Redstate

but George Soros better think again if he wants to take away my right to purchase and own one.

Gun control is another liberal feel good measure that doesn't do anything to make anyone safer, but it sure makes one feel good to think they are.

Thanks to Rehnquist's court and its ruling in the medicinally prescribed marijuana case.  the commerce clause can now be used to target gun ownership.  How exciting for the next Democrat President.  All they need is an executive order and ATF can begin confiscating guns.

(as an aside, Rehnquist and Specter clinging to power is the most disgusting thing that happens in American politics, like their health coverage isn't good enough to keep them from forcing us all to be concerned about their health.)

Let George Soros Move to China where people have to resort to stopping tanks with their bodies if they want to protest! George Soros apparently misses the good old days of living under Communist Rule in Hungary. If more of their citizens had been armed, maybe they wouldn't have the unique distinction of falling to both the Nazi's and the Communists.

I know it sounds reactionary, but it just bugs me that he left a war-torn, poverty-stricken country to make a better life for himself in the U.S. and has the gall to come here and try to roll back the Constitution to take away the very rights, freedoms and liberties that have made us the Great Country that he so badly wanted to be a part of!

No UN treaty can be implemented that will override our Constitutional rights. The 2nd Amendment applies within the US. If the UN wants to limit trafficking in small arms to other countries, that is a different matter. If our government chooses to arm freedom-fighters in other countries, we don't need the UN to get in our way. But if private citizens in the US are arming groups in other countries, that might be something that the UN has a right to become involved in.

Tennessee voters rejected native son Al Gore by a huge margin. Bill Clinton said it was due to Gun Control/Banning, and that the party should just drop it.

Certainly, anti-gun attitudes play well among the Moveon and Soros crowd, who really, really hate rural and Southern voters, and everything they like, such as guns, football, religion, patriotism, and NASCAR. Go to Washington Monthly or Slashdot to get a feel for that sentiment.

This just provides a huge wedge issue, particularly when played against the murders of the Groene family by that maniac/child molester. In rural and suburban areas police are few and far between, that structurally isn't going to change (too spread out, not enough tax base to have a cop on every street all the time). Given that, the only way for self-defense particularly for women, elderly, and disabled is firearms.

There is a backlash against PC, and the Soros attempt to use the UN and international treaties (coupled with the various Supremes holding that international law is the basis for Supreme Court decisions) can help swing broad sections of opinion decisively against Democrats should the Republican Party decide to pursue this.

Over and over again, on every issue where potential swing Red State voters could be persuaded to give Democrats a chance, the Party has strategically given them the brush off in single minded pursuit of the interests of the true believers in very Blue Coastal cities. This is true with religion, national security, crime (quick name a "tough on crime/long sentences for criminals" Democrat), home ownership in the suburbs (a better buy than expensive cities), and so on.

Excepting internal exiles Carville and Begala, no Democratic Political thinker seems to recognize the long-term looming disaster. Having Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader for example is a disaster when terrorism figures prominently in people's minds, which was a slam dunk to happen at some point.

This is one of the few issues that simply angers me. The point about crime rates in Britain is a point I've made for well over a year. I actually beleive gun control has NO effect on guns in urban areas, as most of those guns are ILLEGALLY owned to begin with and operate by few if any of the federal regulations. If current gun control is working (which I see no problem with as-is), why are people in the streets managing to get fully automatic weapons?

Britain went the way by saying everyone can own a gun if they put it in government-controlled lockers...then a few months later they said no one can hold guns and just took all the lockers and said "bye-bye".

Some bill similar to this was introduced a few months ago regarding "Civilian Sniper Rifles". Catchy, huh? The "CSR" would be considered anything with a larger bore than .50 caliber...It may have even been smaller (3xx, whatever is the equivalent of a 5.56mm round). The argument being  that these guns were too dangerous, even though 99% of people that even own .50 cal rifles (I'm not aware of any specific numbers) use them to what, shoot a moose? Even .22s were considered "dangerous". I'd like to see someone kill a bull moose with a .22....

Hell, nerf guns might damage an eye if you're not careful. Those are dangerous. Those smaller darts poked me in the eye when my friend shot me. Pellet guns, BB guns, everything. Forget recreational shooting. It's too dangerous.

I love that the talking points grasp hold of the "regulate guns as cars!" notion that is popular among people who haven't Clue One™ about how guns are actually regulated. Dave Kopel demolished this asininity a few years ago.

