Brady Center sues Georgia town over gun law

May 17, 2013 Full story: Click2Houston 22

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against Nelson, Ga., a small town north of Atlanta.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1 May 17, 2013
The judge should just dismiss the case, (after letting the TREASONOUS 'brady campaign' spend boatloads of their money). And then turn around and FINE the treasonous 'brady's' OUT OF EXISTENCE.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2 May 17, 2013
Here's some evidence the town can use:

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05...
Roice

Hollywood, FL

#4 May 17, 2013
I almost feel sorry for the maroons at the Brady Center. This battle you waged against the Constitution is lost.....now you're litigating against rural farming communities trying to tell them how it's going to be........sad. Just give up. Heck, I'll take some of you out shooting at the range! What if Annie Oakley said, "guns kill, I better never touch one."
BRBruce

Las Vegas, NV

#5 May 18, 2013
The fine folk at the Brady Center really need to give it a rest.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#6 May 18, 2013
The government can't make people purchase a firearm anymore than the government cannot make people purchase health insurance. Use your heads, people.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#7 May 18, 2013
"Right to bear Arms.

"The right of self defence is a natural right, which legislation should aid rather than supersede. By some it is thought that in a well-regulated community individuals should be altogether debarred from what is called "taking the law into their own hands," and that they should in every case, look to the public authorities for protection from injury. It is said that social order is best maintained by the enforcement of such a principle. A standing army is upheld, in order to protect the community from foreign aggression; a police force is maintained, in order to protect individuals from private wrong; and it is argued that the agency of these forces supersedes the necessity of individual effort.

"Undoubtedly the maintenance of social order is an object of paramount importance; but social order itself may be purchased at too dear a rate, if it can only be upheld by extinguishing manly virtues in a population. During the middle ages scenes of violence were of much more frequent occurrence than in modern days, and great evil arose from those breaches of social order; but it cannot be denied that the energies of individual character were by these very disorders developed, in a manner almost unknown to the present generation.

"The right to bear arms is one of those fundamental rights upon which the liberties of a free people rests...."

[PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT; OR, MEDITATIONS IN EXILE. BY WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN. WITH NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. BOSTON: PATRICK DONAHOE, 23 Franklin Street. 1856.]

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#8 May 18, 2013
You don't make any sense, bonehead. A municipality can't make people purchase things.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#9 May 18, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
You don't make any sense, bonehead. A municipality can't make people purchase things.
Are you addressing yourself, or what?

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#10 May 18, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
You don't make any sense, bonehead. A municipality can't make people purchase things.
Right. Only the federal government can do that.
Roice

Winter Park, FL

#11 May 19, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
You don't make any sense, bonehead. A municipality can't make people purchase things.
Richard, when you call people a bonehead you lose all credibility. Isn't the gov telling us we must purchase their health care? You clearly don't understand the subject. No one has to buy a gun in these districts. It is a symbolic law to counter gun prohibition laws. Keep trolling... We eat guys like you for breakfast.
Grumpy553

Jersey City, NJ

#12 May 19, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
The government can't make people purchase a firearm anymore than the government cannot make people purchase health insurance. Use your heads, people.
Hey Richard...mind if I call you Dick?
Well lets see if you can follow this. The federal government IS making people buy health insurance. If you dont have insurance, you will be penalized with a new tax starting next year.
The law in question that states that all legal adults must own a firearm is symbolic, to give a social middle finger to all the useless anti-gun legislation that is being heaped in piles on everyday, law abiding citizens. It is not enforced, nor is it enforced in other towns with similar laws.
My best guess is that you should wake up and find a clue before you post on subjects you have not got the full story on.
Now turn off the computer, go outside and play a few rounds of hide and go fawk yourself.
Roice

Miami, FL

#13 May 19, 2013
........mind if I call you Dick.........that was a good one Grumpy!
Grumpy553

Jersey City, NJ

#14 May 19, 2013
Roice wrote:
........mind if I call you Dick.........that was a good one Grumpy!
Good morning Roice...how are ya?
Roice

Miami, FL

#15 May 19, 2013
Good sir and you?
Just cleaning up the coffee I spit everywhere when I read about Piers Morgan & Joe Scarborough......we've won I think.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#16 May 19, 2013
Rights of Citizens of the United States.

SPEECH of HON. A. G. THURMAN, OF OHIO.

DELIVERED

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

FEBRUARY 6, 1872.

[WASHINGTON; F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A. BAILEY, REPORTERS AND PRINTERS OP THE DEBATES OP CONGRESS. 1872.]

42d Cong....2d Sess.

"Here is another great right recognized and secured. Again:

""article II.

""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."

