simpler than this:

1. It insists that an illegal alien can become a citizen of the United States, by merely possessing a loaded firearm.

2. In the United States, a person does not need to be a citizen to legally possess firearms. In fact, the ATF FFL OTC Transaction Record form 4473, an ATF Form 4473 is filled out whenever an FFL transaction occurs, comes from the ATF in a Spanish only version, here's the link for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f4473-sp.pdf

[Tory II]

sgt bluto wrote:

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Right off the get go, your firearm's refresher course runs into a technical snag. Is this course trying to say that a so called "illegal alien" who arms themselves with a firearm, is now a citizen? Is that all it will take in this era for an "illegal" to become "legal", the possession of a firearm? Interesting. Regardless, in the United States, a person does not need citizenship in order to legally possess or purchase a firearm.

An armed American is the captain of his ship, the master of his fate. A disarmed American is a peasant, a slave to his master, the govt.

[sgt bluto]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>Many Elmer Fudds are not that well versed on firearms laws, they typically like to banter about jargon and concepts without actually knowing their technical definitions or usage. Is that, your baggage?

No

[sgt bluto]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Right off the get go, your firearm's refresher course runs into a technical snag. Is this course trying to say that a so called "illegal alien" who arms themselves with a firearm, is now a citizen? Is that all it will take in this era for an "illegal" to become "legal", the possession of a firearm? Interesting. Regardless, in the United States, a person does not need citizenship in order to legally possess or purchase a firearm.

" A technical snag," liberal for use anything to twist reality, " in the US " thats what we are fighting, federalism, states are autonomous as per the constitution, if California wants to let illegals have guns while citzens do not thats up to them. My state does not allow illegals to have guns, period ! As for the Spanish language download. Thats because of your camp, the libs. It's a standard form which if read in English,(also available) does not have language which allows illegals to get FFl or purchase priviledges. Illegal aliens are enemies of the state. You raed my text as once armed your a citizen. An illegal who is armed is a states enemy who is now armed. Which means he is niether a citizen or a subject, he is a dangerous criminal with no rights of a US citizen, except in LA County. You sir are a loon.

[ObaMAO]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>
1) You are confusing the "army-esque" nomer of an "assault rifle" with the US Codified legal definition of a machine gun.
2) NFA defined Title II firearm making and transfers are regulated by a Treasury Tax for regular joes and janes. Transfers and making of NFA Title II firearms for FFL holders who have paid a Special Occupational Tax and government agencies occur under a tax exemtion, but the NFA registration process is still observed. Regardless, NFA firearms such as machine guns, "silencers", "sawed off shotguns" and short barreled rifles, can be possessed by anyone who can own a regular Title I firearm, so long as their state of residence does not prohibit it.

The democRATS definition of an assault rife would ban guns used legally for hunting for over a century.

Selective fire machine gun type weapons have been limited to the military/law enforcement since the time of Al Capone, unless you have a FFL . Further no new machine gun type weapons, only grandfathered ones may be possessed by citizens..

P.S. a good friend has his FFL and a Browning BAR he brought home after the last world war

[Reasonable to Me]

homepcmd wrote:

<quoted text>
Slippery slope.
Germany said restricted guns access to gypsies and Jews. I have no issues with a Muslim having a gun.
I have an issue with a politician telling ME that I cannot have one.
In Israel... the fanatics there blow themselves up because going in "shooting" is a waste since they would be DROPPED in a heartbeat.
Almost EVERYONE carries a gun.
And that's in a country that tends to carry with NO round in the chamber. Something tells me that we would be a little faster here.
Don't attach LABELS or you may find some "official" attaching ONE to YOU!

OK. Fair warning. Thanks.

[Get Real]

repeal the 2nd admendment.

[homepcmd]

Reasonable to Me wrote:

<quoted text>
OK. Fair warning. Thanks.

To all.

Never lose sight of the fact that those who want to limit other's rights... USE any reason to do it.

They are NOW starting to talk about limiting one's ability to purchase firearms SIMPLY because you are BEING INVESTIGATED!

You don't even have to be GUILTY anymore.

Simply have the right (or wrong) person "investigate YOU and you LOSE your right to bear arms.

THAT was not the problem at Ft Hood.