Personally, I think that if the Dems want to drop something, gun control should be it.  I think it would be far more effective from a cost/benefit analysis standpoint.  And, I think this is already happening.  Dems in the West are beginning to feel strongly about gun rights.  This is probably the reason that most of the statewide positions in Montana went to Dems.  I think the Brian Schweitzer model could be an effective one.

I really don't like guns.  Don't own them, don't care to.  They don't make me feel safer when I am around them, and I doubt that they actually make anybody safer.  That being said, I should still have the right to buy guns if I so chose.  Now, I think there should be some limits (i.e. "cop-killer" bullets), but only in situations where our men in blue are put in danger.  I haven't fully thought out my gun control position, but the libretarian in me comes out on these kinds of issues.

Well, I say "nobody", but I had better qualify that to "almost".  I saw a video a while back of someone who was deer hunting with a smoothbore Civil War era replica cannon.  Some people might.  But only two or three, probably.

The .50 BMG (BMG means "Browning Machine Gun, for those of you not up on your ammunition designations) is pretty much a target rifle.  Granted, that makes it pretty much a "sniper rifle", too.  But any accurate and scoped rifle will serve as a "sniper rifle" in skilled hands.  A .22 caliber rimfire at 100 yards is wickedly accurate, if you know how to shoot it.

The .50 caliber rifles are nastily expensive, for one thing.  Only a dedicated hobbyist would even think about throwing a minimum of $3k, or up to $7500 into something to carry to the range.  A decent set of optics for one will add a few thousand more onto that price.

If you reload your own ammo, you can do it for about $1.50 to $2 per round.  If you are buying it, it's going to run more like $4 to $5 per shot.

Your normal crook doesn't have that much money laying around.  If he does, he's going to go buy more cocaine, not a very high tech rifle that takes a whole lot more expense, and a lot of practice, to learn to shoot properly.

Of course, Henry Waxman did comment once a while back that those rifles scared him, and it worried him that people had them.  But Henry is probably what the Germans would term a sitzenprinkler, too.  And that's all the farther I'm going to take that thought.

But any decent deer rifle is, in fact, and equally decent "sniper rifle".  Your typical deer hunter values an accurate and flat shooting rifle, which is what a sniper rifle is.

And it doesn't have to have a whole lot of fancy optics and suchlike, either.  As recently as WWI, there was a whole lot of really accurate and deadly sniping done with standard open-sight rifles in 8MM, .303 British, and 30-06 calibers.

But, back to the topic.  I'm firmly convinced that what really scares George Soros and his ilk at the UN is the fact that unless they take the firearms away, there will be too much resistance when they declare that they are in charge and the elections are hereby cancelled.

And I'm of the opinion they have that part right.

I'm perfectly willing to take my chances with the criminal element, as long as I'm allowed to be at least as armed and dangerous as they are, thank you very much.

membership is directly proportional to the overall concern of American citizens over their gun rights. In other words, a presidential victory by an evenly mildly pro-gun control candidate immediately increases the NRA's membership by 1 million, with a probable 500,000 to follow more slowly. Actual success in anti-gun legislation might now be worth another million.

Thus, gun control efforts represent a negative feedback loop-- the harder the push, the greater the electoral cost to gun control advocates and, in the long run, the less gun control.

So to be honest, I'm not worried. Gun control is dead.

the 2d ammendment was adopted after the commerce clause, so the latter is modified by the former.

A very very very rich fool.

I recall an essay by Sir Artur C. Clarke where he speculates about a world where no gun weapons at all are available except by special decree of the supreme council or some such. He wrote this prior to Rwanda, the absence of guns in use there and the disgusting failure of the current supreme council. Sir ACC, being a sci-fi writer can be excused for his speculative imagination. Soros, a jewish survivor of WWII Europe has no excuse for wanting a disarmed and defenseless population.

The Brits went the gunless route, and violence ahs increased because citizens can no longer secure themselves in their own homes without facing prison.

Soros brings old, poor ideas that are incredibly well funded to the table.

If somebody breaks into my house and is trying to hurt my family, How the devil am I going to get my VW up the stairs to run that dirty son of a _ over without hitting a kid on the way up?

But any decent deer rifle is, in fact, and equally decent "sniper rifle".  Your typical deer hunter values an accurate and flat shooting rifle, which is what a sniper rifle is.

Right there you were building towards an excellent point of how unrealistic criminalizing these weapons are.  

Then...

I'm firmly convinced that what really scares George Soros and his ilk at the UN is the fact that unless they take the firearms away, there will be too much resistance when they declare that they are in charge and the elections are hereby cancelled.

To me, pulling out the tin hat and making such rhetorical attacks almost eliminates the prospect of actual discussion of the topic, but that's just me.

