Gun Control
- Thread starter NCIC105
- Start date
Kalamity023
New member
I lost all my guns in an unfortunate boating accident.
Warrior1256
New member
I sold all of mine at a gun show using the loophole.
AndeyHall
Active member
Lucky! I tripped and dropped all mine in the loophole...looked around in there for hours but never found anything! It must really be as big as the liberals think it is!
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Lost all mine to Mexican Drug Lords just like Obama.
AndeyHall
Active member
Actually I don't think the large soda thing still exists. I was just in NYC and tried looking it up after seeing lots of large sodas and from what I could tell a judge struck it down the day before it was supposed to take effect saying it was the most arbitrary and ridiculous thing he had heard.
[h=1]Gun-rights group endorses Manchin-Toomey compromise[/h]By Kasie Hunt, NBC News
A gun-rights group on Sunday endorsed a bipartisan compromise in the Senate to expand background checks — splitting from the National Rifle Association.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms had opposed previous iterations of a Democratic proposal for univesal background checks.
This group has far fewer members than the NRA — over 600,000 as compared to the NRA's nearly 5 million. But the shift still represents a divide in the usually-united gun lobby, and lends further momentum to an expanded background check measure negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
In announcing support, the group pointed to sections of the compromise that lift some restrictions on guns that are already in place.
"You can see all the advances for our cause that it containes like interstate sales of handguns," chairman Alan Gottlieb said.
"It's huge," Manchin told Fox News on Sunday afternoon as he announced the CCRKBA endorsement.
The Senate is set to spend this week debating gun legislation.
A gun-rights group on Sunday endorsed a bipartisan compromise in the Senate to expand background checks — splitting from the National Rifle Association.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms had opposed previous iterations of a Democratic proposal for univesal background checks.
This group has far fewer members than the NRA — over 600,000 as compared to the NRA's nearly 5 million. But the shift still represents a divide in the usually-united gun lobby, and lends further momentum to an expanded background check measure negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
In announcing support, the group pointed to sections of the compromise that lift some restrictions on guns that are already in place.
"You can see all the advances for our cause that it containes like interstate sales of handguns," chairman Alan Gottlieb said.
"It's huge," Manchin told Fox News on Sunday afternoon as he announced the CCRKBA endorsement.
The Senate is set to spend this week debating gun legislation.
Warrior1256
New member
I'm a life member of the CCRKBA and strongly disagree with them!!!!I'm an endowment member of the NRA and stand with them concerning this matter.
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
All these constitutional genius folks in Washington fail to note the Constitution all of it was written to allow us to protect ourselves with force from any acts that remove our rights. Maybe Obama and his radical folks should have read the damn thing. Come and take it.
We must show what good intentions we have and how much we care about safety for the children. The GOP must do this because the democrats tell them that's the only way they can will elections. The democrats do win elections and they want republicans to win also. Those democrats just care so much about everybody. :sarcastic:
CharlesMorrison
Banned
I still have all of my guns... Come and take them... If you can.
Link Removed
Link Removed
Whatever the reason, as most of the unfortunate gun owners who have replied before me have explained, I do not intend to be shamedly defenseless and allow myself and my family to rely on the police who are only minutes if not an hour away, who are really there to investigate, and who carry firearms to protect themselves. I'll make a deal with the idiots who believe gun control and confiscation can work--provide me with the protection that the narcissistic, moslem shithead gets 24/7 and I will be glad to give you my firearms. Short of that, I do not trust government and I WILL NOT BE A SHEEP. What the gun control advocates do not understand, at least in my way of thinking, is my total distrust in the current federal government; this is a fascist government who could care less about the Constitution and are headed by an dangerous narcissistic moslem who spent over $1million hiding his identity--gotta ask why and I do not believe I ever got an answer--the only truth has to be he has been ineligible all along. I do not believe anything they tell me or that whatever is being proposed is all that they have in mind. A foot in the door means the door gets opened wider and wider until it serves no purpose. I can understand expanding background checks to all sales at gun shows and internet sales that currently are not required in various situations, but that is about it. Anything else is someone else's foot in my door and I will not open it to allow them into my home. Someone will go to hell before I go to heaven.
DoD Issues New Directive on Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement
http://publicintelligence.net/dod-su...w-enforcement/
DoD Issues Instructions on Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement
April 11, 2013 in Featured
Soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment, XVIII Fires Brigade train last December to “respond to an escalating civil-disturbance situation caused by unhappy simulated hurricane victims.” According to an article produced by the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, the training was designed to prepare the soldiers “for their upcoming assignment as a quick reaction and rapid response force for U.S. Army North Command in support of emergencies in the United States.”
Public Intelligence
The Department of Defense has issued an instruction clarifying the rules for the involvement of military forces in civilian law enforcement. The instruction establishes “DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States.”
