Tougher Gun Show Controls In California Slash Sales Of Weapons Linked To Crime

California has succeeded in drastically reducing anonymous and undocumented gun sales and sales of military-style weapons by introducing tighter controls to gun shows reveals a study in the June issue of Injury ... via MediLexicon

[Alex]

Wow! Congrats to California. They have cracked down on the sale of legal weapons to law abiding citizens. I'm afraid the 'military type assault weapons' that they are cracking down on are just semi-automatic sporting rifles and pistols that real gangsters mock. The fully automatic machine guns that gangsters really use are sold on the black market, not at legally ran gun stores and gun shows. I wish people knew how to use there brains. Of course this is a British medical news site we are talking about, so how would they know any better?

[Robert Toronto]

I totally agree. This site is sickly slanted. Of course British Gun Control nuts own this site and manage it.
Legal guns, and law abiding gun owners are not the problem. But of course, tell that to the left wing bleeding hearts that don't like free citizens to own guns.
The British are cowards and fools, that don't believe in freedom or individualism and have given up their rights to "Common Law". Thank you Tony Blair for making Britain a police state. BTW, I am a Canadian, and we have lots of socialist fools here to in Canada too.
To the British people that believe in Freedom: Arm yourselves with illegal smuggled weapons to protect yourselves. There are alot of illegal semi-auto rifles and handguns in England (most in the hands of criminals).
FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM!!!!
PROUD TO BE A REFORMER, BUY A GUN AND PO A LIBERAL!

[James]

So we should arm ourselves illegally to fight for our right to legally arm ourselves.

Whose the fool?

[Master Confucius]

James wrote:

So we should arm ourselves illegally to fight for our right to legally arm ourselves.
Whose the fool?

The thrust of your question leave one wondering.

When it becomes illegal to breath without a nanny state issued licence to breathe, will you proceed to get a license, or will you just breathe anyway?

[Master Confucius]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

<quoted text>Very Well Said !

Well, it's just plain common sense.
So many people these days figure that they need a license to do just anything, and instead of questioning the whole thing, they just 'fall in line' and surrender.

REMEMBER THIS: The essence of all law is power.

Acquiescing to mandated illegality, is the sine qua non of complete surrender to total authority.

DON'T SURRENDER!

[Master Confucius]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

I will swear to one thing , If they come for my guns I will only give them the barrel.

No! NO! NOT THE BARREL!
It's the BULLETS, and one high-speed bullet at a time!

[Master Confucius]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

<quoted text>Conservation eh?

Well, think: Do you use two knives to cut a piece of meat on your plate?

Why use more that –ABSOLUTELY– necessary?
Practice to be good, so that when the time comes, you will be –darned– good!

Remember: Waste not, want not.

[feedup]

James wrote:

So we should arm ourselves illegally to fight for our right to legally arm ourselves.
Whose the fool?

I did for years.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

James wrote:

So we should arm ourselves illegally to fight for our right to legally arm ourselves.
Whose the fool?

You are, To Wit:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them...."

"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these."

- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765–1769.

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

-[Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.(2 Cranch) 137 (1803).

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.”

-[Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256]

[GunShowOnTheNet]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

<quoted text>I am a two in the chest , one in the head kind of guy.

At Home:

12 ga.- buckshot, followed by slug, dcm.

Out and about:

double-tap dcm. If they move, repeat as needed.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

James wrote:

So we should arm ourselves illegally to fight for our right to legally arm ourselves.
Whose the fool?

"...Self defence is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; this primæval principle, the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges every one to remonstrate against the strides of ambition, and a wanton lust of domination, and to resist the first approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away the rights for which the brave sons of America have fought with an heroism scarcely paralleled even in ancient republicks...."

- Elbridge Gerry, Observations On the new Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions.(Mr. Gerry signed the Declaration of Independence. Was a Delegate to the 1787 U.S. Constitutional Convention. Representative from Massachusetts, and later Vice-President of the U.S. under Madison.)

Might add that the "Laws of Nature" were the primary source of your English Constitution as well. In addition, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was reffirmed by William and Mary in 1689:

English Bill of Rights 1689
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/Englis...
"An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown"

"...That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law..."

[feedup]

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
At Home:
12 ga.- buckshot, followed by slug, dcm.
Out and about:
double-tap dcm. If they move, repeat as needed.

Man at home I would have to beat my wife to the draw. I guess first come first served.
The person wouldn’t stand a chance.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

feedup wrote:

<quoted text>
Man at home I would have to beat my wife to the draw. I guess first come first served.
The person wouldn’t stand a chance.

Same here. But, our dogs would get the first shot at home. Two Pit Bulls, two American Bull-Dogs,(HUGE) and a Shar Pei. The Shar Pei was bred to take down full size bulls by the throat, and man can he jump. They are extremely loyal, and effective fighters. Then, if the perp(s) make it past them, they get to face the big (armed) dawgs. ;)

[GunShowOnTheNet]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

What the F is DCM
There is a reason to have slug your first shot but I serisly cannot write it here but I know you will figure it out.

Dead Center Mass.

I'm aware of the reason for using the slug first. However, let's just say that the loads that I use are "special". And, will do the same job in a much more wide-spread fashion. ;)

[GunShowOnTheNet]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

I am thinking about buying the Rugar Alasken 44M
for..........Alaska I have a Ruger redhawk 6" barrell already if you have any thoughts please let me know.

Stick with the Redhawk,(wish like hell that I still had mine). Anything less than 6",(actually 8-1/2" is best), in a .44M is just a waste. It won't get full burn, and accuracy suffers greatly. Although, I had a 4" Colt Anaconda that was unbelievably accurate.....

[GunShowOnTheNet]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

<quoted text>I understand , I bought 000 for that reason.

Lead, or steel-plated shot?

[GunShowOnTheNet]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

<quoted text>I like the concealment of the alaskan.
In Alaska as you walk of the road the following applies if one is this stupid.
With my Florida CCL = Legal carry
Alaskan state park = unloaded gun
Federal land = no gun , no ammo.
I am still wondering if anyone has told the brown bear .
This is my reason for concealment , I go in the winter so my chances of getting " caught " are slim but the point remains that in Alaska 10 feet off the roadway and you are not at the top of the food chain.
Of course the Fing feds could care less if you are killed by a bear or moose.
Some days I wonder where my America has gone.

Much different here in Arizona. We can open carry anywhere, unless it is clearly marked as prohibited on private property, or public buildings.

It's time to take it back. That's what I'm doing here on these forums. Trying to spread the TRUE message concerning our inalienable rights. If enough of us stand up and demand our "inalienable" Rights back. Then our SERVANTS have no other recourse than to comply, or be put down.

We The People have not only a Right, but a Duty to be "at all times armed". And, our government was supposed to "SECURE" that Right for us. Not, inhibit, limit or encroach upon it in any other fashion....

[GunShowOnTheNet]

ALLAH BE DAMNED wrote:

<quoted text>Lead

Try this experiment. Get some steel plated ball loaded shells, as well as some regular lead ones. Get a couple of pieces of metal, such as some coffee cans. And shoot each type load into a seperate container. Then compare the two....