Area gun sales, fears rising

Area gun sales, fears rising

There are 7566 comments on the North Port Sun story from Nov 14, 2012, titled Area gun sales, fears rising. In it, North Port Sun reports that:

Gun stores in Charlotte County have experienced increased sales since Election Day as local gun owners brace for an anticipated restriction of gun laws following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at North Port Sun.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#6746 May 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone knows that Tea Party revolutionaries fear and hate socialism about as much as the Antichrist. Which is funny, because the Tea Party movement’s dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.
What few realize is that the secretive oil billionaires of the Koch family, the main supporters of the right-wing groups that orchestrated the Tea Party movement, would not have the means to bankroll their favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.
Here is a better historical fact, one that the Kochs don’t like to repeat in public: the family’s initial wealth was not created by the harsh, creative forces of unfettered capitalism, but by the grace of the centrally-planned economy of the Soviet Union. This deserves repeating: The Koch family, America’s biggest pushers of the free-market Tea Party revolution, would not be the billionaires they are today were it not for the whim of one of Stalin’s comrades.
Poor "marxist" teabagger.
Sadly you believe this falsehood and its Disney style of hype and story telling.
The only scared folks are the libbies that abuse power through the likes of the IRS.
The Tea Party bows to no one and that's why there are hundreds of groups with members that have loyalty to no one including those that claim to be its leadership. It will not be business as usual whether republican or democrat. Both parties have ruined the politacal process and it will be reclaimed.
Thankfully, ignorant folks like you can't nail down who we are because of our anynomity. O'bama's little IRS ploy as well as interferring with the freedom of press actions have only stirred up the hornets nest.
Watch as the 2016 elections will show once again.
What I would recommend for you and other libbies is to infiltrate a Tea Party meeting and you may be very surprised at what lies you've been told and what you will witness.
And as a side note, as long as you're civil, they WILL welcome your presence even if you identify yourself as a libby.
Unlike the Occupy Movement folks that defecate and create a violent atmosphere amongst its Fleebaggers.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6747 May 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
More propaganda. No one is buying.
Not hardly, educate yourself it that is possible!
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. Who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and ruled that it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6748 May 24, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Sadly you believe this falsehood and its Disney style of hype and story telling.
The only scared folks are the libbies that abuse power through the likes of the IRS.
The Tea Party bows to no one and that's why there are hundreds of groups with members that have loyalty to no one including those that claim to be its leadership. It will not be business as usual whether republican or democrat. Both parties have ruined the politacal process and it will be reclaimed.
Thankfully, ignorant folks like you can't nail down who we are because of our anynomity. O'bama's little IRS ploy as well as interferring with the freedom of press actions have only stirred up the hornets nest.
Watch as the 2016 elections will show once again.
What I would recommend for you and other libbies is to infiltrate a Tea Party meeting and you may be very surprised at what lies you've been told and what you will witness.
And as a side note, as long as you're civil, they WILL welcome your presence even if you identify yourself as a libby.
Unlike the Occupy Movement folks that defecate and create a violent atmosphere amongst its Fleebaggers.
ROFLAMO .. get real!

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6749 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>Not hardly, educate yourself it that is possible!
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. Who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and ruled that it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
Lmao! Someone telling me to educate myself uses a double negative to start that very sentence! Lol. Yep, you are truly educated! You are exactly the kind of person I want to take at face value and take advice from.
I take it you are also a constitutional scholar? Lmao!!!!!!!!!!
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6750 May 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Propaganda
Of course it is, FAUX didn't report it so it MUST be.

You didn’t hear this on Fox News or the Drudge Report, but on October 10 Venezuela seized and nationalized a massive fertilizer plant part-owned by Koch Industries. The media silence is a bit puzzling. You’d think that the seizure of property belonging to America’s second-largest private company, owned by one of the most powerful families in the country and the bankrollers of today’s libertarian/Tea Party revolution—the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch–would be considered newsworthy. But no, even though their Venezuela plant was nationalized a whole three months ago, other than a handful of short business-wire dispatches, this has yet to make the news. Even Koch Industries has been suspiciously silent on the matter.

One reason why the Kochs could be keeping the news under wraps is that the nationalization of the fertilizer plant may appear to be bad news for Charles and David Koch, but here’s the big surprise: the Kochs made hundreds of millions on every end of this deal…and even more surprising, bond markets cheered the nationalization. In other words, the free markets championed by the Kochs gave a big thumbs-down to Kochs’ negative influence on the value of the business, while at the same time, the free-market Kochs earned huge windfalls doing business with socialists. No wonder this story hasn’t made the rounds.

Teabaggers love socialism, just so long as they profit.