People have very well meaning intentions for wanting to ban certain weapons.  They think the end result will be less people violently dead.  Certainly a noble goal, but an unrealistic and very overly optimistic approach to reaching that goal.  Just as people have good intentions for expanding the patriot act.  But undermining our constitution and our own rights, no matter how well intended, will always be misguided.

People will always kill each other, doesn't matter what the weapon is.  Why should legitimate sportsman and enthusiasts have to be punished?  If they are taken away, and people start killing with shotguns, then what?  Outlaw duck hunting?  No more guns of any kind?  Then people start killing with knives.  All that this line of thought will bring us is a constant erosion of rights, culture, and heritage.  And it opens the door to chip away at other rights as well.  This course of action leads to the degridation of the freedoms that have made this the greatest country in the world.

I have pretty much always taken the position that the Second Amendment was put there precisely because they (whoever "they may be) might, in fact, try and take the other ones away from us.

It's still July.  And every July 4th, I make a point of re-reading the Declaration of Independence about four or five times.  I'm fairly defensive of my "Liberty" for a good while thereafter.

I won't get off into any of the "New World Order" conspiracy stuff you seem to fear, because I don't buy it.  But neither do I buy that one can legislate freedom, either.

It stays around only when the cost of taking it from us is far too high for those who would do so to even consider making the attempt.

Which is why the Second Amendment is under attack, IMO.  Unless you are convinced that Soros and the UN and suchlike bureaucrats are only interested in the betterment of society for everyone, that is.

I figure they just want to be able to steal their usual percentage off the top.  Given our current knowledge of the UN's standard practices, and Soros' usual methods of robbing the poor to give to himself, I don't think it takes much tinfoil to feel that some form of protection from those depradations wouldn't be a bad idea.

And I've seen exactly how much concern our Government has about it.  We're still paying a quarter of their budget, aren't we?

In return for taking off my "tinfoil", I'd offer that you might want to shed the blinders you seem to be wearing.

Well...I am from Australia.

Some facts (not well know however ;)):

1. It was the conservative government of PM John Howard (probably one of the most conservative) that instigated the gun buy back.
   
2. This followed the massacre of about 40 people were killed in 1996 by an out of control Martin Bryant (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre )  and an earlier incident in metro Sydney where another crazy shot dead 9 people in a major shopping centre in 1991.
   
3. I can't remember a major shooting incident since the gun buy-back, expect for in and around south-west sydney (where the few shooting are by muslims).

Certainly shootings have happened since, but a reduction has occurred and major incidents have become history. This indicates that a buy-back isn't the silver bullet most make out to be...but is helpful.

Under the Constitution, international treaties that we sign on to have equal weight with the Constitution itself.

Gun regulation/confiscation is not the only thing that has caused crime to skyrocket in Britain.  They are, in fact, pretty much handcuffed when it comes to defending themselves at all.  That's why the gangs of chavs can go about terrorising people.

According to the Constitution:

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So treaties are inferior to the Constitution and to state law.

I read the article a while ago, and my memory is probably faulty. I saw .50 cal mentioned there. The article I got was actually from the NRA website, and got it for my Law class for current events regarding 2nd Amendment rights. But yeah, I sitll don't see why there would be a need to ban .50 cal rifles, since so few people use them and I have yet to hear of any killings from a .50 caliber rifle. Aren't those the same rounds put into fighters? And so wouldn't those bullets basically tear someone apart from one shot?

Do you remember in Bowling for Columbine when Moore has a fit because a bank in Michigan gives out rifles for opening a bank account? I see absolutely no correlation, as everyone who opens a bank there is responsible enough to own a gun anyway, and there was never a problem with guns in the town.

To tie the two things together (in whatever haphazard way I can), why ban guns that aren't a problem? There just seems to be no reason to do it, but perhaps I'm misinformed myself.

motorcycle and ram the poor guy foolish enough to invade your castle. Perhaps we should all get nifty little non-firearm booby traps in our house for these people. Maybe that wuold appease people, especially when you accidentally set off a tripmine or something.

Doesn't that first sentence say exactly what I was saying?

I mean, the first line.

I own guns, I hunt and skeet shoot, I fully support the second amendment, but I have no idea what the point/purpose of this post is.  I really do not mean this to be snarky, but there are people who want stringent gun control (liberals), George Soros is an extremely rich hippy liberal, so why does this merit a post.  I love this site, but I honestly don't understand why this rates attention during the nomination fight's prelude, the War, and Rove.