The problem was there's was a LAW that denied the law-abiding from having a gun - when they would have had one if they were off the base and had a CCW.

What ultimately stopped him was somebody SHOOTING BACK!

Not some law or regulation.

[homepcmd]

Get Real wrote:

repeal the 2nd admendment.

And you are probably aware that to do that effectively would blow out the other nine as well, right?

That viewpoint is not just "statist"... it's totalitarian.

[Robin]

"Repeal" the second amendment? Are you kidding me? You are un American and should be shot.

[Get Real]

homepcmd wrote:

<quoted text>
And you are probably aware that to do that effectively would blow out the other nine as well, right?
That viewpoint is not just "statist"... it's totalitarian.

Actually that is not true. The side of the military will always be the side with the power. Gun owners cannot take on the army and win.

[Yeppers]

Get Real wrote:

<quoted text>Actually that is not true. The side of the military will always be the side with the power. Gun owners cannot take on the army and win.

The military is on the side of the people not the government, do you really think sons, daughters, fathers and mothers are going to kill their own blood? When it comes right down to it, those military guns will turn on Washington before they turn on their own families...When I joined the military I took an oath to uphold the Consitution...The Constitution is a document by the people for the people, not the other way around...

[Get Real]

Yeppers wrote:

<quoted text>
The military is on the side of the people not the government, do you really think sons, daughters, fathers and mothers are going to kill their own blood? When it comes right down to it, those military guns will turn on Washington before they turn on their own families...When I joined the military I took an oath to uphold the Consitution...The Constitution is a document by the people for the people, not the other way around...

Isn't that what I said? So why do we need a 2nd admendment to protect us? We only need the military.

[Richard_]

sgt bluto wrote:

<quoted text>" A technical snag," liberal for use anything to twist reality, " in the US " thats what we are fighting, federalism, states are autonomous as per the constitution, if California wants to let illegals have guns while citizens do not thats up to them. My state does not allow illegals to have guns, period ! As for the Spanish language download. Thats because of your camp, the libs. It's a standard form which if read in English,(also available) does not have language which allows illegals to get FFl or purchase privileges. Illegal aliens are enemies of the state. You raed my text as once armed your a citizen. An illegal who is armed is a states enemy who is now armed. Which means he is neither a citizen or a subject, he is a dangerous criminal with no rights of a US citizen, except in LA County. You sir are a loon.

I'm not a loon,

1) a person does not need to be a citizen to legally possess firearms in the US,

and,

2) the statement from the anecdote insists that an illegal alien becomes a citizen with a gun in their hand.

[Richard_]

sgt bluto wrote:

As for the Spanish language download. Thats because of your camp, the libs. It's a standard form which if read in English,(also available) does not have language which allows illegals to get FFL or purchase priviledges.

Purchasing a firearm is a privilege? That's either an interesting point of view that you possess or you simply made a Friedian slip. Regardless, the Spanish version of the ATF Form 4473 does not help illegal aliens purchase firearms, there is no difference between the forms except one is in English and one is in Spanish so that resident aliens of Spanish language speaking origin may better comply with firearms laws in the US.

[Richard_]

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
An armed American is the captain of his ship, the master of his fate. A disarmed American is a peasant, a slave to his master, the govt.

That's not what the anecdotal posting said, it said that an "armed man is a citizen".

In the US a person does not need to be a US citizen in order to legally possess a firearm, therefore that statement is technically inacurate from the start. Additionaly, the statement insists that a person who is an illegal immigrant may become a citizen by possessing a firearm.

[Richard_]

Get Real wrote:

repeal the 2nd admendment.

They could try to repeal the 2nd amendment, however, people are naturally endowed with the right to bear arms regardless of what that paper says.

[Yeppers]

Get Real wrote:

<quoted text>Isn't that what I said? So why do we need a 2nd admendment to protect us? We only need the military.

No...The Military is not for "domestic" use and is forbidden by Constitution to be used as a police force on American soil...The military can't protect me or my family from the criminals on the street, but at least I have a fighting chance because of the 2nd Amendment...The 2nd Amendment will not be repealed much to your dismay, the military supports the 2nd Amendment and will uphold the Constitution, that is the point I was making...