Poor teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6751 May 24, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Sadly you believe this falsehood and its Disney style of hype and story telling.
The only scared folks are the libbies that abuse power through the likes of the IRS.
The Tea Party bows to no one and that's why there are hundreds of groups with members that have loyalty to no one including those that claim to be its leadership. It will not be business as usual whether republican or democrat. Both parties have ruined the politacal process and it will be reclaimed.
Thankfully, ignorant folks like you can't nail down who we are because of our anynomity. O'bama's little IRS ploy as well as interferring with the freedom of press actions have only stirred up the hornets nest.
Watch as the 2016 elections will show once again.
What I would recommend for you and other libbies is to infiltrate a Tea Party meeting and you may be very surprised at what lies you've been told and what you will witness.
And as a side note, as long as you're civil, they WILL welcome your presence even if you identify yourself as a libby.
Unlike the Occupy Movement folks that defecate and create a violent atmosphere amongst its Fleebaggers.
See above.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6752 May 24, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Sadly you believe this falsehood and its Disney style of hype and story telling.
The only scared folks are the libbies that abuse power through the likes of the IRS.
The Tea Party bows to no one and that's why there are hundreds of groups with members that have loyalty to no one including those that claim to be its leadership. It will not be business as usual whether republican or democrat. Both parties have ruined the politacal process and it will be reclaimed.
Thankfully, ignorant folks like you can't nail down who we are because of our anynomity. O'bama's little IRS ploy as well as interferring with the freedom of press actions have only stirred up the hornets nest.
Watch as the 2016 elections will show once again.
What I would recommend for you and other libbies is to infiltrate a Tea Party meeting and you may be very surprised at what lies you've been told and what you will witness.
And as a side note, as long as you're civil, they WILL welcome your presence even if you identify yourself as a libby.
Unlike the Occupy Movement folks that defecate and create a violent atmosphere amongst its Fleebaggers.
Teabaggers ruined politics and will soon ruin America.

"Can't nail teabaggers down"?

All you have to do is listen to the ignorance and stupidity.

"What I would recommend for you and other libbies is to infiltrate a Tea Party meeting".

If you promise Sarah will be there, gladly.

"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." --Sarah Palin, on Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011

"This is Reagan country (applause). Yeah! And perhaps it was destiny that the man who went to California's Eureka College would become so woven within and inter-linked to the Golden State." --Sarah Palin, blundering on Reagan's education while speaking at a fundraiser at California State University-Stanislaus. Eureka College is in Illinois.(June 25, 2010)

Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the Ten Commandments." –-Sarah Palin, arguing that Judeo-Christian belief was the basis for American law and should continue to be used as a guiding force for creating future legislation, interview with Bill O'Reilly, May 6, 2010

"Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." –Sarah Palin, pushing a conspiracy theory that "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of coins by the Obama administration (the change was made by the Bush administration in 2007 and was later reversed by Congress, before Obama took office), West Allis, Wisconsin, Nov. 6, 2009

"I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." --Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009

And most teabaggers think she is smart.

Poor teabaggers.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#6753 May 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Teabaggers ruined politics and will soon ruin America.
"Can't nail teabaggers down"?
All you have to do is listen to the ignorance and stupidity.
"What I would recommend for you and other libbies is to infiltrate a Tea Party meeting".
If you promise Sarah will be there, gladly.
"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." --Sarah Palin, on Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011
"This is Reagan country (applause). Yeah! And perhaps it was destiny that the man who went to California's Eureka College would become so woven within and inter-linked to the Golden State." --Sarah Palin, blundering on Reagan's education while speaking at a fundraiser at California State University-Stanislaus. Eureka College is in Illinois.(June 25, 2010)
Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the Ten Commandments." –-Sarah Palin, arguing that Judeo-Christian belief was the basis for American law and should continue to be used as a guiding force for creating future legislation, interview with Bill O'Reilly, May 6, 2010
"Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." –Sarah Palin, pushing a conspiracy theory that "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of coins by the Obama administration (the change was made by the Bush administration in 2007 and was later reversed by Congress, before Obama took office), West Allis, Wisconsin, Nov. 6, 2009
"I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." --Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009
And most teabaggers think she is smart.
Poor teabaggers.
Every liberal the steals oxygen thinks O'bama is smart. Yet, it has yet to be proven.
Devious is not smart. Manipulative is not smart. Arrogant is not smart. Disrespectful is not smart.

Using one person, aka, Sarah Palin, to paint a braod brush of the Tea Part movement is not smart.