After the Aussie semi auto ban, violent gun crime went up. That may or may not mean anything, since a large % increase can represent few actual additional incidents, but it certainly doesn't suggest that the ban works.

More significantly, solid statistical analysis in the US has shown that gun bans DON'T reduce large scale shootings.

So called "cop killer bullets" are a fake issue, a nonexistant problem.

It all started around KTW bullets, armor piercing bullets designed for police back in the late 60s, early 70s. The intent of these bullets was to give police a means of dealing with cars, including (IIRC) cars that had been "armored" by criminals (this was a response to several specific incidences).

These bullets (in standard service sidearm calibers) began with tungston cores, and later went to hardened steel cores as a cost reduction. Even so, they had problems going through angled windshields, so a teflon tip was added to work like, well, kinda like the rubber tip on a cane.

Further, these bullets were marketed to law enforcement, even though no laws restricting them existed at that time.

In the 80s, 20/20 ran an emotional show featuring the evils of these bullets. Congressional hearings eventually followed, and (IIRC) it was discovered that only two police were killed with this type of bullet: back in Miami in the mid 70s, shot exacution style to the back of the head (i.e., it didn't matter what type of bullet was used). No police officier was killed by these bullets punching through his bullet resistant vest. BHowever, the debate began by 20/20 may have cost police lives: statistical evidence shows more police being shot in the head, or with rifles, after 20/20 initiated the debate on the issue.

The gun control side persued legislation that had the potential of banning many types of ammunition. But Congress passed (and the Pres signed) a bill banning handgun bullets with "hard" cores, including steel, tungston, etc. In some cases (7.62x39 and .308, for example) BATF has ruled that rifle rounds are really pistol rounds, and consequently you can't have steel core bullets in those rifle calibers.

Our rights, and those who wish to take them away, don't merit less attention during a war.

In fact, we should be extra careful, lest people like Soros sneak something by us while we're focused on so many other things.

the teflon was added to prevent wear and tear on the gun barrel due to the hard steel or tungsten used in the bullets in place of soft lead.

I think you're reading it wrong--the meaning is that the Constitution, laws passed in accordance with it, and treaties made under the authority of it, are the supreme law of the land, and therefore bind state judges, in spite of anything to the contrary in the laws or Constitution of any state.

That is a common idea, and a reasonable one, but it is wrong. I believe that the KTW's had a copper driving band to protect the barrel. I read an interview with one of the designers, and he explained the reason.

Even with steel or tungsten cores, the bullets that struck at a sharp angle had a tendency to deflect. The teflon tip was designed to grip and prevent this, and in fact it did a good job of improving penetration on sharp angled impacts. At a 90 degree impact, the teflon actually hurt penetration somewhat; but in that case the bullet had way more penetration then needed.

Further, the teflon reduced penetration in kelvar vests. Teflon coated KTW's would still defeat a vest with ease; it is just that one without the teflon would go through even more layers.

And of course, teflon wasn't the key to being armor piercing. It just helped when striking hard objects at sharp angles. IIRC, teflon didn't help against kelvar at any angle.

The second amendment was desighned to protect us from OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.  We were granted the ability to take up arms in order to protect ourselves from the tyranny and oppression of leaders that impose a will of corruption.  If you had been paying attention in school, if you attended, you would realize that this is the ONLY REASON that we were granted the rights of gun ownership.  I hope you understand what it means to rebel, you,  sheep o' the herd!

Have you ever heard Soros speak?  He sounds like someone's retarded uncle.

 Austarailia banned guns. Crime is up, because all the bad guys didn't turn in their guns (surpise, surprise) and even if the are unarmed they know that the little old lady across the street can't defend herself any more. Guns help people who are not as physically strong as others protect themselves.

I got a good email about this. So I put it in my diary. It has more spesific figues if you care to check them out.

This agrument by the gun lobby forgets the most important thing: criminals before and after gun control get their guns the same way - illegally!  If you take away legally purchased guns you take them away from law-abiding citizens.  Because its against the law to get a gun is that going to stop someone who planned on using that gun for murder? No, they will get a gun illegally... these people lack common sense...

Sorry, meant to say "gun control lobby"...

and because they can. California banned the .50 because the legislature is majority Dims who hate the concept of individual responsibility unless it's baby killing. If you have ever seen one of these guns, they are absolutely huge and heavy. The concept of using one as a sniper rifle is akin to givng soccer moms Peterbilts to take the kids to school.

Watching how quickly civil order broke down in NO, I would not want to sitting in my house with roving bands of armed scum just the other side of window glass. You can buy a decent 12 guage pump for less than $250.00 and a trigger lock can keep the kids out.