The new instruction titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” was released at the end of February, replacing several older directives on military assistance to civilian law enforcement and civil disturbances. The instruction requires that senior DoD officials develop “procedures and issue appropriate direction as necessary for defense support of civilian law enforcement agencies in coordination with the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and in consultation with the Attorney General of the United States”, including “tasking the DoD Components to plan for and to commit DoD resources in response to requests from civil authorities for [civil disturbance operations].” Military officials are to coordinate with “civilian law enforcement agencies on policies to further DoD cooperation with civilian law enforcement agencies” and the heads of the combatant commands are instructed to issue procedures for “establishing local contact points in subordinate commands for purposes of coordination with Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement officials.”
In addition to defining responsibilities for military coordination with local law enforcement, the instruction describes circumstances in which direct participation in civilian law enforcement is permissible. Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, U.S military personnel are generally prohibited from assisting in civilian law enforcement functions such as search and seizure, interdiction of vehicles, arrest and interrogation, surveillance or using force except for in self-defense. Though the Posse Comitatus Act originally referred only to the Army, it was extended in 1956 to include the Air Force. Subsequent DoD regulations prevent the use of the Marine Corps or Navy for civilian law enforcement functions. In 1981, this principle was further codified in 10 USC § 375 which directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that military activities do “not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.”
Though the Posse Comitatus Act is the primary restriction on direct DoD involvement in law enforcement functions, it does not prevent military personnel from participating in circumstances “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” This includes circumstances involving “insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law” as well as actions “taken under express statutory authority.” The DoD’s instruction includes a list of more than a dozen “laws that permit direct DoD participation in civilian law enforcement” including many obscure statutes that are more than a hundred years old. For example, a law passed in 1882 and codified under 16 USC § 593 allows for the President to use land and naval forces to “prevent the felling, cutting down, or other destruction of the timber of the United States in Florida.” Likewise, the Guano Islands Act of 1856 enables the President to use land and naval forces to protect the rights of a discoverer of an island covered by the Act.
Military commanders also have “emergency authority” to use military forces in civilian law enforcement functions “in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances”. This authority is limited to actions “necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order” and “provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions.” In fact, an enclosure to the DoD instruction describing requirements for support of civil disturbance operations states that military commanders “shall not take charge of any function of civil government unless absolutely necessary under conditions of extreme emergency.” According to the instruction, any “commander who is directed, or undertakes, to control such functions shall strictly limit DoD actions to emergency needs and shall facilitate the reestablishment of civil responsibility at the earliest time possible.”
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...number=1&w=488
http://publicintelligence.net/dod-su...w-enforcement/
DoD Issues Instructions on Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement
April 11, 2013 in Featured
Soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment, XVIII Fires Brigade train last December to “respond to an escalating civil-disturbance situation caused by unhappy simulated hurricane victims.” According to an article produced by the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, the training was designed to prepare the soldiers “for their upcoming assignment as a quick reaction and rapid response force for U.S. Army North Command in support of emergencies in the United States.”
Public Intelligence
The Department of Defense has issued an instruction clarifying the rules for the involvement of military forces in civilian law enforcement. The instruction establishes “DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States.”
The new instruction titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” was released at the end of February, replacing several older directives on military assistance to civilian law enforcement and civil disturbances. The instruction requires that senior DoD officials develop “procedures and issue appropriate direction as necessary for defense support of civilian law enforcement agencies in coordination with the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and in consultation with the Attorney General of the United States”, including “tasking the DoD Components to plan for and to commit DoD resources in response to requests from civil authorities for [civil disturbance operations].” Military officials are to coordinate with “civilian law enforcement agencies on policies to further DoD cooperation with civilian law enforcement agencies” and the heads of the combatant commands are instructed to issue procedures for “establishing local contact points in subordinate commands for purposes of coordination with Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement officials.”
In addition to defining responsibilities for military coordination with local law enforcement, the instruction describes circumstances in which direct participation in civilian law enforcement is permissible. Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, U.S military personnel are generally prohibited from assisting in civilian law enforcement functions such as search and seizure, interdiction of vehicles, arrest and interrogation, surveillance or using force except for in self-defense. Though the Posse Comitatus Act originally referred only to the Army, it was extended in 1956 to include the Air Force. Subsequent DoD regulations prevent the use of the Marine Corps or Navy for civilian law enforcement functions. In 1981, this principle was further codified in 10 USC § 375 which directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that military activities do “not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.”