If you'd like, we can post quotes from your man Joe "foot-in-his-mouth" Biden and say he's your poster child for libby smart man. Or would you prefer we stick with the "57 states" guy, President Barack Schultz who knows nnnnoooottthhhiiinnnngggg?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#6755 May 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Teabaggers ruined politics and will soon ruin America.
"Can't nail teabaggers down"?
All you have to do is listen to the ignorance and stupidity.
"What I would recommend for you and other libbies is to infiltrate a Tea Party meeting".
If you promise Sarah will be there, gladly.
"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." --Sarah Palin, on Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011
"This is Reagan country (applause). Yeah! And perhaps it was destiny that the man who went to California's Eureka College would become so woven within and inter-linked to the Golden State." --Sarah Palin, blundering on Reagan's education while speaking at a fundraiser at California State University-Stanislaus. Eureka College is in Illinois.(June 25, 2010)
Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the Ten Commandments." –-Sarah Palin, arguing that Judeo-Christian belief was the basis for American law and should continue to be used as a guiding force for creating future legislation, interview with Bill O'Reilly, May 6, 2010
"Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." –Sarah Palin, pushing a conspiracy theory that "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of coins by the Obama administration (the change was made by the Bush administration in 2007 and was later reversed by Congress, before Obama took office), West Allis, Wisconsin, Nov. 6, 2009
"I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." --Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009
And most teabaggers think she is smart.
Poor teabaggers.
Are you a member of the American Communist party?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#6756 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Not hardly, educate yourself it that is possible!
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. Who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and ruled that it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:

1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.

Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.

What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6757 May 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Lmao! Someone telling me to educate myself uses a double negative to start that very sentence! Lol. Yep, you are truly educated! You are exactly the kind of person I want to take at face value and take advice from.
I take it you are also a constitutional scholar? Lmao!!!!!!!!!!
A "double negative" that's kind of a big word for ain't it. You know what the man said: "you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink"
Since you always whine about substance how about it?- feel pretty stupid now don't you :)
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6758 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."
And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.
That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:
1934 National Firearms Act
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act
1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created
1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.
Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.
What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?
Post your idiocy till the cows come home you'll still be wrong ignorant slob!
The first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6759 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Post your idiocy till the cows come home you'll still be wrong ignorant slob!
The first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
Right, but the difference between District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) & McDonald v. Chicago(2010) is that District of Columbia v. Heller dealt with Federal Enclaves & the 2nd amendment right being incorporated within the Federal Enclaves like Washington DC since they are legally different than the states which meant nothing to the rest of the US states where as McDonald v. Chicago dealt with the 2nd amendment right being incorporated down to the State & Local level which pertained to the states.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within Federal Enclaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...

Federal enclave

In United States law, a "federal enclave" is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave

McDonald v. Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#6760 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Post your idiocy till the cows come home you'll still be wrong ignorant slob!
The first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
"Affray....

"5. Nor unless such wearing be accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people; consequently the wearing of common weapons, or having the usual number of attendants, merely for ornament or defense, where it is customary to make use of them, will not subject a person to the penalties of this act. Ibid. s. 9.[Pg. 50]

"Act of 1805, 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p. 108.

"Sect. 1. No free negro or mulatto shall keep or carry a fire-lock of any kind, or military weapon, or powder, or lead, without a licence from the court of the county or corporation; which licence may, at any time, be withdrawn. Arms, &c. so kept, shall be forfeited to the informer...."

"(A) A Certificate of the seizure of a gun, &c. on sect. 8, of 1 Rev, Code, p 187.

"county, to wit.

"Whereas AJ, of the county aforesaid, labourer, hath this day brought before me, JP, a justice of the peace for the said county, one gun, with powder and shot, by him found and seized in the bands and possession of a certain free mulatto man, known by the name of (or negro man slave belonging to as the case may be) who is not by law qualified to keep the same; and the said AJ having also, before me, made due proof of such seizure as aforesaid. By virtue of an act of the general assembly in that case made and provided, I do hereby order and direct, that the said AJ shall and may retain the said gun, powder and shot, to his own use; and that the said mulatto man shall receive thirty lashes upon his bare back, well laid on, which last sentence AC, a constable in this county, is ordered ta exetute. Given under my hand and seal, &c.
[Pg. 554]

SLAVES.

(B) Licence to keep arms and ammunition.

[This can only be granted by the court. See 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p 108.][Pg. 555]

-[The New Virginia Justice, Comprising the Office and Authority of a Justice of the Peace, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. TOGETHER WITH A VARIETY OF USEFUL PRECEDENTS, ADAPTED TO THE LAWS NOW IN FORCE. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING ALL THE MOST APPROVED FORMS IN CONVEYANCING: SUCH AS DEEDS OF BARGAIN AND SALE, OF LEASE AND RELEASE; OF TRUST, MORTGAGES, BILLS OF SALE, &c. ALSO, THE DUTIES OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. By William Waller Hening, Attorney At Law. The Second Edition, Revised, Corrected, Greatly Enlarged, and Brought Down to the Present Time. By the Author. RICHMOND: PUBLISHED BY JOHNSON & WARNER. 1810.]