"Here is another right of a citizen of the United States, expressly declared to be his right— the right to bear arms; and this right, says the Constitution, shall not be infringed. "

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#17 May 19, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you addressing yourself, or what?
A right of the people to bear arms does not convey an authority for government to make people bear arms. Therefore you post is not only illogical, it also points up the fact that your cognitive abilities are questionable at best.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#18 May 19, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>A right of the people to bear arms does not convey an authority for government to make people bear arms. Therefore you post is not only illogical, it also points up the fact that your cognitive abilities are questionable at best.
No, more like it points to the fact that you were vague. Which made it difficult to comprehend the meaning of that which you typed. Perhaps you should sharpen your abilities at communication. This will occur more rapidly of course. If you first remove your head from your posterior.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#19 May 19, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>A right of the people to bear arms does not convey an authority for government to make people bear arms. Therefore you post is not only illogical, it also points up the fact that your cognitive abilities are questionable at best.
No, more like your knowledge of the country in which you reside is PATHETIC:

UNITED STATES CODE

Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13,§ 311

Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are NOT members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The "militia" is for the "COMMON defense". It's not a "right", it IS a DUTY.

The right to keep and bear arms is corollary to the right of SELF DEFENSE. Which is a preexisting NATURAL right. And is the DUTY of each and every free person to provide for themselves. Of which, there is ample court rulings which make this ABUNDANTLY clear. For the government has NO duty or obligation to provide for the defense of the individual.

Take a hike.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#20 May 21, 2013
Once again, the town can't MAKE people purchase and keep firearms.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#21 May 21, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
Once again, the town can't MAKE people purchase and keep firearms.
Just as you treasonous trolls can't whine to disarm those that do.

Signed by order

HENRY RUTGERS, Chairman
OLIVER WOLCOTT, Secy.


"This meeting being adjourned from 8th to the 10th, the following preamble and resolutions were read and adopted:

"Fellow Citizens--Once more we engaged in a war with a powerful nation.
"The ocean is denied to us; our waters violated; our land is invaded; hostile threaten to convert our habitations to heaps of ruins.
"We are called upon to save our possessions from spoil and destruction; to secure persons from slavery and death; to protect our families against outrage and violence; guard our institutions from assault and overthrow; to defend by freeborn valour our dear-bought independence.
"The lawful authorities, aware of this condition of things, have made provision to it. The national government has our security by fortification, troops, and floating force. The state has extended care, and caused other works of defence to erected. The common council of the city has laboured to insure our safety. It only remains that the sons of liberty come forth in their might, and demonstrate that in a contest for all that is near and dear to them, they are invincible.
"Our regular regiments are already at their stations. The organized militia will them on the shortest summons. The several corps of volunteers are inflamed with patriotic ardour. To these bands, other military associations will be added, composed those who enjoy honourable exemptions from ordinary service, but who will come forward on this trying occasion.
"This meeting is called for the purpose enabling us to renew our pledge to support the constitution; to invigorate the laws; to aid with our best efforts the administration of our beloved country; to see that it be not approached by spies and emissaries; to defend the great interests of the union with our treasure and our blood.
"It is our glory and our boast that we are freemen. Our constitution and government are acts of free and unbiased choice. They are ours and we will never abandon them.
"The citizens are the safeguards of a free state. Their right to keep and bear arms has never been infringed. We will use these weapons resolutely in support of our privileges; with these we will manfully oppose the enemy who shall presume to invade them...."

- The Examiner, NEW YORK SATURDAY AUGUST 13, 1814, Pg. 209 [THE EXAMINER: CONTAINING POLITICAL ESSAYS ON THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS OF THE TIME; PUBLIC LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. BARENT GARDENIER, ESQ. EDITOR. "Thy spirit, Independence! let us share: Lord of the lion heart, and eagle eye! Thy steps we follow, with our bosoms bare, Nor heed the storm that howls along the sky." Smollett VOLUME II. FROM MAY TO OCTOBER, 1814. NEW YORK: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE EDITOR. NO. 34, CEDAR STREET.

[Henry Rutgers was a United States Revolutionary War hero and philanthropist from New York City, New York. His donations reopened Queen's College in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Which is now named after him; "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey."]

[Oliver Wolcott was a signer of the United States Declaration of Independence as well as the Articles of Confederation as a representative of Connecticut. He was the fourth Governor of the state of Connecticut.]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 6 hr ritedownthemiddle 10,861
Opinion Line 6 hr woodtick57 63
Moms Demand Action Calls On Kroger Family Of St... 16 hr Squach 10
Fact or Fiction: Push-Feed Rifles Won't Cycle R... Sep 16 Tory II 1
3 year old shoots AR and survives Sep 15 Tory II 4
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Sep 15 Tory II 96
Chicago Liberals Outlaw the Firearm Industry Sep 15 Tory II 1
•••

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••