Though the Posse Comitatus Act is the primary restriction on direct DoD involvement in law enforcement functions, it does not prevent military personnel from participating in circumstances “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” This includes circumstances involving “insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law” as well as actions “taken under express statutory authority.” The DoD’s instruction includes a list of more than a dozen “laws that permit direct DoD participation in civilian law enforcement” including many obscure statutes that are more than a hundred years old. For example, a law passed in 1882 and codified under 16 USC § 593 allows for the President to use land and naval forces to “prevent the felling, cutting down, or other destruction of the timber of the United States in Florida.” Likewise, the Guano Islands Act of 1856 enables the President to use land and naval forces to protect the rights of a discoverer of an island covered by the Act.
Military commanders also have “emergency authority” to use military forces in civilian law enforcement functions “in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances”. This authority is limited to actions “necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order” and “provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions.” In fact, an enclosure to the DoD instruction describing requirements for support of civil disturbance operations states that military commanders “shall not take charge of any function of civil government unless absolutely necessary under conditions of extreme emergency.” According to the instruction, any “commander who is directed, or undertakes, to control such functions shall strictly limit DoD actions to emergency needs and shall facilitate the reestablishment of civil responsibility at the earliest time possible.”
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...number=1&w=488
gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
DoD Issues New Directive on Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement
http://publicintelligence.net/dod-su...w-enforcement/
DoD Issues Instructions on Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement
April 11, 2013 in Featured
Soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment, XVIII Fires Brigade train last December to “respond to an escalating civil-disturbance situation caused by unhappy simulated hurricane victims.” According to an article produced by the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, the training was designed to prepare the soldiers “for their upcoming assignment as a quick reaction and rapid response force for U.S. Army North Command in support of emergencies in the United States.”
Public Intelligence
The Department of Defense has issued an instruction clarifying the rules for the involvement of military forces in civilian law enforcement. The instruction establishes “DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States.”
The new instruction titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” was released at the end of February, replacing several older directives on military assistance to civilian law enforcement and civil disturbances. The instruction requires that senior DoD officials develop “procedures and issue appropriate direction as necessary for defense support of civilian law enforcement agencies in coordination with the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and in consultation with the Attorney General of the United States”, including “tasking the DoD Components to plan for and to commit DoD resources in response to requests from civil authorities for [civil disturbance operations].” Military officials are to coordinate with “civilian law enforcement agencies on policies to further DoD cooperation with civilian law enforcement agencies” and the heads of the combatant commands are instructed to issue procedures for “establishing local contact points in subordinate commands for purposes of coordination with Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement officials.”
In addition to defining responsibilities for military coordination with local law enforcement, the instruction describes circumstances in which direct participation in civilian law enforcement is permissible. Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, U.S military personnel are generally prohibited from assisting in civilian law enforcement functions such as search and seizure, interdiction of vehicles, arrest and interrogation, surveillance or using force except for in self-defense. Though the Posse Comitatus Act originally referred only to the Army, it was extended in 1956 to include the Air Force. Subsequent DoD regulations prevent the use of the Marine Corps or Navy for civilian law enforcement functions. In 1981, this principle was further codified in 10 USC § 375 which directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that military activities do “not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.”
Though the Posse Comitatus Act is the primary restriction on direct DoD involvement in law enforcement functions, it does not prevent military personnel from participating in circumstances “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” This includes circumstances involving “insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law” as well as actions “taken under express statutory authority.” The DoD’s instruction includes a list of more than a dozen “laws that permit direct DoD participation in civilian law enforcement” including many obscure statutes that are more than a hundred years old. For example, a law passed in 1882 and codified under 16 USC § 593 allows for the President to use land and naval forces to “prevent the felling, cutting down, or other destruction of the timber of the United States in Florida.” Likewise, the Guano Islands Act of 1856 enables the President to use land and naval forces to protect the rights of a discoverer of an island covered by the Act.
Military commanders also have “emergency authority” to use military forces in civilian law enforcement functions “in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances”. This authority is limited to actions “necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order” and “provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions.” In fact, an enclosure to the DoD instruction describing requirements for support of civil disturbance operations states that military commanders “shall not take charge of any function of civil government unless absolutely necessary under conditions of extreme emergency.” According to the instruction, any “commander who is directed, or undertakes, to control such functions shall strictly limit DoD actions to emergency needs and shall facilitate the reestablishment of civil responsibility at the earliest time possible.”
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...number=1&w=488
Baby steps until we become a de facto military police state.
The CCRKBA can kiss my ass. No more financial support for you from this citizen. You hear me Alan. Shame shame on you.
Kramer1113
New member
I saw Your Boat go down, So sorry for your unrecoverable loss.
I sold all of mine at a gun show using the loophole.
I remember that guy buying all your guns, right before I could get one.
Lucky! I tripped and dropped all mine in the loophole...looked around in there for hours but never found anything!
I remember you searched and searched until your last set of batteries went dead, sorry for the loss
Lost all mine to Mexican Drug Lords just like Obama.
Those Bastarges! We tried to catch them but it was to late
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Link Removed
New Threads
-
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4