"Licensing" was intended for "SLAVES", and NOT free people.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6761 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Affray....
"5. Nor unless such wearing be accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people; consequently the wearing of common weapons, or having the usual number of attendants, merely for ornament or defense, where it is customary to make use of them, will not subject a person to the penalties of this act. Ibid. s. 9.[Pg. 50]
"Act of 1805, 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p. 108.
"Sect. 1. No free negro or mulatto shall keep or carry a fire-lock of any kind, or military weapon, or powder, or lead, without a licence from the court of the county or corporation; which licence may, at any time, be withdrawn. Arms, &c. so kept, shall be forfeited to the informer...."
"(A) A Certificate of the seizure of a gun, &c. on sect. 8, of 1 Rev, Code, p 187.
"county, to wit.
"Whereas AJ, of the county aforesaid, labourer, hath this day brought before me, JP, a justice of the peace for the said county, one gun, with powder and shot, by him found and seized in the bands and possession of a certain free mulatto man, known by the name of (or negro man slave belonging to as the case may be) who is not by law qualified to keep the same; and the said AJ having also, before me, made due proof of such seizure as aforesaid. By virtue of an act of the general assembly in that case made and provided, I do hereby order and direct, that the said AJ shall and may retain the said gun, powder and shot, to his own use; and that the said mulatto man shall receive thirty lashes upon his bare back, well laid on, which last sentence AC, a constable in this county, is ordered ta exetute. Given under my hand and seal, &c.
[Pg. 554]
SLAVES.
(B) Licence to keep arms and ammunition.
[This can only be granted by the court. See 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p 108.][Pg. 555]
-[The New Virginia Justice, Comprising the Office and Authority of a Justice of the Peace, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. TOGETHER WITH A VARIETY OF USEFUL PRECEDENTS, ADAPTED TO THE LAWS NOW IN FORCE. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING ALL THE MOST APPROVED FORMS IN CONVEYANCING: SUCH AS DEEDS OF BARGAIN AND SALE, OF LEASE AND RELEASE; OF TRUST, MORTGAGES, BILLS OF SALE, &c. ALSO, THE DUTIES OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. By William Waller Hening, Attorney At Law. The Second Edition, Revised, Corrected, Greatly Enlarged, and Brought Down to the Present Time. By the Author. RICHMOND: PUBLISHED BY JOHNSON & WARNER. 1810.]
"Licensing" was intended for "SLAVES", and NOT free people.
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6762 May 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right, but the difference between District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) & McDonald v. Chicago(2010) is that District of Columbia v. Heller dealt with Federal Enclaves & the 2nd amendment right being incorporated within the Federal Enclaves like Washington DC since they are legally different than the states which meant nothing to the rest of the US states where as McDonald v. Chicago dealt with the 2nd amendment right being incorporated down to the State & Local level which pertained to the states.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within Federal Enclaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
Federal enclave
In United States law, a "federal enclave" is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave
McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#6763 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.
United States Constitution: Second Article of Amendment; Restrictive Clause;

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

United States Constitution:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article. VI.: 2nd and 3rd clauses;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6764 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.
And no matter how many times you repeat this same BS....it will NEVER be true.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6765 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.
You Useful Idiots on here sound like True Revisionist Leninist/Stalinist which your goal is to destroy the US Constitution altogether and the 2nd amendment is in your way and once you Leninist/Stalinist have all the guns collected & destroyed your revolution will begin & happen just like in Russia beside you keep making false claims here and you know that the SCOTUS has been in your way which the Leninist/Stalinist in Chicago have and still are refusing to fully comply with the SCOTUS McDonald v. Chicago ruling in Chicago and why Chicago was taken back to US Federal Court.

Civilian usage meaning of the Right to keep and bear arms

The right to keep and bear arms, which is protected under the second amendment, is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense. Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or the people acting collectively has been the topic of several Supreme Court decisions. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, held that residents of the District of Columbia have an individual right to handguns for self-defense within the home in the case District of Columbia v. Heller while at the same time reaffirming a broad range of federal restrictions on firearms as being constitutional. Also, the large body of state based law regarding the right to firearms and restrictions on firearms remain largely unchanged, though the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state governments via the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_an...
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6766 May 24, 2013
Poor teabaggers.

Still thinking "Someone is gonna come and take my guns".

So why is there such a teabagger frenzy of buying them?

Why would you purchase something you are certain is getting taken away?

Whoops, forgot.

Teabagger logic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Teaman 1,394,905
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 17 min Dr Guru 216,645
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Jay 228,498
News EDITORIAL: Immigration system is cruel 2 hr tomin cali 1
News Poll: Should Hillary Clinton choose Cory Booker... 4 hr mad madge 3
News Donald Trump accuses judge of having a conflict... 8 hr Chilli J 286
News IAAF issues guidelines on Russian track athletes 9 hr Test 2
More from around the web