ruger9

There IS NO VALID reason why it was done. He was reportedly alone, and unable to escape. They had him. No need to destroy someone's house. But this IS the LAPD we're talking about... shoot first, ask questions later. Just like at Waco- they could have arrested that guy any day of the week, easily, in town. But no- they wanted a big show, so they waited until he was at the compound and called in the SEALS. gross abuse of power and needless loss of life.

I'll even use NY's "7-round mad limit"!

As did a cop at the scene.

Yup.

Journalists.... and they can't be bothered to look up the Gadsen flag? They're not journalists. They're tabloid reporters.

I'm looking to make the same purchase this year, and I've narrowed it down to either the Rem700 or Savage 10/110 or 11/111. Both are affordable, and both are more accurate than I am.

If these pass, we'll enter a time of non-compliance. If they don't push any further, it'll stop there... for awhile. If yesterday showed me anything, it once again proved to me that it will come down the 2A's original intent being used. Question is, when? I've seen several others post similar opinions on this forum, and I wasn't sure if we had gotten there yet. And on a national level, we probably haven't. But with what happened in NY, we are moving dangerously close to it.

I'll take that. But I'm not holding my breath.

Dude, are you illiterate?

With all due respect, you need a remedial reading course. Go back and read what I wrote. That is the OPPOSITE of what I believe, and what I believe the founding documents to say. The documents enumerate natural rights that ARE THE PEOPLES, that government cannot infringe. They don't "give" or "grant" anything. They DO LIST THEM, and apparently the 9th in essence includes all those not enumerated. As I stated- the documents are GOVERNMENT LIMITING documents.

As I thought. We actually agree. Semantics. As for the other question: just one small excerpt I found: The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is somewhat of an enigma. It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named. Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect.

Sorry I misunderstood... I thought you were saying anyone who thought it WASNT satire was being naive.

Because it's not, or at least it doesn't have to be- I have MET people who think this way. I have witnessed this mind-boggling display of ignorance first hand. You calling me a liar?

+1.

And again, getting back to the "semantics" argument, as I still believe that's what it is and we are saying the same thing... The Constitution (and BOR) weren't documents for the PEOPLE, they were documents for the GOVERNMENT. They weren't documents telling the people what they can and can't do, they were telling the GOVT what THEY can and can't do. They were government-limiting documents. The BOR simply spelled out some specific rights the government had no power to infringe.

wait, are we talking state or federal here? Because we do indeed have a Bill or Rights, which does indeed enumerate rights we HAVE and shall not be taken away by government. I don't know a thing about NJ's constitution. Or if it trumps federal, since state sovereignty is all but lost. I did read the ninth. It basically says nothing. So I read some examinations of it. No one really knows what in the hell it's supposed to mean.

Ok, we're talking semantics here- The Bill of RIghts may not technically GIVE rights, but it lists rights that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY by government. That's the WHOLE REASON for the bill of rights. Otherwise, I don't know what any of us have been yelling about for the last month and a half. Or why any of us went to Trenton. If we are guaranteed no rights by the founding documents, this is all simply elementary- enjoy your guns before they take them away, because they surely will. Game over.

More "satire", I take it?

it gets better: "first of all there is no such thing as constitutional protected rights. The government may suspend your so-called rights whenever they deem it necessary. As with any so-called rights the First Amendment has limitations. As soon as you get it through your head that you have no rights they are just privileges granted to you by the government. Watching and reading the things people like you say is very disturbing. People like you want and are looking forward to a second revolution. Funny that there was never any kind of talk like that before we had a black president. God knows what you're going to do when the next one is a woman. People like you constantly scream I want my country back. Exactly where did it go your problem is the majority of this country wants to go in a certain way. And being the crybabies like you are you don't like it. You just can't face that fact" ...and keep in mind, this entire thread was about 2A and the Bill of Rights, not about Obama, the presidency, or a 2nd Revolution. These people DO exists, and I think the fact that some of YOU PEOPLE HERE refuse to believe they do (in your defense, you don't believe it literally out of disbelief ANYONE could think like that), is part of the whole problem. They ARE out there. And their numbers are growing.

OK guys, here's a post from somebody on my town forum, read it and weep: (discussin the Bill of RIghts): "It is obvious that history class was not your best subject. They are privileges not rights which I have said before can be taken away At any time.A great man once said rights are not rights if someone can take them away they are just privileges. And that my friend is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! look it up. Matter of fact, the Bill of Rights initially only conferred "rights" on white, propertied males. Even though they are now Rights, sure sounds like they started as a priviledge to me. Now to say the fondling fathers were perfect, that these "rights" are absolute is frankly as stupid as following the initial bill of rights to begin with. Things change, and over time, generally for the better when it comes to freedoms and liberty. If you look at the founding fathers freedoms versus ours today ---- we have done them justice by correcting many egregious errors on their behalf. And the best part is we could make these progressive changes because the "process" they set up, with all of it's fits n starts, it's cumbersome nature, and it's nature to allow the minority to gum up the works if they want to ----- is the best process ever invented on this planet. That's the point on LCM bans; we can choose to make this difference if we all decide that the risk outweighs the benefits to all of us combined, together, and acting as one."

What do you expect when you have a democrat/liberal public school system indoctrinating children with group think (and a university system that continues that dogma but on steroids) paired with a media who is second only to pravda in their reporting of the "truth"??? It's no surprise America has become so dumbed down... it was by design.

Not necessarily satire- I have been "debating" with people on my town forum ever since Sandy Hook, and I can ASSURE you there are people out there who do think exactly like this.

Mr. Twain said it best...

Well said!

I too would have preferred straight snow to the windy rain we had. Who was that Ainsley guy? He was great! (we were in the back, couldn't hear everything)